Guy Sues Facebook For Violating Basically All The Laws, For Shutting Down His Account And For Everything Else Bad Facebook Has Ever Done

from the not-how-it-works dept

“This case is likely one of the first filed in this Court that addresses the relationship between the First Amendment and the Internet-based [Facebook] communications platform” claims a new lawsuit filed against Facebook by a guy very angry that his account got shut down (case first spotted by John Roddy). Suffice it to say that this is not one of the first such lawsuits. Many have been filed, and literally every single one of them has failed. Facebook is not bound by the First Amendment. Courts are clear on this. Over and over and over again, courts have been clear on this. But this lack of understanding of what’s come before is just the first of many fun things in this 174 page pro se lawsuit. The complaint is so long that only the first 91 pages were filed as the official complaint, and the rest were put in the docket as an “attachment.”

The complaint is… something. It goes on and on about every historical Facebook scandal, going back nearly a decade, talking about the FTC consent decree, Cambridge Analytica, privacy questions, Elizabeth Warren’s proposed plan to break the company up, before finally getting around to the reason he’s actually suing. His account got shut down.

Contrary to FB’ s purported mission to connect the entire world, FB blocked Plaintiffs business and personal accounts and by so doing violated Zimmerman’s First Amendment right to publish his non-violent, pro-democracy, political views on FB’s platform and market his political and non-political books on FB’s platform, and in so doing knowingly, recklessly and unlawfully violated Zimmerman’s free speech rights and his constitutionally-protected right to participate in free and fair elections as well as his Fourth Amendment privacy rights by willfully allowing third-parties to access his FB user information without seeking Plaintiffs authorization and without his knowledge.

That’s in paragraph 77 after many dozens of paragraphs about stuff having nothing to do with the plaintiff, Robert Zimmerman. All the way back in paragraph 38, Zimmerman sets up what appears to be his argument: that in granting him “unfettered” access to its platform, Facebook can never then revoke said access:

FB violated Plaintiff Zimmerman’s First Amendment rights by first granting him and his publishing company unfettered access to the FB platform and then unlawfully revoking that access causing Plaintiffs severe economic harm and other injuries.

Because someone will ask, Zimmerman, who describes himself as an author of “three political books” and “a grassroots Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate,” is not alleging anti-conservative bias, because he’s at the other end of the traditional political spectrum. He’s just claiming that Facebook can’t delete his account, and doing so apparently violates more or less all the laws (Randomly, in his description of the parties, Zimmerman tells the court that he was once arrested for trespassing while distributing copies of the U.S. Constitution. It is not clear why anyone, let alone the court, needs to know this).

He then claims that Facebook “aids and abets” election rigging, terrorist activity, organized immigration crime, slavery trafficking, extreme and revenge pornography, incitement of violence, hate crime, harassment, intimidation, bullying, trolling, cyberstalking, sale of illegal goods and services (such as drugs and assault weapons), content unlawfully uploaded to and from prisons, sexting and distributing indecent or sexual images of children under the age of 18, children accessing pornography, children under 13 using dating applications, child sexual exploitation and abuse by pedophiles, distribution of enemy and adversary propaganda and disinformation, advocacy of self-harm, female genital mutilation, and suicide. Oh, and they shut down his account.

Also, the US government is partly to blame (though not a party to the lawsuit):

The U.S. government, much like it did when it failed to assert the dangers of smoking, has entirely failed to take the actions necessary to protect Americans from an unregulated FB.

He also accuses the company of being too big. But, given the above list, that seems like the least of the problems. It’s basically a review of the literature of every news article or book that has criticized Facebook ever. Somehow, this is all relevant to Facebook shutting down Mr. Zimmerman’s account. A few pages are taken up by reprinting the 2012 FTC consent decree with Facebook (a consent decree now superseded by the more recent one). There’s an entire section arguing that Facebook helped sabotage the 2016 election (apparently this is the opposite argument for anti-conservative bias). He implies some sort of conspiracy between Russia and Facebook, which is a new one, even suggesting that perhaps Zuckerberg is a Russian asset who was possibly “compromised before he dropped out of college or shortly thereafter.” Really.

