Posted on July 28, 2009 at 12:35:21 EST
by Benyamin B.
Copyright © 2003-2009 The Anti-Terrorism Coalition. All rights reserved.
What makes Facebook so unique is that it is the first social networking website that was successfully created for real people to be able to keep in touch with each other. Founded in 2004 by Harvard students Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Hughes, David Moskovitz, Eduardo Saverin and Andrew McCollum, Facebook was initially open only to college students (in the very beginning, only to students in Ivy League and Boston-area universities). It was later expanded to high school students, who could only join by being invited by someone already on Facebook. Only later was it opened to everyone.
In the early days of Facebook (back in 2006), some users (including a high-ranking American Infidel (AI) member) had trouble signing up for Facebook because some sort of automated program apparently did not believe that these individuals were applying to join with their real names. Thus, they really had to prove to Facebook that they were who they said they were by contacting Facebook staff via email and asking them to manually create their accounts for them.
Today, signing up to Facebook is very easy and signing up with a fake name to a "regional" network or just signing up without joining a network is a piece of cake. It still remains quite hard to join a college, company or organization network without being able to confirm one’s email at that particular network. Nevertheless, the feeling of security once present at the popular networking site has disappeared due to Facebook being opened to everyone. In fact, when Facebook first opened its website to anyone, many of its users expressed discontent with this decision.
However, it is still against Facebook’s terms for users to use "fake" names, even though it can’t prove whether any users who don’t join a network or join a regional network are actually using a fake name. It will even ban (or send warnings to) users who use initials (even if they use their full first name and a last initial). It will also not allow a user to replace his or her last name with an initial(s). It will sometimes ban or warn a user for changing his or her name, as well.
Apparently, it is also against Facebook’s terms for a user to log into an account that does not belong to them, even if the owner of that account consents – even if the owner of that account is a good friend or a relative!
Facebook also has a strict policy against multiple accounts.
In other words, Facebook demands that as much of its users are as real as possible, while at the same time making it extremely easy for users with fake information to sign up – although, Facebook will often force any users that don’t join a network or join a regional network to type in a security code each time they send a private message, make a post, friend someone and so on. It offers to get rid of these security codes if the user provides Facebook with their cell phone number.
Thus, Facebook is extremely demanding of the real information of its users, even as it has eliminated the barriers that kept the vast majority of users with fake information out.
Here are some clauses from Facebook’s Privacy Agreement:
"Facebook may also collect information about you from other sources, such as newspapers, blogs, instant messaging services, and other users of the Facebook service through the operation of the service (e.g., photo tags) in order to provide you with more useful information and a more personalized experience."
"We may use information about you that we collect from other sources, including but not limited to newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services, Facebook Platform developers and other users of Facebook, to supplement your profile."
At one point, Facebook received severe criticism for stating the following: "We may share your information with third parties, including responsible companies with which we have a relationship."
Additionally, Facebook also prevented users from deleting their accounts. Users could only deactivate their accounts, meaning that all their account information remained (actually in a way, that is the case with any websites that use Data Warehouses, as they back up their databases, thus ensuring that they save previous versions of their databases). Of course, most other major websites allow users to manually delete their accounts. Yet, even after receiving a whole lot of complaints, Facebook, to this day, refuses to allow users to manually delete their accounts, instead only providing them with the option of emailing Facebook to get them to delete their account. In other words, you never leave Facebook.
Yet, this is only the tip of the iceberg:
Before Facebook opened its site to everyone, it introduced its now famous news feed feature, which allowed users to see the activities of their friends. Amid great controversy, Facebook finally allowed users to have control over what type of activity would be displayed in the news feed.
Later on, Facebook made user profiles viewable to search engines and users’ basic information visible to the general public.
Then came the Facebook Beacon, which provided third parties with information on the activities of users. After much pressure and even a lawsuit, Facebook allowed users to opt out of this feature.
"If a user reserved a movie ticket on Fandango.com, for instance, that information was broadcast to that user's friends.
Tales of privacy breaches began to swirl on blogs and mainstream media. In one famous case, a man's secret intention to propose to his girlfriend was ruined when Facebook told his network of friends that he had bought an engagement ring online.
But the privacy controversy didn't end there. This year, Facebook quietly changed the language in its terms of service, claiming perpetual rights over content that its members post on their profiles. More worrisome was a clause that lets Facebook keep copies of content even if a user deletes an account.
This prompted the Electronic Privacy Information Centre, a U.S. advocacy group, to file a complaint with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, requesting that Facebook abolish this new claim over content.
Facebook, by now accustomed to public outcry, was quick to respond. In a blog post, Zuckerberg said archiving old content is a service for current users."
