Absurd Censorship Attacks On Irr'S Facebook Page

[KevinG]

: look at the flurry of posts it has generated in a very short time.

Yes we are good at feeding the need for attention around here aren't we? Let us know what kind of response you get from Facebook.

Edited December 29, 2012 by KevinG

[thesometimesaint]

I've heard it was good for driving away the evil spirits.

[KevinG]

I've heard it was good for driving away the evil spirits.

Thats the chili talking.

[Rob Bowman]

juliann,

You wrote:

Chances are that he is on some JW message board accusing them.

Another false, baseless, and indefensible comment.

The fact is that JWs have not been an active subject on the FB page, whereas Mormonism has been. Furthermore, many Mormons share the opinion, which more than one Mormon has already expressed in this very thread, that a group like IRR should not be allowed on FB or even the Internet. It would be an extremely rare JW who expressed such an opinion. Hence it is perfectly reasonable to infer that one or more Mormons are behind the censorship attacks.

[mathonihah]

So far, Rob has done two things on this thread that are questionable:

- He has accused Mormons of trying to censor him on Facebook, without providing any hard evidence for that accusation.

That was not my impression. He was faced with that problem, and he made a guess that some Mormons (though misguided) may have been behind flagging his page for objectionable content, and I think that that was a reasonable guess. If I had been in his situation, I might have made the same guess.

- He has misled us concerning the posts (plural) that were taken down on FB by only quoting one (or part of one) meant solely to give the impression that he did nothing wrong.

I'll be interested to see if Rob ... decides to be more complete in listing the posts that were removed.

That is a valid observation; although he has denied that that was the case. Perhaps he would share with us a more complete list of content removed, so we can judge the legitimacy of his complaint more accurately.

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

You wrote:

What you are not getting is that it is not your call as to what is objectionable, it is FB call to make.

Fine. Pretend you are FB for a moment. Explain to me what is possibly objectionable about the post that was removed yesterday and that was stated to be the basis for me being banned from FB for three days.

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

You asked:

Question for Rob. Why did you think your dispute with FB should be aired on this board?

I think I've answered this question. This is a Mormon discussion board, and the topic is an interesting one that is relevant to Mormon-evangelical relations. The feverish pace of posting in this thread is itself validation of the interest the topic has generated.

[mathonihah]

In other words you are "unfamiliar with Facebook" and unfamiliar with Rob's position vis-a-vis Mormonism on Facebook yet you feel perfectly comfortable lecturing others on these topics.

Carry on! (lest I be accused of censoring you).

Irrelevant again. The question related to his OP, not his Facebook page.

[Rob Bowman]

juliann,

You wrote:

Aha, so they have removed much more than the only post you have disclosed.

I said so in the opening post:

"We have had content removed from our FB page that cannot by any reasonable standard be considered violations of FB's community standards. The penalties have been getting stiffer even as the censorship of "objectionable content" has gotten more absurd. Here is the most recent post that was removed from the Facebook page of the Institute for Religious Research...."

You wrote:

Gee, why do I get the feeling we are being played?

I'd speculate that you can't read well enough to follow what's being said, but obviously that isn't the case. I can only conclude that you are making such statements with reckless disregard for the facts.

What's sad and telling is that your remark earned two rep points, which suggests that others share your disregard for truth.

[jwhitlock]

That was not my impression. He was faced with that problem, and he made a guess that some Mormons (though misguided) may have been behind flagging his page for objectionable content, and I think that that was a reasonable guess. If I had been in his situation, I might have made the same guess.

Did you even read what I posted? Rob didn't guess at anything. He stated it as fact, that a campaign by some Mormons is evidently underway to censor him on Facebook.

His guess isn't reasonable; it is unsubstantiated.

Interestingly enough, Julian does the exact same thing (perhaps intentionally, in order to demonstrate something?) Rob does in his OP when she states that he's probably on some JW board attacking them. Rob gets pretty bent out of shape with her for making "false, baseless, and indefensible" comments. Yet neither he nor you seem to have any problem with him doing the exact same thing when accusing Mormons.

Quite instructive.

[jwhitlock]

What's sad and telling is that your remark earned two rep points, which suggests that others share your disregard for truth.

This earns my vote for the most ironic post of the day.

[juliann]

ERayR,

You wrote:

Fine. Pretend you are FB for a moment. Explain to me what is possibly objectionable about the post that was removed yesterday and that was stated to be the basis for me being banned from FB for three days.

Put up the other posts that have been removed "for days" and stop playing us.

[mathonihah]

Rob never "guesses". He states things as fact based on whatever cherry-picked rationalization he wants to use. That's exactly what he did in the OP.

I'm curious as to why you're so keen on defending Rob, ...

I am not. I am defending my own opinions which other people are disagreeing with!

[Damien the Leper]

Put up the other posts that have been removed "for days" and stop playing us.

I will second the request to see the other posts as compared to the one Mr. Bowman cited earlier in the thread.

[jwhitlock]

I am not. I am defending my own opinions which other people are disagreeing with!

I, for one, would rather see something other than an unsubstantiated accusation from Rob before I start giving his guesses credence.

[juliann]

juliann,

You wrote:

Another false, baseless, and indefensible comment.

The fact is that JWs have not been an active subject on the FB page, whereas Mormonism has been. Furthermore, many Mormons share the opinion, which more than one Mormon has already expressed in this very thread, that a group like IRR should not be allowed on FB or even the Internet. It would be an extremely rare JW who expressed such an opinion. Hence it is perfectly reasonable to infer that one or more Mormons are behind the censorship attacks.

