Eye laser surgery campaigner burned by Facebook takedown

Are you really judge, jury, and executioner, Zuck, or just plain dumb?

On dumb pips: Beep beep BLEEP!

That said, why would they care? After all, the US-based data slurpers operate in a similar way to pub landlords: "My platform, my rules", they will say.

If nothing else, Rodoy's situation highlights once again why individuals shouldn't trust such networks when it comes to serious campaigning online. Too often, Facebook, Twitter, Google and other web outfits float the idea that they are, to coin a phrase, dumb pips (dumb pipes being the telcos) in an effort to sidestep the dreaded "publisher" tag that brings with it all sorts of legal headaches.

Yet, these networks are compelled to repeatedly intervene – albeit sluggishly – where supposed copyright infringements are flagged up by other users, or alleged abusive remarks upset the sensibility of some folk on those services.

At this point, robots and moderators clunkily respond by killing the offending pages.

Indeed, we saw this happen earlier this week when celeb austerity food blogger Jack Monroe complained about her Facebook page being pulled down for the second time inside a month for apparently hosting saucy smut on Zuck's siloed network.

The difference?

Monroe's A Girl Called Jack page, which boasts more than 36,000 "likes", was speedily reinstated within three hours of her complaint. Rodoy's Optical Express Ruined My Life campaign page, in contrast, is yet to return to Facebook.

The two cases are starkly different, of course. Monroe's page is completely inoffensive, unless you're, say, allergic to peanuts or whatever. But does something as benign as baked goods really rule on Facebook?

One need only use Facebook's search function to dispel that idea.

What next for Rodoy's campaign?

Rodoy hopes to continue to share her campaign with Facebookers. In response to the multinational's decision to remove her page, she wrote to the company:

I ask again that you provide details of my alleged IP infringement and name of complainant. Without this information it is impossible for me to pursue legal action against [the] complainant for abuse of DMCA and other intellectual property notice procedures.

By refusing to provide this information Facebook is acting as judge, jury, and executioner without due consideration and lack of basic investigation of the facts.

Rodoy said she thought the service offered a "trusted, safe storage medium". Facebook told her:

When we receive a proper claim of intellectual property rights infringement, we promptly remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing content. We’re not in a position to resolve a dispute between third parties.

If you haven’t already done so, you may want to contact the complaining party to discuss this matter further.

If you believe that this report was inaccurate or was not made in good faith, you may wish to contact a lawyer. You may also want to have your legal counsel contact the complaining party on your behalf. If the reporting party withdraws their complaint or you obtain a determination of your legal rights, we would be happy to follow up about possibly restoring the removed material.

It remains unclear who was behind the complaint. We've asked Optical Express if it submitted an IP claim against Rodoy's Facebook page.

El Reg repeatedly sought comment from Facebook on this story. It had yet to respond at time of publication, however. ®

Sponsored: Detecting cyber attacks as a small to medium business

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER




Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020