At times it’s unclear if Zimmerman is suing Facebook for ever letting him have an account… or for shutting down his account that he seems angry he had. I mean, considering the crux of the lawsuit is over Facebook shutting down his account, how is this relevant?

Zimmerman could not have been reasonably expected to know that FB’s stored user’ information could be plundered, aggregated, targeted and then used for improper and illegal purposes, including the sabotage of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.

Eventually, on page 110, we finally, finally get to causes of actions. And, it’s basically that Facebook violated all the laws. First there’s a CFAA claim. Then an unjust enrichment claim. A “violation of Constitutional rights” claim (by which he means the 1st Amendment, even though Facebook is not a state actor).

A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have unfettered access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more. A basic rule is that a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights.

Yeah, but that’s because streets and parks are public spaces, controlled by the government. Facebook is not. As has been established in multiple lawsuits, despite Zimmerman’s repeated insistence that “this case is likely one of the first filed in this Court that addresses the relationship between the First Amendment and the Internet-based FB communications platform.” Also, he makes a 4th Amendment claim, citing Packingham, which he mistakenly calls Puckingham. But Packingham is not about the 4th Amendment at all. He at least tries to argue that Facebook is a “quasi-state actor” but comes nowhere close to satisfying that standard (as detailed in multiple cases, you need to show that the private party is handling duties normally performed exclusively by the state). This is not that:

FB is also a quasi-state actor because it wields potent monopolistic and political powers and is currently getting ready to launch its own international currency.

[…]

FB Defendants are quasi-state actors because they regulate and control the FB platform that served Plaintiffs and at least a billion other FB users’ as a public and private communications platform.

He does allege “discrimination” and “bias” but… apparently it’s just discrimination against Zimmerman himself.

FB Defendants discriminated against Zimmerman by blocking his unfettered access to his FB accounts for no expressed substantive reason, thus unlawfully censoring Plaintiff’s political messaging, disallowing Zimmerman’s communications with his thousands ofFB “Friends,” thus denying Zimmerman his right to express and promote his political and non-political ideas and to otherwise advertise and market his political and non-political books and to his FB “Friends” and others.

Back to the claims in the lawsuit: after the “constitutional” stuff, there’s a “breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” Then invasion of privacy. Civil conversion, because, why not? Negligence and gross negligence (covering all the bases). Negligent and/or fraudulent misrepresentation. Breach of contract. Willful infliction of emotional distress. Common civil law conspiracy. That one’s interesting. He argues that Facebook conspired with the Trump campaign, Robert Mercer and Russian officials. Kinda funny at the same time Trump is claiming anti-Trump bias on Facebook, this guy is accusing them of conspiring to steal the election. More claims: “Deceit by concealment or omission.” Fraud. Willful misrepresentation. And, eventually, on “count 15” we get Ken White’s favorite: Civil Rico Conspiracy (It’s Not Rico, Dammit). But he’s not done yet. Violation of the Stored Communications Act/ECPA. That’s it on the federal claims. He then repeats a bunch based on California state laws.

Look, I get being mad at Facebook over lots of stuff, and especially mad that your account got deleted. But, that doesn’t give you anything to sue over. Still, if you really do want a slightly incoherent rant about everything bad Facebook has ever done, Zimmerman’s got you covered. I expect this will get tossed out in short order.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: facebook

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Guy Sues Facebook For Violating Basically All The Laws, For Shutting Down His Account And For Everything Else Bad Facebook Has Ever Done”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
93 Comments
That One Guy (profile) says:

... no, that makes perfect sense

But this lack of understanding of what’s come before is just the first of many fun things in this 174 page pro se lawsuit.

Because of course it is.

Ah pro se litigants, they may not all cause judges to really need a stiff drink(or two/three/four), but when they do they really go above and beyond…

Rusty Cator rur'l philosophomizer says:

Re: Wish I could see look on "Stone's" face when he riles...

up a corporation and is told that it’s unanswerable power.

No exaggeration that you’ve just cheered corporate-state power, "Stone", which is exactly Nazi philosophy.

You aren’t objecting because not under attack at the moment, but when YOUR "social credit score" is low due to mere intemperate nasty remarks to an Uber driver, say, then you won’t be able to complain to the public, or be allowed to find anyone to sympathize.

