Just wondering... who, other than the lady in the news article and some of her friends, determined the other pages contained "sick" child abuse? Obviously not the Facebook reviewers.
Some people think Abercrombie ads are sick child porn. Some people think it's obscene for a teen girl to wear a bikini. Some people think it's obscene for a woman to show her face in public.
So what unbiased agency concurred with her assessment? Kind of hard to judge Facebook's response when we can't see the other pages and have no other information about them other than generic flaming negative comments from one unknown housewife.
I don't think for a minute Facebook ever looked at those pages. As for the other people being her friends thats as valid as anyone else actually being friends who "friended" someone on Facebook. The other people were simply like minded people probably mostly women.
If the pages were not pornographic or abuse related Facebook would have said so and made it possible for the woman to be prosecuted, sued, or at least given Warning not to be imposing the sorts of judgements you allude to.
Facebook did none of that. They simply shut her down and informed her with a short unsatisfying email. That tells me loud and clear that she was on to something. The article states she found pictures of naked children being sexually abused.
I just reread and it doesn't say that it does say that she saw child Abuse. Still, I'm for trusting her judgment after all one only has to look for oneself to know if one agrees or not. It is after all her interpretation of photographs posted by these men. I still say if she and her group members were wrong Facebook has a duty to tell us all so people don't end up following her to another site, but if she is right then what is wrong with Facebook?
You place far too much faith in Facebook whom like all Social Networking sites is a business model based on deciet. They lure people to join and promise privacy and descretion. then accumulate vast amounts of private personal information and sell it, or use it themselves, or both to market to these same people. The information being used was gained as I said by promising they never would do this with it.
In my opinion Abercrombie ads are very close to pornographic which is their specific intent, to push the line as much as possible w/o crossing over legally slowly eroding social standards. I'd bet money if it were legal for them to use porn they would. Sex sells best to prepubescent teens. They desperately want to be adults and emulate everything they think is adult especially the forbidden.
Its the print worlds version of the porn stars Pam Anderson and Kim Kardashian, they make it seem legit with relabeling and marketing but in the end what they did is still porn. Don't believe for one second that those videos were meant for anything but release to the public.
Maybe thats a chicken egg situation between the two, print and video, but my point is valid.
I am not a facebook or any kind of social network person, so I don't know this for certain by my impression is that one has to sign up and give quite a bit of personal information to Facebook to use that clickeop feature. I guess to be technical MS is a social networking site.
I'm thinking that if Facebook wants to be safe and honest, a person could be able to click a notify button like we do on MS and that would be it. Why all the drama of getting the personal info from the reporter? I short look would tell if that were an honest report or not. And Facebook would have plenty of info on who or from what account the page was reported.
I just reread the article and that ClickCeop thing is an application from a third party not related to Facebook which is to my mind a cop out by facebook.