This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| 17 Feb 11, 6:22 PM Lady_Anna_Bradford UK(BD), 5 yrs    |
I don't know about groups but I know individuals have had their pages deleted. Definitely Mistress Sidonia at 3 times. This lady http://twitter.com/#!/Lady_Sedusa has also lost her FB page "If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness | ||||
| 17 Feb 11, 9:21 PM DrTaps AQ, 10 yrs |
If they sent the letter to you, you don't need permission to reproduce it. They can hardly have slapped a confidentiality agreement on an explanation of why they had deleted your page. This thread is well over several thousand words long. Informed debate depends on debating the full facts. It would be useful to have them. The full facts are never a bad thing. | ||||
| 17 Feb 11, 10:06 PM Mastercrafter UK(N), 16 mths |
Agreed, but for me it's a personal thing. Much of the correspondence was exploratory, some was a negotiation exercise, none of it was signaled as public. The statement on the Collared site is a reasonable summary though, and in time a more comprehensive agreed history will be published. For the moment though I'm just happy they've backed down and agreed to a review of the policy. | ||||
| 21 Feb 11, 11:58 AM Jane_Fae UK(W), 3 yrs |
Actually, they DO care: the question is how damaging they feel such a policy is likely to be to them. I've covered two instances, in the last year or so, of Fb taking down breastfeeding sites. The furore that follows is usually instant and very bad for their business - so they blush and put the sites back. They are sensitive to accusations of hypocrisy, not least because they happily host sites/pages that link to places like Playboy. And if the bdsm community made fuss at a similar level to that made by some other groups, they'd tread increasingly carefully. jane xx Personal: http://janefae.wordpress.com | ||||
| 21 Feb 11, 7:32 PM doulos UK(SW), 7 yrs |
Whilst this is irritating and arbitrary behaviour by Facebook, I think it is within their rights. They have a particular (if incoherent) notion of what sort of stuff is meant to be going on there website, like any other number of social networking sites. And they aren't forcing people to use FB only, just to behave in a certain way while using FB. "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken | ||||
| 21 Feb 11, 7:58 PM DrTaps AQ, 10 yrs |
Agreeing to review a policy is not exactly backing down. Reading the summary you mention makes me think they are most likely to review and decide to stand by the decision. That is sort of why I thought it would be useful to see the whole letter. | ||||
| 21 Feb 11, 9:01 PM Mastercrafter UK(N), 16 mths |
An article on this has just been published in The Register | ||||
| 21 Feb 11, 10:49 PM DavetheButcher UK(M), 5 yrs |
Yeah, FB deleted me, they said for life in their response to my questions re my asccount being at first disabled. The breaches they said I made the their T&C's were constant use of strong sexual swearwords, threatening behaviour and photo's that contained violent and/or pornodraphic images. Bang to rights actually, fair cop and all that. Butcher More Knife, Less Play. | ||||
| 22 Feb 11, 1:32 AM fireflame UK(SS), 5 yrs |
1400 people voting doesn't mean a jot in the vast numbers of facebook, neither do the views of Mastercrafters members. When you have dedicated sites such as IC, Fetlife etc to advertise specific groups, I see no reason to infiltrate a social site that has no affiliation with Bdsm. I don't see it as prejudice, just common sense. | ||||
| 22 Feb 11, 1:47 AM Tanos  UK(M), 14 yrs   |
We had dedicated newsgroups like alt.sex.bondage and IRC channels like #bondage. Why should we have infiltrated an information system like the WWW that had no affiliation with BDSM? Hell, we had dedicated BBSs before that, so why even infiltrate newsgroups and IRC themselves? You don't see any point, but other people do. One day you might be benefitting from that, just as you are with BDSM being on the WWW today. Apart from anything else, saying that vanilla 18+ pages are ok on Facebook but kink-related 18+ pages aren't ok perpetuates the idea that there's something wrong with kink. :T: Edited 22 Feb 11, 1:49 AM by Tanos |