Do yourself a favor this once and think on that might happen to you if trend continues.

And then remember that you’re promoting a legal fiction to control YOUR own access! Sheesh!

CHARLES MCCREA says:

Re: Zimmerman is a joke

IF I EVER SEE HIS LAZY ASS IN MY CITY AGAIN OH BUT WAIT HE HAS TO COME TO HARVARD. I WENT THERE TO.ALL I DID WAS TELL EVERYONE THAT THEY CAUGHT A DOCTOR IN BOSTON ON TH COV19
AND THAT ASSHOLE CUT ME OFF. BUT ITS OK TO SHOW TITS AND ASS RIGHT WHAT A FAG.ILL GET HIM ONE DAY AND I WILL KICK HIS ASS .I DONT WORRY I HAVE MORE MONEY THEN HIM.

Rusty Cator rur'l philosophomizer says:

Is there ANY point at which you'd stop corporate power?

Or will you keep excusing and advocating right up to the One World Corporation? — And then claim it’s obviously a "natural" monopoly?

Again, in America, corporations are mere legal fictions (totally subject to the panoply of commercial law) intended to serve The Public with what it wants well known limits in Common Law and SC decisions), not to rule over us as absolute tyrants in totally computerized surveillance state and most invasive and controlling Royalty ever.

By repeating the corporate-favoring legalisms that you misconstrue as "law", you’re simply not helping The Public, Masnick. Which side are you on?

Rusty Cator rur'l philosophomizer says:

Re: Re: I'm on the side of productive people, not pirates, right!

Given how much you love copyright and corporate enforcement thereof, I must ask the same question of you.

Question for YOU: how is supporting people who produce at all bad? — Don’t try to claim that copyright is all control, that’s just the six-decimal place anomalies featured here at Pirate Central.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

how is supporting people who produce at all bad?

It isn’t. Supporting a system that allows corporations to “own” virtually all major cultural works and mete them out to the public as they seee fit, on the other hand, is morally indefensible. To wit: Disney’s decision to stop distributing what were Fox-owned films to second-run/independent cinemas. Yes, the films are widely available on home video and streaming. And yes, Disney can legally pull those films from distribution. The moral question is not whether it can, but whether it should — and, on a different level, whether it should be able to pull them.

Don’t try to claim that copyright is all control

Copyright is literally all about control. It’s even built into the name itself. Copyright is about controlling who can make copies, who can distribute those copies, who can profit from those copies, and so on. You can claim that it is all about encouraging creativity, but you’d be missing the bigger picture: Copyright would be encouraging creativity by promising control over distribution of the end product.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: I'm on the side of productive people, not pirates, right

"how is supporting people who produce at all bad?"

It’s not. The problem is people like you destroying their rights and those of the public so some middlemen can retain the lions’ share of the revenue and control.

"Don’t try to claim that copyright is all control"

That’s literally all it is. You should read the actual law some time, it would clear up all the confusion you have on the subject.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Seriously, we can look into the places where blue took a dump over the years.

He literally says on multiple occasions that the whole point of copyright is to control distribution. Anything the creator didn’t blatantly permit or agree to is piracy, no questions asked.

It’s like he thinks readers don’t have memories…

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Is there ANY point at which you'd stop corporate power?

It’s been made explicitly clear that Gary is not Timothy Geigner. And yet you continue to assert that he is with no supporting evidence at all, not even bad evidence.

Additionally, you continue to assert many other propositions without evidence, contradict your own positions, and avoid responding to questions about either.

So who exactly is “WRONG and STUPID as ever” here?

techflaws (profile) says:

"He then claims that Facebook "aids and abets" election rigging, terrorist activity, organized immigration crime, slavery trafficking, extreme and revenge pornography, incitement of violence, hate crime, harassment, intimidation, bullying, trolling, cyberstalking, sale of illegal goods and services (such as drugs and assault weapons), content unlawfully uploaded to and from prisons, sexting and distributing indecent or sexual images of children under the age of 18, children accessing pornography, children under 13 using dating applications, child sexual exploitation and abuse by pedophiles, distribution of enemy and adversary propaganda and disinformation, advocacy of self-harm, female genital mutilation, and suicide."

