6 ms·

I'm surprised it's taken this long for them to get somewhat serious about this. I've worked with clients who have hate brigades that report everything they do a

I'm surprised it's taken this long for them to get somewhat serious about this. I've worked with clients who have hate brigades that report everything they do and publish in an effort to get their pages and ad accounts shut down. I've gone as far as finding in infiltrating Facebook groups that openly talk about this while planning their next attack. Reported the groups for months and no one at FB cared.

dylan604 5y ago
Maybe try adding a letter to who you are contacting, FBI, to see if it would get the response you are hoping.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  If the desired response is "Huh?", sure. The FBI is not going to intervene in Facebook brigading.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Yeah, I read too much into this thinking that it wasn't just mis-information campaigns but the other violent groups posting their vitriol as well.
- beebmam 5y ago
  The truth is that tech companies don't give a shit about working with law enforcement and actively try to avoid ever dealing with them at all. The ONLY time a tech company works with police is when they are obligated to, by law. It's actually quite a shame, I think it's actively harming our society. Laws without enforcement are worthless.
  - JasonFruit 5y ago
    The only time a tech company should work with police is when they're required to by law, and not always even then. What are we coming to when we side with police before even knowing what law they're enforcing?
- Thorentis 5y ago
  Imagine feeling like you need to contact the FBI because somebody reported your comment on a social network. This is what happens when fragile millenials who got bullied on XBox Live grow up and start trying to participate in adult conversations online.
  - lukebitts 5y ago
    Why shoehorn millenials into this. Just say you are old and go
Syonyk 5y ago
> Reported the groups for months and no one at FB cared. Analysis: Engaged, active users. Encourage them to engage more!
btilly 5y ago
Without knowing who your clients are, or why they are being targeted, I have no idea whose side I would be on. For example what you are saying could be said by Cassie at Crowdsurf against the #FreeBritney crowd. But given that she's helping the public image of an unconstitutional and abusive conservatorship means that I don't WANT FB to do what she wants. However it could also be said by someone representing the latest person who has been canceled for failing to be sufficiently politically correct. And in that case I'd be sympathetic.
- mc32 5y ago
  I think not knowing is a better framework from which to work with to work out a neutral way to address misdeeds. We should not take sides and should be impartial when making these decisions (goose/gander).
  - vladTheInhaler 5y ago
    That's not true at all. Context is the only way to make any useful judgements. A couple examples: Person A tackles person B to the ground and holds them there against their will. Is that morally acceptable? There's no way to tell. If A is B's estranged ex-husband and is upset that she hasn't returned his calls, most people would say it's unacceptable behavior. If A is a bystander to a knife attack by B on London bridge, most people would (and did) say that it is justified.
    - mc32 5y ago
      Yes we can look at particulars when applying the law to a particular case. When we make out laws they should be impartial and not put the thumb on the scale when writing them.
      - vladTheInhaler 5y ago
        I'm not sure what you think a law would look like that is completely impartial. The very existence of a law represents a thumb on the scales of otherwise unconstrained human behavior. What specifically should we make laws impartial to?
elliekelly 5y ago
When you say “planning their next attack” do you mean a literal attack on your client’s security or do you mean a coordinated facebook brigading type of “attack”?

dylan604 5y ago

Maybe try adding a letter to who you are contacting, FBI, to see if it would get the response you are hoping.

ceejayoz 5y ago
If the desired response is "Huh?", sure. The FBI is not going to intervene in Facebook brigading.
- dylan604 5y ago
  Yeah, I read too much into this thinking that it wasn't just mis-information campaigns but the other violent groups posting their vitriol as well.
beebmam 5y ago
The truth is that tech companies don't give a shit about working with law enforcement and actively try to avoid ever dealing with them at all. The ONLY time a tech company works with police is when they are obligated to, by law. It's actually quite a shame, I think it's actively harming our society. Laws without enforcement are worthless.
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  The only time a tech company should work with police is when they're required to by law, and not always even then. What are we coming to when we side with police before even knowing what law they're enforcing?
Thorentis 5y ago
Imagine feeling like you need to contact the FBI because somebody reported your comment on a social network. This is what happens when fragile millenials who got bullied on XBox Live grow up and start trying to participate in adult conversations online.
- lukebitts 5y ago
  Why shoehorn millenials into this. Just say you are old and go

Syonyk 5y ago

> Reported the groups for months and no one at FB cared. Analysis: Engaged, active users. Encourage them to engage more!

btilly 5y ago

Without knowing who your clients are, or why they are being targeted, I have no idea whose side I would be on. For example what you are saying could be said by Cassie at Crowdsurf against the #FreeBritney crowd. But given that she's helping the public image of an unconstitutional and abusive conservatorship means that I don't WANT FB to do what she wants. However it could also be said by someone representing the latest person who has been canceled for failing to be sufficiently politically correct. And in that case I'd be sympathetic.

mc32 5y ago
I think not knowing is a better framework from which to work with to work out a neutral way to address misdeeds. We should not take sides and should be impartial when making these decisions (goose/gander).
- vladTheInhaler 5y ago
  That's not true at all. Context is the only way to make any useful judgements. A couple examples: Person A tackles person B to the ground and holds them there against their will. Is that morally acceptable? There's no way to tell. If A is B's estranged ex-husband and is upset that she hasn't returned his calls, most people would say it's unacceptable behavior. If A is a bystander to a knife attack by B on London bridge, most people would (and did) say that it is justified.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Yes we can look at particulars when applying the law to a particular case. When we make out laws they should be impartial and not put the thumb on the scale when writing them.
    - vladTheInhaler 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you think a law would look like that is completely impartial. The very existence of a law represents a thumb on the scales of otherwise unconstrained human behavior. What specifically should we make laws impartial to?

elliekelly 5y ago

When you say “planning their next attack” do you mean a literal attack on your client’s security or do you mean a coordinated facebook brigading type of “attack”?