Facebook closed this journalist's page

[Altai]

Facebook closed the German journalist Martin Lejeune's facebook page for 5 days without any reason. Lejeune is known with his support to Turkish government after coup attempt events. Lejeune said that "I see that my freedom of press is threatened."


I cant find any English or German news link, I share a link in Turkish language.

His page: https://www.facebook.com/lejeune.berlin?fref=ts


http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/turkiye-destekcisi-alman-gazetecinin-facebooku-5-gun-kapatildi-40217652

Edited September 6, 2016 by Altai

[Michael Hardner]

I edited the thread title.

[bush_cheney2004]

Wiki says : "Facebook is a for-profit corporation and online social media and social networking service based in Menlo Park, California, United States."

Facebook can disable or delete any account for a number of reasons, or no reason at all.

https://www.facebook.com/help/185747581553788/

[Altai]

Wiki says : "Facebook is a for-profit corporation and online social media and social networking service based in Menlo Park, California, United States."

Facebook can disable or delete any account for a number of reasons, or no reason at all.

https://www.facebook.com/help/185747581553788/

Then why are they complaining about it when we close the access Facebook in Turkiye ?

So if they are able to close pages without giving any reason, we also can complately close it.

[Bonam]

Wiki says : "Facebook is a for-profit corporation and online social media and social networking service based in Menlo Park, California, United States."

Facebook can disable or delete any account for a number of reasons, or no reason at all.

That is true. But it is worth considering that the ideal of "free speech" is now, to a large extent, achieved through social media that are operated by "for profit corporations" including Facebook, Twitter, Google, and the like. While these corporations are of course free to do whatever they see fit within the bounds of the laws in the jurisdictions in which they exist, I think they are in some sense now the best champions of free speech and free flow of information, sometimes standing in direct opposition to governments which would like to stifle access to information. It is certainly worth pointing out where and how these corporations fail to live up to that ideal.

[bush_cheney2004]

That is true..... I think they are in some sense now the best champions of free speech and free flow of information, sometimes standing in direct opposition to governments which would like to stifle access to information. It is certainly worth pointing out where and how these corporations fail to live up to that ideal.

Maybe, but free speech rights should never be dependent on commercial parties and/or media facilitators who extract personal data for corporate profit and data mining. The corporations are living up to their corporate ideals.

Governments have been very successfully opposed long before Facebook ever came along.

[Bonam]

Maybe, but free speech rights should never be dependent on commercial parties and/or media facilitators who extract personal data for corporate profit and data mining. The corporations are living up to their corporate ideals.

Governments have been very successfully opposed long before Facebook ever came along.

The world changes. Yes, you can still speak freely on a street corner, but to have anyone hear you in a meaningful sense you have to have access to media that reaches a large audience, and for ordinary people in most circumstances that can only be social media. Fortunately, the business success of social media companies depends on people's abilities to use them to communicate freely, as if they overly restrict their content or usage, then people will switch to their competitors instead, hence why social media companies are naturally positioned as champions of free speech and access to information.

[bush_cheney2004]

The world changes..... hence why social media companies are naturally positioned as champions of free speech and access to information.

They are commercially positioned to increase subscribers and memberships for corporate objectives. They are champions of business plans, market share, IPOs, shareholder value, mergers, and acquisitions.

Why are all the major social media sites concentrated in one nation ?

Edited September 6, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

They are commercially positioned to increase subscribers and memberships for corporate objectives. They are champions of business plans, market share, IPOs, shareholder value, mergers, and acquisitions.

Their business plans and subscriber numbers rely on these companies providing a reliable platform on which people can communicate and access information freely. Yes, all public companies are primarily concerned with delivering shareholder value, as they should be, but for social media companies that objective naturally aligns with the ideals I'm describing. Hence it is not unreasonable for people to come to see these companies in that light and attempt to hold them to account when they fail to live up to it.

Why are all the major social media sites concentrated in one nation ?

For the same reason many other companies are concentrated in that same nation. The US has long been a center of technological innovation and will continue to be so.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Hence it is not unreasonable for people to come to see these companies in that light and attempt to hold them to account when they fail to live up to it.