Which of course makes it totally sane and understandable that he does not want to be kicked off from such a platform!

Anon says:

Re: Re: Good old own-goals...

Reminds me of a certain internet personality who was kicked off social media recently for coordinating harassment against members of a protected class. They tried to sue the company class action over “freedom of speech” and lost hard.

What’s funny is that this person wanted to be seen as a “free speech crusader” who is just concerned about “censorship” and “people’s right to speak their mind” online – right up until they lost their lawsuit and realized that they weren’t going to get their account back – then they turned around threatened to sue every anon who made fun of or criticized them online while they were promoting their “free speech” lawsuit all over the internet for “libel, libel, libel!” instead.

I do think commenters need to be protected from internet personalities like this who constantly promote themselves and traffic in baiting, harassment and hyperbole online then suddenly turn on commenters and critics and threaten to sue the same anonymous strangers they claimed to be fighting for when their “free speech” lawsuit goes belly up.

It seems many of the people filing lawsuits over social media censorship are just mad that the company is allowed to choose what to allow and what not to allow on their platforms. From what I’ve seen online, most of these people tend to be all for free speech unless it’s speech that is critical of THEM – then they immediately want the site to give up anons details so they can try to sue them. Anon commenters should be protected from litigious internet personalities who go out of their way to promote themselves and ask for public comments online then threaten anyone who says anything critical with speech-chilling lawsuits.

Thankfully Anti-SLAPP laws are made for people like this, but it does seem to be an issue that is becoming more prevalent as people believe every Twitter spat and mean-spirited comment online needs to go to court instead of into the “delete/trash” bin.

RICOROGS says:

Ummm. RICO

in re: Ken White’s favorite: Civil Rico Conspiracy (It’s Not Rico, Dammit)

I dont wordNazi much, but it actually RICO, not Rico, as in Rico Suave, or Ricola.

Its RICO, dammit, even according to White:

“RICO is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, because goddamn Congress likes acronyms like your great-aunt likes porcelain cats.”

Dr. Mom (profile) says:

Re: Re: Booted from facebook

That’s not what keeps happening to me. The bots see a meme they don’t understand. So they ban you. A human looks at it, eventually, and says, "We’re sorry, this is fine." But they never clear your record or reverse the time you have to serve. I just got six days for posting a picture of our slutty first lady with her moron husband. The caption says, "Porn Again Christian." The one before that showed Nazis "expressing their free speech" and asking why Kaepernick couldn’t do the same. The bot saw the swastika. I got 3 days. This all happened in July! I got a month once for posting a painting from the Crusades, pointing out that Christians were once the "terrorists." If you’re active on Facebook, the bots will get you. And no human will help you.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Booted from facebook

"That’s not what keeps happening to me."

You say that, but I bet some people would disagree that you’re not being obnoxious, especially if you’re just doing that on your public feed rather than in political groups where people are discussing those issues. Are you sure it’s bots blocking you and not people clicking the "report" button?

"If you’re active on Facebook, the bots will get you."

They won’t if you stop posting dodgy memes in place of actual arguments, nor will they if you leave political discussion to a venue better suited. I’m politically active, but I only use Facebook for communicating with friends and family, organising social events and discussing video games and movies. I’ve never been blocked from Facebook or from the venues where I indulge in political speech.

Dr. Mom (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Booted from facebook

The discussion of the First Lady’s public nudity is appropriate esp. when people are saying how it’s good to have a "classy lady" in the White House.

The bannings due to the artwork depicting Christians beheading people during the Crusades (remember for 500 years, YOU were the terrorists…) was reported by a friend of my cousin’s. Facebook has a database of photos that the bots use when "deciding" if something is objectionable.

A recent bot banning showed White Nationalists. The bot recognized the salute and the swastika but not the text.

The meme with Trump’s mouth as an anus was flagged by the bot as being a "body part." It was also a political statement. In a political forum.

Where DO you go for your political commentary and memes? I’ve tried a few alternative social media sites but they are sparse and mostly populated by Devin Nunes fans. I am spending more time on Twitter but its thread structure is chaotic. Washington Post is a bot-haven. Most of its comments are done by bots (at least when you critcize Big Pharma.)

