Facebook apologizes for shutting down page AFTER the rally

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, smilesammich said:

basing it on my experience with why people get bans from facebook. you don't get a 30 day ban for being nice to others.

 

i said "guess"..do you know what GUESS means?

Of course I know what a guess is.

 

A guess can still have reasoning or examples behind it. Without those things then a guess is built upon exactly what I said - preconceived notions without evidence (prejudice).

 

Nothing wrong with that, we should just be clear what we are basing our guesses on.

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Of course I know what a guess is.

 

A guess can still have reasoning or examples behind it. Without those things then a guess is built upon exactly what I said - preconceived notions without evidence (prejudice).

 

Nothing wrong with that, we should just be clear what we are basing our guesses on.

 

well that's awesome, except i know folks on both sides of the political spectrum that have received bans for bullying/violent speech. you can call that prejudice if you want, i'm basing my guess on my experience. i've got reasoning and examples behind it.

 

i'm sorry you weren't clear on what i was basing my guess on.

[bcking 3,157]

10 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

well that's awesome, except i know folks on both sides of the political spectrum that have received bans for bullying/violent speech. you can call that prejudice if you want, i'm basing my guess on my experience. i've got reasoning and examples behind it.

 

i'm sorry you weren't clear on what i was basing my guess on.

So anybody who gets a 30 day ban you assume received it for bullying and violence, because those are the examples you know? The preudice isn't just about politics.

 

It is similar prejudice to when people assume that someone else did something wrong when they see them pulled over with a cop. That doesn't necessarily mean they are guilty. The cop can be wrong. The ban could have been in error. Or could have been completely unrelated. 

 

If your examples are from other people and not from a knowledge of this person specifically, it's still prejudice. Without knowing hardly anything about the person, you assume he falls into the same bucket as the other people you know who get a ban. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

So anybody who gets a 30 day ban you assume received it for bullying and violence, because those are the examples you know? The preudice isn't just about politics.

 

It is similar prejudice to when people assume that someone else did something wrong when they see them pulled over with a cop. That doesn't necessarily mean they are guilty. The cop can be wrong. The ban could have been in error. Or could have been completely unrelated. 

 

If your examples are from other people and not from a knowledge of this person specifically, it's still prejudice. Without knowing hardly anything about the person, you assume he falls into the same bucket as the other people you know who get a ban. 

bullying, violence or obscenity - yeah. what are you talking about prejudice isn't just about politics? you're the one talking about prejudice - not me.

i made a guess regarding this specific op's 30 day ban based on what i've experienced/seen. if you want to call that 'prejudice' whatever floats your boat, i don't care. still my guess. still my assumption. still my prejudice. you got anything else?

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

bullying, violence or obscenity - yeah. what are you talking about prejudice isn't just about politics? you're the one talking about prejudice - not me.

i made a guess regarding this specific op's 30 day ban based on what i've experienced/seen. if you want to call that 'prejudice' whatever floats your boat, i don't care. still my guess. still my assumption. still my prejudice. you got anything else?

Nope I'm good.

 

I'd rather not make assumptions. I also want to know what the 30 day ban was for (and when it was given), but I'm not going to assume it was for anything in particular based in either assumptions about him, or assumptions about who gets a ban.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 hours ago, smilesammich said:

from reading the article it seems like followers of the page questioned if facebook actually took anything down and this guy was already on a 30 day ban...wonder what for? 

i mean, what about this is disgraceful and disgusting?

 

wonder why he was 'locked out' of his account?

FB got mods too. Bet they pay theirs 

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Nope I'm good.

 

I'd rather not make assumptions. I also want to know what the 30 day ban was for (and when it was given), but I'm not going to assume it was for anything in particular based in either assumptions about him, or assumptions about who gets a ban.

sure, i made a rando "assumption" because facebook normally gives out bans for stuff other than violence, obscenity and bullying.

(in other words, it's not really assuming anything if you know how facebook works)

 

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

FB got mods too. Bet they pay theirs 

fb regularly takes down posts from classical art pages for obscenity, they're very committed. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

sure, i made a rando "assumption" because facebook normally gives out bans for stuff other than violence, obscenity and bullying.

(in other words, it's not really assuming anything if you know how facebook works)

 

fb regularly takes down posts from classical art pages for obscenity, they're very committed. 

I have never been banned on FB or had anything removed. I got to step up my game.

 

[TBoneTX 45,266]

7 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Bet they pay theirs

[T-B. hastily polishes C.V.]

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

7 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I have never been banned on FB or had anything removed. I got to step up my game.

 

me either. 

[bcking 3,157]

15 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

sure, i made a rando "assumption" because facebook normally gives out bans for stuff other than violence, obscenity and bullying.

(in other words, it's not really assuming anything if you know how facebook works)

 

fb regularly takes down posts from classical art pages for obscenity, they're very committed. 

You can be banned for spamming, for inviting too many friends at once (a form of spamming), for a second facebook account. You can also be banned just for suspicious of doing something wrong, and the ban can be wrong. Moderators aren't always right (Don't read this T-B!)

 

You initially assumed either violence or bullying. What if he was banned for obscenity? Maybe he is a nudist and accidentally posted one of his casual photos. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, bcking said:

You can be banned for spamming, for inviting too many friends at once (a form of spamming), for a second facebook account. 

 

You initially assumed either violence or bullying. What if he was banned for obscenity? Maybe he is a nudist and accidentally posted one of his casual photos. 

nah. i don't think so. do a little more research on the typical ban times for spamming, too many follows, likes, etc..

 i stick with my initial guess. by all means, prove me wrong. i want to know why he was banned.

[TBoneTX 45,266]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

Moderators aren't always right (Don't read this T-B!)

[T-B. menacingly brandishes medieval mace]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

Maybe he is a nudist

If the naked truth be known...

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 hour ago, cyberfx1024 said:

But my thing is how are they calling for violence or bullying if they are just there to protest the protestors? It does seem like that group was either far-left/right so they should not have been an issue.

nevermind. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by smilesammich

[bcking 3,157]

This particularly article doesn't help his cause, in terms of background on his character.

 

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2007/police-investigate-activities-san-diego-minutemen

 

"We discovered there is nothing scarier to an illegal alien (and their little anchor baby goblins) than a mock border fence scene," Schwilk crowed in a later E-mail. "Most people (Americans) thought our theme was hilarious ... They call immigrants "wetbacks" and "Julios." They pull out Mace and threaten passing motorists who disagree with them. Calling those who hire day laborers "slavemasters," they've been known to slap flashing amber police lights on their SUVs and chase the would-be employers down. When they're not busy physically intimidating migrants, they take to the airwaves and the Internet to accuse them, without a shred of evidence, of running child prostitution rings and practicing "voodoo Santeria rituals."

 

There is more in the article. Of course that doesn't mean he said/did those sorts of things on Facebook to deserve a ban, but it certainly doesn't help.

 

I also found a facebook post from him that confirms that the ban was around the time that the website was taken down as well (Thursday/Friday).