That's fine, but they are mistaken if they believe that social media is their champion for free speech or freedom of expression rights. There are obvious examples of protected speech which are automatically cause for account disabling or deletion.

For the same reason many other companies are concentrated in that same nation. The US has long been a center of technological innovation and will continue to be so.

This is not consistent with a more universal and global embrace of social media for free speech rights. The concentration of the most popular social media platforms in one nation is more about corporate objectives than universal speech rights.

[Argus]

Then why are they complaining about it when we close the access Facebook in Turkiye ?

So if they are able to close pages without giving any reason, we also can complately close it.

There is a very large difference between a private sector organization closing a web page of an unpaying customer, and a government ordering facebook closed down. It is not the government's equipment or servers and none of its business what is being displayed on them except in extreme cases where the page is calling for violence.

[Altai]

There is a very large difference between a private sector organization closing a web page of an unpaying customer, and a government ordering facebook closed down. It is not the government's equipment or servers and none of its business what is being displayed on them except in extreme cases where the page is calling for violence.

And its a private country that you cant act as you wish. You have to act as we wish.

[bush_cheney2004]

And its a private country that you cant act as you wish. You have to act as we wish.

True....governments control media in different ways in many nations. For instance, Canada routinely uses publication bans in court cases.

[The_Squid]

Facebook is a private corporation. There is no "right to post on Facebook".

However, as Bonam points out, social networks have become part of the fabric for getting your word out, whatever that word is.

Social pressure on Facebook will change how they handle these things.

Edited September 6, 2016 by The_Squid

[segnosaur]

Facebook closed the German journalist Martin Lejeune's facebook page for 5 days without any reason. Lejeune is known with his support to Turkish government after coup attempt events.

Keep in mind that at this point, we do not have a full accounting of what the reason for closing the facebook page was. You did provide a link in Turkish, which I ran though google translate, but things were still very vague. At this point we do not have any sort of response from Facebook... perhaps the journalist violated the terms of service for Facebook in which case the suspension was valid. Perhaps Facebook overreacted to something.

I've seen that sort of thing happen before... story breaks about some sort of "abuse". Outrage ensues. More data comes in, and its found that the "abuse" never occurred. After all, you get a lot more sympathy with shouts of "I'm being oppressed" than you do of "I was a dumbass and got punished for it".

Lejeune said that "I see that my freedom of press is threatened."

You see, that raises all sorts of red flags to me.

Freedom of speech/freedom of the press only guarantees that the government does not have the right to interfere with any publication. It does not guarantee that you will automatically have a forum for your message. (Other people have made similar statements.)

As a journalist, Lejeune should understand that.

[Argus]

And its a private country that you cant act as you wish. You have to act as we wish.

Which is why Turkey is no longer a democracy. It has no independent courts, thus the absence of the rule of law and no free media.

People can be arrested for anything the governing party decides they don't like, and since they run the courts, there is no hope of a defense.

[segnosaur]

And its a private country that you cant act as you wish. You have to act as we wish.

Nobody has to act as facebook wishes. They are more than welcome to create their own web site or other service and post what they want from there.

Then why are they complaining about it when we close the access Facebook in Turkiye ?

So if they are able to close pages without giving any reason, we also can complately close it.

Not sure what you are saying. (I recognize that English is probably not your first language. I'm not criticizing you, since any sort of multilingual abilities do take effort. Just that the meaning of that post is unclear.)

Are you suggesting that because Facebook can close one page, then facebook itself should be shut down?

[Altai]

Keep in mind that at this point, we do not have a full accounting of what the reason for closing the facebook page was. You did provide a link in Turkish, which I ran though google translate, but things were still very vague. At this point we do not have any sort of response from Facebook... perhaps the journalist violated the terms of service for Facebook in which case the suspension was valid. Perhaps Facebook overreacted to something.

I've seen that sort of thing happen before... story breaks about some sort of "abuse". Outrage ensues. More data comes in, and its found that the "abuse" never occurred. After all, you get a lot more sympathy with shouts of "I'm being oppressed" than you do of "I was a dumbass and got punished for it".