The speed at which you are banned, is definitely due to bots. When a human reverses the post, they cannot restore your privileges. If you post something mean on Twitter, their bots says, "Wait a second. You can’t post that." It lets you fix the part they don’t like.

Frankly, I was shocked at the banning due to Melania Trump’s "pornography" since I had posted it many times before with no consequences. She wore the dress in public and it is all over the internet. I think they are pandering to their new overlord, Disney.

A recent article in Wired points out that Zuckerberg has more than enough resources to hire human moderators.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Booted from facebook

"The discussion of the First Lady’s public nudity is appropriate esp. when people are saying how it’s good to have a "classy lady" in the White House."

So, discuss it instead of posting a crappy meme.

"The bannings due to the artwork depicting Christians… was reported by a friend of my cousin’s. "

So, you lied when you said it was taken down by a bot? Sorry, if your family and their friends are requesting that your posts be taken down, is Facebook just meant to ignore them?

"The bot recognized the salute and the swastika but not the text."

An unfortunate side-effect of automated systems needing to be extra sensitive to Nazi propaganda, especially because the image is illegal in some countries even with the context from the text.

Stop posting shitty memes and come up with your own arguments. You won’t be safe from the thin-skinned getting you in trouble, but at least you’ll be blocked from your own arguments rather than whatever lazy bullshit you try to repost.

"Where DO you go for your political commentary and memes?"

It’s called the internet. Largely it’ll be sites like Reddit and Fark, but I’ll sometimes talk political on many other websites, including this one. Those are where I go to discuss politics, by the way, I get my information from primary sources.

"I am spending more time on Twitter"

That’s actually a worse place than Facebook, but if you’re a dull-witted person who gets their commentary from memes I can see its appeal I suppose.

"The speed at which you are banned, is definitely due to bots"

Yes, because it’s impossible to moderate in any other way at that scale. Would you prefer your comment be held for moderation for a few weeks until a human moderator can check it?

"A recent article in Wired points out that Zuckerberg has more than enough resources to hire human moderators."

I call bullshit. Money-wise maybe, but there’s no way to get consistent moderation with the number of diverse people that would require. It would also ensure that nobody else can possibly compete with them if that were the standard to be held.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Booted from facebook

Memes are my preferred way of receiving and giving information. You don’t need to know why.

The first time I was banned WASN’T a bot. Perhaps they only sic bots on accounts that have been flagged previously and that’s why more people aren’t reporting bot activity. Although Twitter users report an increase in bot bannings.

They certainly COULD do real time monitoring. The bot could alert an employee who is at her desk at that time, she could view it and approve it in seconds. There are already those kinds of delays built into the system.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Booted from facebook

"Memes are my preferred way of receiving and giving information. You don’t need to know why."

OK, but just bear in mind what they are – either pithy ways of making jokes or a way to put across a small amount of information across in a way that’s visually effective but low on context and attribution. There’s a place for them, but if you’re depending on them for your information, know that a lot of them, even a majority, are lacking a lot of information and may even be deliberately misleading.

Also, I’ll just note that the memes you’ve mentioned are hardly insightful or new. You’re not conveying new information from what you’ve described and it seems what you’ve chosen is for shock value. So, don’t be surprised when some people are shocked.

"The first time I was banned WASN’T a bot. Perhaps they only sic bots on accounts that have been flagged previously and that’s why more people aren’t reporting bot activity. Although Twitter users report an increase in bot bannings"

OK, so maybe consider why you’re being banned then. Maybe it’s because you’re spamming non-political conversation with political memes? Maybe it’s because you’re reposting memes that have already been reported hundreds of times before you found them? There’s a difference between posting in a specifically political closed group, and posting pictures of Nazis and beheading in public feeds where anyone might see them sandwiched between school updates, cat photos and celebrity gossip.

"They certainly COULD do real time monitoring."

Not at the scale at which they operate. Even if they could physically get enough people working for them, the logistics of managing that number of staff while ensuring that moderation is consistent across the thousands of people across many national, cultural and linguistic areas in which they operate would not be.

