4 ms·

Facebook User Loses Lawsuit Over Account Termination

16 points by grellas 15y ago

ck2 15y ago
That link is not helpful in that it does not remind people the shocking reason WHY they terminated her account. One might think she actually did something bad. What happened is that other people ganged up on her apparently when she disagreed with the audacity and hypocrisy of them praying for someone's death. Much better summary: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20101116.html http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20101116.html Not sure why bipolar comes into the question, what they did to her was wrong and I am not sure why the secret service did not investigate the original posts she was disagreeing with. In the end though, people are always better off WITHOUT a facebook account.
- bugsy 15y ago
  Thanks very much for those additional details on this case. The original article's viewpoint seems to be suggest that a crazy person sued Facebook for frivolous reasons and the judge rightly dismissed the case. But that's not what happened at all. The article you link to has such an astonishingly different viewpoint it's almost unimaginable that both articles are talking about the same case, situation and person.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  I think there's a bit of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) going on here. When you read the complaint, the narrative description of what went on is less than coherent. the amended complaint I linked to in my other post doesn't include the emails, but the original one (below, pp 24-27) does, and her correspondence with Facebook doesn't seem to include any mention of Obama, hate pages, or indeed her personal disability problems (as opposed to the fact of her account being disabled). Unless there's something missing on the blank pages, I find it hard to blame Facebook for thinking she was anything more than a spammer or completely indifferent to the ToS. http://www.scribd.com/doc/36038284/Young-v-Facebook-Complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/36038284/Young-v-Facebook-Complain...
  - StavrosK 15y ago
    You missed an opportunity there, for: "her personal disability problems (as opposed to her account's)"
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 15y ago
Amended complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49805523/Young-v-Facebook-Inc-Amended-Complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/49805523/Young-v-Facebook-Inc-Amen... aaaagh my eyes The actual issue seems to be in paragraphs 69-70 - as she hit 5000 friends Facebook advised her she had to set up a 'public figure' account that would give her less access to others' personal information than a personal account would. This was apparently such an injustice that she had to jump in her car and drive to California, a journey which proved fruitless when she failed to make any personal contact with Facebook about her problem. There's also the thing about a petition to have some anti-Obama page removed, but as far as I can tell this is incidental to her complaints about the lack of ADA accommodation. At first I thought it was a shakedown but the more I read the more confused she sounds. Poor woman, she needs a psychiatrist more than a lawyer.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

16 points by grellas 15y ago

ck2 15y ago

That link is not helpful in that it does not remind people the shocking reason WHY they terminated her account. One might think she actually did something bad. What happened is that other people ganged up on her apparently when she disagreed with the audacity and hypocrisy of them praying for someone's death. Much better summary: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20101116.html http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20101116.html Not sure why bipolar comes into the question, what they did to her was wrong and I am not sure why the secret service did not investigate the original posts she was disagreeing with. In the end though, people are always better off WITHOUT a facebook account.

bugsy 15y ago
Thanks very much for those additional details on this case. The original article's viewpoint seems to be suggest that a crazy person sued Facebook for frivolous reasons and the judge rightly dismissed the case. But that's not what happened at all. The article you link to has such an astonishingly different viewpoint it's almost unimaginable that both articles are talking about the same case, situation and person.
anigbrowl 15y ago
I think there's a bit of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) going on here. When you read the complaint, the narrative description of what went on is less than coherent. the amended complaint I linked to in my other post doesn't include the emails, but the original one (below, pp 24-27) does, and her correspondence with Facebook doesn't seem to include any mention of Obama, hate pages, or indeed her personal disability problems (as opposed to the fact of her account being disabled). Unless there's something missing on the blank pages, I find it hard to blame Facebook for thinking she was anything more than a spammer or completely indifferent to the ToS. http://www.scribd.com/doc/36038284/Young-v-Facebook-Complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/36038284/Young-v-Facebook-Complain...
- StavrosK 15y ago
  You missed an opportunity there, for: "her personal disability problems (as opposed to her account's)"

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 15y ago

Amended complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49805523/Young-v-Facebook-Inc-Amended-Complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/49805523/Young-v-Facebook-Inc-Amen... aaaagh my eyes The actual issue seems to be in paragraphs 69-70 - as she hit 5000 friends Facebook advised her she had to set up a 'public figure' account that would give her less access to others' personal information than a personal account would. This was apparently such an injustice that she had to jump in her car and drive to California, a journey which proved fruitless when she failed to make any personal contact with Facebook about her problem. There's also the thing about a petition to have some anti-Obama page removed, but as far as I can tell this is incidental to her complaints about the lack of ADA accommodation. At first I thought it was a shakedown but the more I read the more confused she sounds. Poor woman, she needs a psychiatrist more than a lawyer.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]