There is also the issue of Facebook staff. They can easily see the private information of users. Even if a user is deactivated (including even if he is "permanently deactivated"), his information still remains on Facebook. Thus, it can be seen at any time. Given the fact that Facebook has a long history of violating the privacy of its users, one can only wonder what Facebook staff and what Facebook’s owners are capable of doing.
Indeed, there is a growing number of people which simply does not trust the popular networking website. Many are especially concerned about Facebook using their private information for ulterior purposes. Another concern is protection from hackers and other hostile individuals snooping in on them.
Of course, while Facebook is the only major social networking website to possess an overwhelming amount of the real private information of almost all young people in the USA, it is not the only such website to spy on its users. Yahoo, Google, Microsoft and many other big companies also spy on their users. Additionally, they also have staff which can easily spy on users, even if higher-ups in the chain of command don’t permit them to do so. However, the fact that Facebook is in possession of more information on its users than any other major networking website makes its potential to violate the privacy of its users much higher than that of any other major networking website.
As if this isn’t enough, Faceobok even spies on its own staff! On March 31, 2009, Mark Zuckerberg sent slightly different versions of an internal memo to his staff to notify them that Facebook’s CFO Gideon Yu was leaving. From one version to another, sentiments were phrased differently ("will report" vs. "will be reporting"), punctuation was changed, and contractions were swapped out for full phrases. Apparently, Zuckerberg was attempting to find out who among his staff was leaking information to the general public.
Facebook also adheres to a pattern seen in most major networking websites: a clear bias against anti-terrorists, patriots and other freedom-loving individuals. Facebook has claimed to support freedom of speech, even though its terms of service clearly state that "you will not post content that is hateful". Nevertheless, Facebook has decided not to take down groups that deny the Holocaust or call for a second one. Additionally, it takes almost no action against Islamic terrorist, pro-terrorist, radical leftist (Marxist-Leninist and fascist), anti-Semitic, racist and otherwise hateful and hostile groups. However, it has absolutely no problem targeting anti-terrorists.
While some of us may remember Yahoo’s attacks on the Anti-Terrorism Coalition (ATC) back in 2003, in which Yahoo shut down the ATC website and other ATC-affiliated websites hosted there; Facebook stooped to an even lower level.
On July 2, Facebook banned two high-ranking members of AI. It then launched a wave of attacks against Infidel Forces (IF) and the Anti-Terrorism Coalition (ATC) on July 5 and July 6. Afterwards, it engaged in the surveillance of the ATC Website.
As IF Commander Jack Johnson put it:
"When I joined Facebook, I was quick to notice the huge number of Islamic terrorist, pro-terrorist, radical leftist, anti-Semitic, racist, hateful and other hostile groups on there (which would only get banned if a great deal of pressure – in the form of public outrage – was exerted upon Facebook staff). At the same time, I noticed that anti-terrorist, patriotic, pro-Israel, pro-Indian, pro-American, rightist and other freedom-loving groups and individual users were constantly being banned, warned or otherwise attacked not only by hostile users, but by Facebook staff, themselves. In many cases, when hostile users attacked friendly users and groups, Facebook staff would stand idly by. In some of these cases, the friendly users would retaliate against the hostile users and groups in an eye for an eye response, only to get banned themselves.
Outraged by this American company's bias against anti-terrorist, pro-American, pro-Israel and other friendly individuals and groups, I, along with several people from various friendly groups, such as American Infidel (AI), started Infidel Forces in 2008. To put it bluntly, our initial goal was to simply level the playing field. We intended to accomplish this by taking over the most hateful of hostile groups, while at the same time employing 100% legal means. Soon after, we expanded our mission to infiltrating certain hostile groups, by sending in moles (undercover agents) into them. Within several months, after seeing no change in Facebook's policies, we expanded our operations to all hostile groups."
Acting in accordance with Facebook’s terms, IF succeeded in taking over more than 150 hostile groups and preventing the hostile takeover of another 15 – 20 groups. It was for this that Facebook launched its war against allied forces.
As Jack Johnson explained in his first hand account about the early stages of what can now be described as the ATC-Facebook War, Facebook’s bias against anti-terrorists had been blatantly obvious. Here is another excerpt from his July 10, 2009 account:
"Several weeks ago, during a major operation, we seized roughly 30 groups in the course of two hours. One of them was a pro-terrorist and extremely noticeably anti-Semitic group: there was an Israeli flag with the Star of David replaced with a swastika. The group was called "Stop the israelian Genocide against Ghaza". Whenever we took over groups, we would update them to have the IF symbol (the American, Israeli, Indian and Serbian flags) and we would place a message usually at the top of the "description" area of the group, stating it had been taken over by us. Before we could do so with the groups we had just seized, we received warnings from Facebook, accusing us of uploading the swastika picture. We did not acknowledge or in any way recognize the legitimacy of these warnings since the Islamic terrorists (or their supporters) that had created the group had uploaded that picture.