Plus, you seem to be assuming that a moderator would actually approve what you’re posting. Maybe you’re actually violating their policies and you’d be banned anyway?

Dr. Mom (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Booted from facebook

Facebook’s standards are inconsistent, arbitrary and unpredictable. The Nazi meme is still on a friend’s page. The photos of Trump and his call girls are all over the internet and on many people’s pages. All my posts are on political groups’ pages. I don’t do cat or food pictures. The one of Trump with an anus where his mouth should be is less circulated but still political commentary.

None of those photos were ever banned from Twitter. Funny thing is, conservatives think they’re preferentially targetted.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Booted from facebook

"Facebook’s standards are inconsistent, arbitrary and unpredictable"

No, the standards are clear. Enforcement of those standards is inconsistent, but this is to be expected for a site that a third of the planet uses. Also, one of those standards is reacting to complaints.

"The photos of Trump and his call girls are all over the internet and on many people’s pages."

First, "all over the internet" means nothing. Facebook don’t give 2 shits if you see your stupid memes every other post on Reddit’s front page, it’s their platform, their rules.

Second, "on many peoples’ pages" just means the image does not have a blanket ban. If people are specifically reporting your post, they respond to that. If you go in to work and someone complains about the smell of the lunch you just heated up in the microwave, you can’t use "well, they serve it in other places" or "Billy next door has the same meal and nobody complained" to deflect the complaint. HR are reacting to people complaining about you specifically.

"All my posts are on political groups’ pages"

Then, you might consider why they’re being complained about by friends and family as well as other members interested in the same thing.

"I don’t do cat or food pictures"

Good for you. This isn’t about you, though, it’s about the consensus of the group you’re in.

"The one of Trump with an anus where his mouth should be is less circulated but still political commentary."

Did you ever consider not sharing memes with a maturity level of a grade student? Those might only not be blocked, but actually allow adult conversation to take place.

We’ve probably found the reason you keep getting reported – your idea of political discussion hasn’t reached puberty yet, let alone adulthood.

"None of those photos were ever banned from Twitter."

Then stop whining like a little child and use the venue where your idiotic memes are deemed valid discourse. Take the hint and take your memes somewhere they’re acceptable.

"Funny thing is, conservatives think they’re preferentially targetted."

They do whine like that, but when you’re specifically posting pictures attacking Trump and his family on a personal level, and posting tired anti-Christian memes with as much insight as my shoe, maybe they have a point in your case?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Booted from facebook

"Pointing out that Facebook is changing its standards randomly to suit its Disney masters"

OK, that’s a new one.

"My goal is to educate and make people laugh"

Then, you’re obviously failing since the memes you describe are nothing more than a selection of pithy obvious facts and people are reporting you for them.

"Apparently, all you want is an argument."

No, that would be you. The memes you have described are all childish edgelord attempts at annoying people, and woefully unoriginal at that.

Dr. Mom (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Booted from facebook

Facebook’s standards are inconsistent, arbitrary and unpredictable. The Nazi meme is still on a friend’s page. The photos of Trump and his call girls are all over the internet and on many people’s pages. All my posts are on political groups’ pages. I don’t do cat or food pictures. The one of Trump with an anus where his mouth should be is less circulated but still political commentary.

None of those photos were ever banned from Twitter. Funny thing is, conservatives think they’re preferentially banned.

Dr. Mom (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Booted from facebook

Facebook’s standards are inconsistent, arbitrary and unpredictable. The Nazi meme is still on a friend’s page. The photos of Trump and his call girls are all over the internet and on many people’s pages. All my posts are on political groups’ pages. I don’t do cat or food pictures. The one of Trump with an anus where his mouth should be is less circulated but still political commentary.

None of those photos were ever banned from Twitter. Funny thing is, conservatives think they’re preferentially targetted.

Paul (profile) says:

Of course Facebook censors what doesn't suit ita agenda

FB recently censured my reposting a meme with derogatory statements about 3 PUBLIC FIGURES, against whom no defense protections of "defamation" can be asserted. Facebook blocked my account for 2 days.

Trump, in the other hand, makes more outrageous and unsubstantiated statements about people all the time. They do nothing.