I notice when you back yourself into a corner, you start making stuff up based on minimal if not nonexistence grounds. Most Mormons, and I'll do my own guessing and say up to 99%, of them don't even know who you are or that you vilify other religions as a career. I didn't even know who you were until you graced this message board and I haven't exactly had my head in the sand when it comes to the world of anti-Mormons.

You could probably name those "many" Mormons who would ever say you shouldn't be on the internet or FB. Good grief, that is just a pathetic poke at Mormons. Next strawman, please.

[juliann]

juliann,

You wrote:

Another false, baseless, and indefensible comment.

The fact is that JWs have not been an active subject on the FB page, whereas Mormonism has been. Furthermore, many Mormons share the opinion, which more than one Mormon has already expressed in this very thread, that a group like IRR should not be allowed on FB or even the Internet. It would be an extremely rare JW who expressed such an opinion. Hence it is perfectly reasonable to infer that one or more Mormons are behind the censorship attacks.

As someone who (as stated earlier) had a long and productive association with online Witnesses that wasn't based on antagonizing them, you have no idea what they would do. For starters, f you actually had any meaningful association with them you would know they do not consider the label "JW" a sign of respect, but that is probably your intent.

[jwhitlock]

I said so in the opening post:

"We have had content removed from our FB page that cannot by any reasonable standard be considered violations of FB's community standards. The penalties have been getting stiffer even as the censorship of "objectionable content" has gotten more absurd. Here is the most recent post that was removed from the Facebook page of the Institute for Religious Research...."

You also said the following in your OP:

"...and the only post that was removed."

You also have disclosed only one post, as Juliann stated. So are you going to quit beating around the bush and actually disclose the other posts?

[juliann]

I will second the request to see the other posts as compared to the one Mr. Bowman cited earlier in the thread.

We now have three requests for the full content. And I think Nemesis would add his request if we ask.

[ERayR]

Why not? It involves Mormonism one way or another.

It does not involve Mormonism. It involves Rob's perceived mistreatment by FB. Don't fall for the red herring he has drug across the issue. It is only his supposition that "some" Mormons are involved.

FB have have declared what their policies are in such matters in their published rule book. If he feels that their rules are not being properly implemented by their own staff, he has the right to complain.

Posting his petty squabble with FB on this site does nothing to further his disagreement with FB. he appears to me to be whining "Oh poor me see how I am being abused."

[Calm]

I don't see how any groups who's soul goal is to tear apart the beliefs of another peaceful religion has any place anywhere on the Internet.

Sometimes a typo can be profound.

Moved to social forum.

Nemesis

Well, I am a bit mystified by the reasoning here...but this thread is a bit like one of my family's reunions.

FB has a very clear procedure for complaints. So you are saying Rob has complied with FB's procedures and nothing has happened. Care to share the details? Or are you, too, treating this thread as a legitimate complaint to FB?

I think Mr. Bowman is quite intelligent enough to know what and what not FB is going to be paying attention to in the complaint process and it is not this board. Nope, this thread just gives him another chance to complain about Mormons directly to actual Mormons. Much more satisfying than complaining into the general cyberarena where you never know exactly who your audience actually is.

I encourage Rob to seek redress through the Facebook process. I too would be interested in the outcome. I am not so convinced that Mormons are out to censor his opinions from legitimate expression. I am not convinced that sharing his experiences on MDD will help his Facebook case in any way. I am not sure about his motives about sharing them here other than knowing he has an additional venue to vent or complain with some sympathetic listeners in the audience.

Bingo! And one that includes those he is complaining about so he gets yet another opportunity to tell us how despicable he thinks we are.

That is not a safe assumption. My father (a Methodist) has been very active in his defense of my chosen religion. I have written a few times telling him that non-engagement with some critics is the best approach. It could be a sympathetic non-Mormon is trying to support their Mormon friends or family.

Odds are it is someone with some kind of relationship with Mormons but that is as far as I would comfortably bet.

If I were Mr. Bowman, I would go hit a board or two of every one of the likely dozens of faiths his website chooses to attack and claim they are trying to destroy his right to preach the truth....and why they are so afraid etc. etc. What a great opportunity to demonstrate just how evil and unjustifiable all those faiths are.

[Damien the Leper]

We now have three requests for the full content. And I think Nemesis would add his request if we ask.

We can do that?!? Nemesis!!

[Calm]

We now have three requests for the full content. And I think Nemesis would add his request if we ask.

Add me to the list...

[Ares]

Rob please provide evidence or withdraw your statements. This is a fair CFR.

[Damien the Leper]

Sometimes a typo can be profound.

Well, I am a bit mystified by the reasoning here...but this thread is a bit like one of my family's reunions.

I think Mr. Bowman is quite intelligent enough to know what and what not FB is going to be paying attention to in the complaint process and it is not this board. Nope, this thread just gives him another chance to complain about Mormons directly to actual Mormons. Much more satisfying than complaining into the general cyberarena where you never know exactly who your audience actually is.

Bingo! And one that includes those he is complaining about so he gets yet another opportunity to tell us how despicable he thinks we are.

If I were Mr. Bowman, I would go hit a board or two of every one of the likely dozens of faiths his website chooses to attack and claim they are trying to destroy his right to preach the truth....and why they are so afraid etc. etc. What a great opportunity to demonstrate just how evil and unjustifiable all those faiths are.

Holy smokes, Cal! How many birds are you trying to hit with that stone?