I'm quite sure that Facebook was aware of this fact. This was not the first time that it had banned anti-terrorists for uploading or posting pro-terrorist content that had been uploaded by terrorists and their supporters. David Appletree, head of the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) had been banned on at least one occasion under similar circumstances. In one such instance, when Islamic hackers took over a group controlled by the JIDF, Facebook banned David Appletree, presumably for the actions of the Islamic hackers. In another instance, after a massive pro-Israel group created by a 14 or 15 year old American Jew by the name of Todd Snider was attacked by Islamic hackers, Facebook banned Todd Snider for trying to stand up to the terrorists! From what we know, the Islamic terrorists and their supporters were never banned by Facebook for any such actions."
As if this wasn’t enough, many AI and IF members had also received countless numbers of death threats (and other violent threats) from terrorists and their supporters. Yet, Facebook did nothing about that, either. Instead, it was more interested in ensuring that terrorist and pro-terrorist users were not offended by anyone.
The IF had done what no other group had dared to do: it tried to force Facebook’s owners and staff to allow legitimate political discourse on their website – the very same legitimate political discourse that Facebook’s owners and spokespeople claimed to support.
As a direct consequence of Facebook's attacks, allied forces are no longer in control of the vast majority of these groups. Meanwhile, hostile forces are believed to be in control of at least one third of IF's groups, with some hostile users controlling dozens of groups. While allied forces unsuccessfully attempted to retake their groups, being banned less than twenty four hours after they had taken back roughly twenty groups; enemy forces now in control of IF's groups remain unmolested by Facebook.
On June 30, 2009, Randi Zuckerberg, the sister of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, stated: "When you have a site with over 200 million people, [they] are going to say things that are controversial or you don't agree with or that personally may make you furious or upset," she continued. "But just because they say that doesn't mean that it's hate, it doesn't mean that we should be censoring it. So it's a very difficult line, and that's where we are right now."
Apparently, anti-terrorist and other freedom-loving groups and users are not covered by this line. Apparently, they are considered to be more vile than terrorists. When they played nice, they were simply banned, warned or otherwise persecuted by Facebook. When they were attacked by terrorists and their supporters, Facebook did nothing. When they retaliated against their terrorist attackers, Facebook banned them. When they formed a group that broke up hostile operations on Facebook and fought for their freedom of speech, Facebook launched a war against them.
So whose side is Facebook on? Jack Johnson answered this very question perfectly:
"I really don't know any more. Before these attacks, I was willing to accept the ideas that only some elements of Facebook's staff were biased toward the enemy and radical leftist causes due to their Chamberlainian ideals and/or that Facebook's owners believed they would alienate more users by opposing the terrorists. Now, Facebook has shown that it not only harbors the terrorists and their supporters, but it even fights their battles for them. This American company literally fights alongside the people who would kill all of its male employees and put all of its female employees in burqas. Like outright Marxist-Leninist and fascist organizations, Facebook fights against free nations and freedom-loving groups, on the side of the Islamic terrorists and their supporters (of course, I should note that we also took action against Marxist-Leninists and fascists)."
In fact, Facebook’s owners and staff make Neville Chamberlain look good! They make him look like Winston Churchill in comparison to them! Their actions also serve to remind us of former USA president Bill Clinton, who attacked Serbia for defending itself (against Islamic terrorists) simply in order to appease Islamic terrorists and expand NATO.
Of course, given the fact that the founders of Facebook went to Harvard, the clear and undisputable leftist bias of this website should not be of any surprise. Thus, its deceptive statements in support of freedom of speech and its silencing of those that they disagree with most (anti-terrorists and other freedom-loving people), thus in complete violation of their statements and claims; which are classic liberal fascist tactics; should not be of any surprise either.
Yet, it gets even worse: Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes has a very cozy relationship with USA president Barack Hussein Obama. In 2007, he left Facebook for the Obama campaign, thus trading a huge salary for a very small one along with much longer work hours.
On May 24, 2007, Facebook unveiled the Facebook Platform. The platform allows independent developers to create applications that can easily be plugged into people's Facebook pages. The applications do all sorts of things: Flixster lets people share movie reviews, iLike shows off the music ratings of Facebook users, and so on. While Facebook was developing the system, it allowed several companies; including Microsoft, the Washington Post, Digg and others to access it. Many of these companies unveiled applications as soon as the Platform launched. Bloggers Levy and Sifry of techPresident allege that Facebook also gave special access to the Obama campaign. The campaign released its own Facebook application just hours after the company launched the developer platform. And while all of Obama's major rivals maintained Facebook pages, none had succeeded in creating any of their own Facebook applications even weeks after the platform had been released.