Why? It’s rather simple. If Warren, Sanders or others than Trump are elected Facebook will be broken up. Squelching criticism of Trump is good business for FB.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Of course Facebook censors what doesn't suit ita agenda

"Trump, in the other hand, makes more outrageous and unsubstantiated statements about people all the time. They do nothing."

Because he doesn’t use Facebook, he uses Twitter?

"Squelching criticism of Trump is good business for FB."

Well, yes, since he uses their competitor and presumably generates more traffic and income for them than they would get if he wasn’t there.

Gay man Facebook blocked says:

Facebook’s unfair blocking

I totally agree with the plaintiff. I too am a gay man, who has been blocked EVERY single day!! No matter what I post, it can either be something that’s already been posted or shared hundreds of times (but, if I try….it’s against community standards), or a photo of my own Christmas tree (SAME THING!!) and let’s not forget, a fully clothed….suit and tie photo of myself (violates community standards). This happens NONSTOP and the ONLY way that I can be allowed to post/share/etc is to report/complain to them AND threaten to sue them!! And only once I do that, I’m allowed to do posts/share/etc again BUT only for 30 minutes LATE at night!! If that’s not infringing on my first amendment rights I don’t know what?!? And don’t be fooled by the Supreme Court ruling in the Corporations or Social Media Companies favor….the GOP has stacked the court to allow a corporation or company to be considered a “person!!” Allowing them to donate to government campaigns, allowing them to squash other people’s first amendment rights, etc!!

185668232inc. says:

NonProfit Organization Loses Rights To Personal Property

Greetings,

I am seeking a lawyer to make a class action lawsuit to incorporate Zimmerman’s needs as well as mine, which are not so different. Facebook took my 501c3 nonprofit’s page of 10 years due to a troll who falsely reported something unrelated, causing my company, which invested in advertisement in the Zuckerberg Media company, to lose a lot of sustainable business since July 2019, when it seems as though the company was under even poorer management. They need to repair their damages, give people their property and refund the loss they caused as a for-profit major corporation. I have filed a notary claim, reached out to both offices and am boycotting all Zuckerberg Media managed companies and urging my peers here in NYC to do the same until the wrong is corrected. Here’s a little bit of art I made to deal with not having any control for expression but animately am seeking a law firm to hire to recover everyone’s content.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3CXp0thJpk

Solidarity,
185668232inc.

Diane Levinson says:

I am an animal activist against the dogmeat festivals in China. Every time i said something against those dogmeat loving diners whom I viewed as monsters because of the way they skinned boiled and torched live puppies and dogs alive. I get blocked and my account suspended. I suspect that Facebook employees who are Chinese takes offense to this.
They feel nothing for those poor suffering animal and choose to silence me. They are violating my freedom of speech and speaking up for this poor helpless animals. They have no voices and I am their voice.

Anonymous Coward says:

facebook

Want to watch a successful lawsuit against facebook. I’m going after them for blocking my account but leaving it open and then refusing to allow me access or to close it. I’m going through small claims court and asking for the maximum for the inconvenience and time this has cost me. don’t think I’ll win. Maybe not but it won’t cost me anything and it will force facebook to show up in court and answer for this.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: facebook

Exactly we all need to get together and sue them they allow so much wrong doings on there but want to pick on certain people tho it’s fine to put on violence and show blacks being racist and stuff but if you leave an opinion about it your blocked I want to close my account to Facebook and messenger and never mess with it again I wish someone could end it make it stop completely I don’t think Facebook should be legal at all it need to be banished

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: facebook

The things I’m getting from your comment:

  1. The fact that I was taking the piss out of you went straight over your head.
  2. You don’t understand sentences or punctuation.
  3. You were blocked for posting racist comments
  4. This must have been really racist if they permanently blocked you rather than giving you a 24 hour timeout, although it’s still possible you just locked yourself out and are too dumb to work out how to recover your password.
  5. Like any typical thin-skinned racist, if someone disagrees with you then you can’t just ignore them and move on, you have to try and attack them because they don’t conform to your world view.

Did I miss anything?

