ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

National

Victims’ advocate wants unlimited Facebook access — does that apply to all?

[narsol.org 6/21/18]

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?

Read more

 

Join the discussion

  1. Tim Moore

    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.

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      They exist. It’s just a matter of getting people to use them. There are highly-decentralized, blockchain-based social media that, while in their infancy, show great promise. If they can keep the maternalistic busybodies like FaceBook out of your business, then I think they have a future. https://hackernoon.com/6-social-media-powered-by-blockchain-fdc41d16cb12

      • CR

        The current state of blockchain technology is inherently energy and storage inefficient. Data is slow to spread across a blockchain-based distributed network, compared to centralized solutions. I don’t believe it scales well enough to deliver the performance and capacity needed for widespread social media with hundreds of millions of users sharing practically unlimited amounts of data. Just to spend the energy needed to maintain a massive distributed social media database can only be described as profligate. Maybe those problems can be solved in time, but right now, none of those blockchain-based social media platforms are capable of challenging FB and the like.

        I wonder how many of those fledgling social media platforms will end up excluding sex offenders, just like FB does? Most, I bet.

        • Joe123

          This is actually incorrect ^ regarding blockchain “inherently energy… inefficient”. You are speaking of the earliest version, such as Bitcoin, which are Proof of Work. This requires constant and increasing computing power to maintain the network. There is an Ocean of new Cryptocurrencies that do not work this way. Proof of Stake, being one, doesn’t require a country’s worth of electricity to maintain. Regarding your comment about storage, you can already invest into companies that run Decentralized Storage networks, where people share their storage space with the network and other people purchase and use that space. The technology IS already there and IS already working. If you think about it, Decentralized is the only way of the future when it comes to humans exchanging data. The less control a central authority has the better. Our Government is direct proof of that statement.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          I believe Joe has accurately presented state-of-the-art of blockchain capability in distinguishing it from “coin mining” in the make-work regimen of Bitcoin and may possibly be more akin to an Ethereum model for blockchain. As for them being able to exclude “sex offenders,” I believe that it would either be very difficult or impossible for them to do so, especially if the system is designed by free speech, anti-censorship absolutists, as I believe many or most are. I think that we would find that the busybody impulses of publicly-traded companies such as FaceBook and Google and Amazon are absent in such alternatives which would have, as their mission, frustrating government’s attempts to spy on users. Adding further remove from the grasp of U.S. or other governmental mediation would be to domicile the URL and whatever organizational governance which might exist in a known-data haven such as Iceland.

  2. cool CA RC

    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?

    • TS

      I believe it was filed with the AG against the persons who have blocked her on FB, not FB itself. The action to which is akin to POTUS trying to block Twitter trolls and was found to be an incorrect move (currently under appeal). The sitting legislator should not have done it (on her official legislative FB page) based upon the court held example, but no NM law is on the books stating otherwise. I believe she has a valid point, but until a final decision is set, it could be hard for any solid guidance be set. It would be interesting to know who the other candidate is since they are not mentioned. If they are not currently elected to a position, would blocking still be ok as a private citizen who is running for elected office? I’d think so. (Please no POTUS or party related discussion here since I brought this up. It is just the current example to use.)

    • CR

      From what you say, it sounds like her complaint was filed against the candidates for blocking her posts, not against FB. I guess you could do the same if they blocked your posts. But for RSOs, it’s the private FB corporation that is doing the blocking, not a political candidate, so it’s not the same complaint.

  3. Michael

    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.

  4. Gary

    Ok so here is my question, Google+ doesn’t seem to have an RSO block. Why not just use that instead?

  5. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    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.

    • Tim Moore

      A lot of apps tied to my Google account. It is like I couldn’t use my android tablet if they kicked me off of the Google account.
      What I don’t get, with all the information you are giving authorities by being on social media, wouldn’t the public safety “trackers” want you to be on social media to make it easier to track you? Look, that guy (story above) in Colorado got outed for being a long time in Colorado and not registering, because they looked at his Facebook page. Packingham, too, was caught, because he announced his dismissed traffic ticket on Facebook. So they want us to be hidden? What’s up with that? It is like residency restrictions in cyberspace and like residency restrictions, which sound like common sense, negate the stated public safety goal, which is to keep tabs on us. On this thinking of Google and social media, this just popped into my head:
      “… I will follow you will you follow me
      All the days and nights that we know will be”

  6. bob jones

    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… !

  7. cool CA RC

    Did Ms. Gonzales replied to this article?

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

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

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.