Maybe it's time to start a Facebook-gate!
I just read in Gizmodo an article that has left me very surprised and disgusted.
Some BBC journalists were investigating secret groups of pedophiles and child pornography in Facebook. When finally one of the Facebook representatives agreed to an interview there was only one condition, Facebook asked the journalists for examples of images that they had found in their investigation.
The journalists sent some of the images that they had found in those groups to Facebook and what happened? Facebook not only canceled the interview but also reported the journalists to the police.
In a report to Gizmodo Facebook try to "clarified" his action.
“It is against the law for anyone to distribute images of child exploitation. When the BBC sent us such images we followed our industry’s standard practice and reported them to CEOP [Child Exploitation & Online Protection Centre],”
“We also reported the child exploitation images that had been shared on our own platform. This matter is now in the hands of the authorities.”
The truth is that I am very glad to have moved away a lot from Facebook thanks mainly to Steemit. And seeing this kind of news, much more.
Maybe it's time to start a Facebook-gate!
Read the complete article on Gizmodo
We have a saying that somebody is more pope-ier than pope. In this case Facebook is just showing again how out of touch with real ethics they are.
Facebook is a business company. Period.
Your post was upvoted, resteemed and featured on Steemit Appreciation Friday No. 9 - thank you for contributing to the community.
Indeed it is! Thanks for your comment, the upped and the re-steem @ervin-lemark! :)
Grazias! :)
Wouldn't that be a great coup!
Indeed! The best.
Truly disturbing behavior. If all of us should contribute to a thread about all the abuses we've experienced from FB just so that people can see the danger the are exposing themselves to when they use that platform.
The Journalists have no case to answer for distribution, the people at FB are morons who have no clue about the law. In their silly world, if the journalists are guilty of anything then they are too, for inciting the journalists to distribute images.
Just morons??? They reporter the journalist of sending child pornography with the police... after asking for the photos. That means a lot more ;)
Terrible! Never liked facebook. Thanks for the follow!
Ur welcome! :) I should say I liked Facebook before, at the beginning because I could contact with very old friends but since a while I try to avoid it. Steemit was a big help! :)
And thanks for ur comment :)
"There is no proof we have child porn groups on Facebook because if you have proof you must be a criminal." <--- There must be a logical fallacy in there somewhere.
If you are going to ban child porn then be logical about it. What happens when child porn is discovered? You need to gather evidence right? Because if it's not evidence based you're just starting a bunch of random witch hunts. So if it's illegal to possess evidence that an entity is trafficking in contraband then it's not really possible to do an investigation and there's no real point of banning child porn in the first place now is there?
To resume, they are just accepting to have child pornography on they Social media...
I don't care if they accept child porn on their social media. I care about the hypocrisy of claiming to try and ban child porn and then not allow for a function of presenting evidence. I'm not in favor of censorship in the first place. If I was I wouldn't be using a decentralized social network like Steemit.
Im also no in favor of censorship but I care about if they accept to have child pornography. For me is not aceptable at all and not only because I have a little kid myself... Im against it and I do not think have to do with censorship as you say. About the hypocrisy of Facebook and all the others companies, it is well know.
If an entity is to keep child porn or any other kind of content off their network they need to monitor what people post. In order to monitor what people post they need to compromise users privacy. Ergo censorship of content of any kind = compromising user privacy. The very notion that it is the network's place to decide what is posted on the network undermines user privacy.
I agree Facebook totally compromises user privacy to begin with but that doesn't change the concept of censorship. You're quite right that there's very little to no privacy on Facebook which is why I find it incredibly stupid for anyone to be running a child porn trading ring there. But if Facebook is going through people's secret groups and monitoring the content of them and moderating them then that's still an invasion of privacy.
How does it invade privacy to take photos of a server? Well let me ask you, if you got yourself a storage locker somewhere and stored a photo album in it would you consider it an invasion of privacy for someone to open up your locker and start taking pictures out of your album they didn't like? The data doesn't belong to Facebook but rather to the users of Facebook. Granted it could be argued that users agree to this invasion of privacy when they use Facebook but it's STILL an invasion of privacy. I'm not arguing that Facebook is somehow known for respecting privacy, it isn't. I'm arguing that censorship inherently results in compromising privacy and security for all.
How compromise your privacy to take out photos from a server? And we all know that just been on Facebook is the same as no user privacy at all from part of the company. We are not talking about Steemit here.