The Obama Facebook application allowed Facebook users to add Obama's information to their own pages with a single click – sort of like an "audio-and-video bumper sticker for the Web". The application was a major hit, with 13,000 people adding it in less than two weeks. Of course, this application grew geometrically – (the more pages it was on, the more people saw it and added it).
Due to the complex nature of this application, it would have been impossible to create it over the course of a few hours. Thus, the Obama Campaign must have known about Facebook Platform in advance.
Facebook's then Chief Privacy Officer, Chris Kelly, neither confirmed nor denied allegations that Facebook had tipped off the Obama Campaign about their platform and that parts of the platform had been available since September 2006. He also stated that "we've had a number of conversations with many campaigns over the intervening months about how they can use the developer API and Facebook Platform." Yet, the two techPresident bloggers contacted other presidential campaigns and determined that none of them knew about the platform until it launched. Meanwhile, the Obama campaign simply stated: "The Obama campaign produced the tools ourselves, followed the guidelines set out by Facebook and look forward to welcoming more friends to our network."
Some have made the point that Facebook may have even violated campaign finance rules by helping Obama out.
Additionally, Chris Hughes was responsible for building the Facebook-like website MyBO – a networking website to organize supporters of Obama. The website had a significant role in ensuring Obama's victory in the US Presidential Election of 2008. Indeed, no candidate in the history of the US was able to utilize the internet like Obama and now it is quite clear where and how it was able to obtain such professional IT support.
MyBO has since been renamed "Organizing for America" and is now used to get Americans to organize in support of Obama and his policies.
It is not surprising that students from Harvard University – one of the most leftist and elitist universities in the USA – ended up supporting Barack Hussein Obama – himself a graduate of Columbia University –– another major leftist and elitist university. The ignorance, arrogance and obnoxiousness of both Facebook's founders and of Obama is easy to observe.
The manner in which the Obama regime (as well as his campaign prior to his ascent to the presidency) and Facebook conduct themselves is the same. Rightists and anti-terrorists, along with other individualists, are singled out, belittled and silenced. Traditional allies and champions of freedom are snubbed and pushed aside – even treated as hostiles –, while traditional enemies are almost embraced and in a way, worshipped.
Facebook's attacks against IF, AI and the ATC are just a prelude of what is to come. Just ten years ago, the much less leftist Bill Clinton attacked Serbia for defending itself against Islamic terrorists. Now, as Obama has put more pressure on Israel and refused to give it a "green light" to defend itself against Iran, one who knows their history should not be surprised by anything that happens – unless Obama actually starts to actively support Israel (which will of course never happen in real life).
The Obama regime labeled anyone who either supported Ron Paul for president in 2008, believes that there are people working on creating the North American Union (the North American version of the European Union), buy gold, display Libertarian Party bumper stickers on their cars and so on, as terrorist suspects. However, anyone who displays a "I love Osama [bin Ladin]" bumper sticker on their car, regularly attends a Wahhabi mosque or preaches anti-Americanism in a church and so on is not considered to be a terrorist suspect. These are exactly the same policies that Facebook and many other major websites have employed for years.
The very same people that attack the only people who actually care to keep them safe are no longer just running Facebook and some leftist organizations on the fringe (or those in inner cities and on college campuses) – they're running the United States of America now.
With the biggest database of real people and information that only friends and family would normally have about them, one can only pray that Facebook hasn't shared it with Obama, as well.
More on Facebook's Belligerent Appeasement of the Enemy:
The press release that broke the news of the attacks: http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=28
Infidel Forces Leader Provides First Hand Account of Facebook Attacks: http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=29
Cyber Terrorists Don't Delay in Taking Over IF's Groups: http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=30
Facebook Conducting Surveillance of Anti-Terror Groups: http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=31
Benyamin B's exclusive piece for Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/07/facebook-crackdown-on-counter-terror.html
Facebook Launches Second Round of Attacks Against Allied Forces: http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=32
Facebook Launches Third Round of Attacks Against Allied Forces: http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=34
Categories: "Freedom go to Hell", America: Red, Red & Red, Anti-Terrorism, Barack Hussein Obama, Barbary Pirates Reloaded, Big Brother on the March, Capitalism, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism vs. Individualism, Communism, Conservatism, Democrats, Elections, Equal rights for you, more rights for me, Eurabia, European Soviet Union, Fascism, Fatal Dependency, Freedom of Speech, Islam, Israel, Leftism, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Never Again, Plutocracy, Racism, Religion, Republicans, Rightism, Serbia, Sharia, Socialism, Terrorism, The Axis of Dhimmitude, The Axis of Evil, The Battle of Kosovo 2, The Global Gulag, The Globalist Axis, The Threat from Within, Theocratic Fascism on the March, United Islamic States, United Socialist States, Within the ATC