Oh, yeah: "Facebook should be legal". You probably missed a word there. Maybe you’d do better if you wipe the spittle off your screen while ranting so you can see what you wrote before submitting it.

Lynn Norton says:

Facebook

I WISH someone could totally win a law suit and shut FACEBOOK TOTALLY down.. Facebook mediators are the most biased crooked American hating..blm/routers promoting wanting to destroy America and only keep it for the rich Ungodly sinners.. praying someday someone smart enough will be able to take Facebook down with all its Crooks and demons

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"I wasn’t talking to you. Who made this your forum?"

This is a public forum, and I’m a member of the public.

"It’s not our fault that the First Lady is a tramp"

…but it your fault that your idea of political discussion is shitty memes and personal attacks, and that you’re too stupid to understand why this level of discourse keeps getting you told to STFU on Facebook.

Kimiko Dickerson says:

Criticizing a hypocritical FB guidelines that ban or suspends

I find it very disappointing that FB can delete or suspend a person’s account for pics being impropriate that is completely innocent far from sexual intentions or flagged as nudity. Let me explain for example, if a woman wanted to show off her 4 pack to share her exercising method or just for likes wearing a sports braw and sporting pants then she is flagged, banned, threaten to be exploited with her flex pic intentionally elsewhere, account suspended, reported to the cops and put in the system as unlawful and banned forever from using FB again. If a woman post a video of another woman dancing and fully dressed or themselves, it is flagged as inappropriate…nudity that is unacceptable to their policy and guidelines. Yet they have pornography posts by others, nudity, porn videos itself, pornographic images, men masturbating in there video on their timeline, showing women with thongs and négligé brazils (bras) with volumptuous boobs bursting out the seams and their account is active as okay and never banned, but active. So why do they condemn others that are not doing the same but inaccurately accusing them of doing so. This is unfair and cherry picking who they want to bully or scare up that is innocent of promoting inappropriate sexual content nor conduct.

mel says:

Re: Criticizing a hypocritical FB guidelines that ban or suspend

YOUR POLICY DOES NOT LET US EXPLAIN OR GIVE FEEDBACK IN BLOCKING US ! THATS A VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS ! IN HAWAII. WE ARE ABOUT TO FILE A CLASS ACTION MULTI BILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT REGARDING YOUR POLICY.

YOU BLOCKED ME FOR NO REASON AT ALL Our standards on hate speech
We define hate speech as language that attacks people based on their:
• Race, ethnicity, national origin or caste
• Religious affiliation
• Sexual orientation
• Sex, gender or gender identity
• Serious disabilities or diseases

BECAUSE I MISPELLED A WORD ” TRANNY ” WHICH SHOULD HAD BEEN TYRANNY.

OU BLOCKED ME FOR NO REASON AT ALL Our standards on hate speech
We define hate speech as language that attacks people based on their:
• Race, ethnicity, national origin or caste
• Religious affiliation
• Sexual orientation
• Sex, gender or gender identity
• Serious disabilities or diseases

BECAUSE I MISPELLED A WORD ” TRANNY ” WHICH SHOULD HAD BEEN TYRANNY. NOW I WANT TO FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST YOUR COMPANY FOR harsh treatment where you DON'[T PAY MY INTERNET I DO ! FILING LAWSUIT AND GOING TO KAUAI TO DELIVER IT TO ZUCKERBERG

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Criticizing a hypocritical FB guidelines that ban or sus

"THATS A VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS"

Three possibilities here:

  • You think that Facebook is part of the government
  • You don’t know what your rights are
  • You’re lying about what happened to you, because while I have encountered people who have fallen foul of Facebook’s automated filters in the past, I’ve not encountered anyone who has had more than a temporary timeout for deliberately offensive posting. The only person I know IRL to have been permanently blocked was someone who repeatedly got timed out for explicitly homophobic "jokes", something like being caught 6 times in less than 2 months, and the complaints came from the gay owners of a local bar wh believed they were being specifically targeted.

What aren’t you telling us here?

No to mention:

  • You’re so aggressively stupid that you think an all caps rant on a website that has nothing to do with Facebook will get some kind of attention from them.

"you DON'[T PAY MY INTERNET"

You don’t pay for accessing Facebook’s servers either.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...