By Sandy . . . I read with interest “Facebook block riles advocates of sex crime survivors.” Racheal Gonzales of Albuquerque, New Mexico, has posited an interesting position: Governmental officials and representatives should not be able to block constituents who disagree with them on their Facebook pages because it prohibits the critics’ ability to make their positions known and exercise their right to free speech.
Emboldened by a ruling that said our president could not do that, Ms. Gonzales says she wants this policy extended to all.
NARSOL agrees.
Ms. Gonzales may be unaware, although I doubt it, that Facebook itself blocks those who are on a sexual offense registry from using its services. These citizens are prohibited not only from expressing their own political views via this medium but are also refused the ability to read the opinion of others. Does Ms. Gonzales find this practice equally reprehensible? Will she speak up for the rights of all to have the same access to their elected officials for which she advocates for survivors of assault?
What if Facebook denounced its policy of blocking its services from citizens who are on sexual offense registries? Does Ms. Gonzales believe that they should have equal access to the Facebook pages of the representatives of their government in order to advocate against laws with which they disagree?
Maybe there is a way to create a social media that belongs to the people. We have got to get the public square out of the billionare’s private mansion.
On Thursday, Gonzales filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office against Roybal Caballero and another candidate.
If she can file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office against facebook can we?
I don’t know why anyone would want to use FacedBook anyway. I don’t care what anyone says, someone who can publicly lie as much as Zuckerberg has is clearly not honest by nature. They are more likely to be the kind of person to, I don’t know, steal an idea for a “social networking” website, then use said website to consume as much personal data it can, for free, and sell it to the highest bidder. Society is better off without it.
Ok so here is my question, Google+ doesn’t seem to have an RSO block. Why not just use that instead?
Well, it hasn’t caught on. I had thought that they discontinued it altogether but apparently they haven’t. I see that I still have an account there but there’s been no activity. They would have a hard time terminating you since individuals also have Gmail accounts. Would they terminate their Gmail accounts, too if they implemented a “no sex-offenders” policy? That starts getting sticky for them, I think.
as for FB yea they suck, I really do NOT use them but sometimes you NEED a FB to look at articles…/postings so yea… NOW HEAR THIS ZUCKERBERG and FB STAFF: Im a RSO/290, and I HAVE A FB… UNDER A FAKE NAME !!! Simple !!
I also did it with that same street thing… NEXTDOOR… easy to sign up a fake account… !
Did Ms. Gonzales replied to this article?