You see, that raises all sorts of red flags to me.

Freedom of speech/freedom of the press only guarantees that the government does not have the right to interfere with any publication. It does not guarantee that you will automatically have a forum for your message. (Other people have made similar statements.)

As a journalist, Lejeune should understand that.

Yes I think you are right and I was wrong.

[Bonam]

And its a private country that you cant act as you wish. You have to act as we wish.

A "private country". What an interesting concept.

[Scott Mayers]

I think that laws have to address rights of private industries that serve the public to require certain respects if privileged to BE on the internet AND invite the public. Forums and other public meeting places are no different than malls in this respect. We have laws that require a mall, even though 'private' to only be privileged conditionally when they invite the public to any degree.

An example here in Canada, is our smoking laws that even ban a right of any private club that admits of a group of members to allow smoking.

I'm not for this absolute degree to some such groups but this could and should be applied to the Internet. At present, places like Facebook have such absurd rights over the public as is. We should have a EULA for the public, for instance, that preserves the right of individuals to our OWN agreements by default. For instance, no EULA should demand any imbalanced right that favors the public entity over the individual.

An example is how a site can arbitrary erase a person's content yet can also USE that information against the favor of the individual to their discretion. To be 'fair', if a site has such a right in 'Public' forums, they should also NOT be permitted to grant any government or corporate access to any requested information NOR allow even to use any information for their own or other third parties. In contrast, if they are permitted to use such information for themselves or others, the site should require keeping all content for the right of those individuals who speak or post to keep 'ownership' of their content too.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I'm not for this absolute degree to some such groups but this could and should be applied to the Internet. At present, places like Facebook have such absurd rights over the public as is. We should have a EULA for the public, for instance, that preserves the right of individuals to our OWN agreements by default. For instance, no EULA should demand any imbalanced right that favors the public entity over the individual.

That's not how it works....Facebook users agree to Terms of Service (TOS) and IP licensing (content, photos, links, GPS location, etc.) by voluntarily joining and posting all kinds of stuff. There is no EULA for the "public".

I don't know how/when such a sense of private entitlement was born, but anytime a service is free on the interwebs, YOU are the product.

[Guest]

And its a private country that you cant act as you wish. You have to act as we wish.

Did you get involved in the screening immigrants thread? You'd fit right in.

[Scott Mayers]

That's not how it works....Facebook users agree to Terms of Service (TOS) and IP licensing (content, photos, links, GPS location, etc.) by voluntarily joining and posting all kinds of stuff. There is no EULA for the "public".

I don't know how/when such a sense of private entitlement was born, but anytime a service is free on the interwebs, YOU are the product.

The terms ARE the EULA. EULA means "End User Licence Agreement" which includes any legal 'agreements' to online activity. That is, it is Terms of Service as well.

I didn't say there was a EULA for the public. I am saying we SHOULD have an automatic protection against 'agreements' since they are ubiquitous, necessary, and often written intentionally to remove ANY and EVERY fair responsibility of those 'services'. As a clear example is the ubiquitous clauses that relieve them of all responsibilities and a right to alter the agreement at any time, etc, are just forms of false 'agreements' since these are NON-negotiable terms.

My point is still about the fact that they represent 'public' invitations like a mall. We should still have minimum standards of rights that we do not at present if we are even to PERMIT these services a privilege to register an online public site.

[bush_cheney2004]

....My point is still about the fact that they represent 'public' invitations like a mall. We should still have minimum standards of rights that we do not at present if we are even to PERMIT these services a privilege to register an online public site.

Good luck with that....not only are web application services not like a mall, but even if they were, jurisdiction issues would prevent standing for many foreign nationals who insist on using American or other private service providers.

[Scott Mayers]

Good luck with that....not only are web application services not like a mall, but even if they were, jurisdiction issues would prevent standing for many foreign nationals who insist on using American or other private service providers.

And thus why what Altai said is correct that her country should have a right to block access to those companies. [P.S. We are doing a lot of 'blocking' now, contrary to what some are aware of!! So much for accusing other countries doing this as 'evil']

Edited September 7, 2016 by Scott Mayers