Category Archives: Business relations

articles pertaining to companies and worklife

Facebook Wars: The attack on Freedom

Sometime ago, we wrote another article pertaining to Facebook and it’s apparent war on media. To some regard, this is a bit of a follow-up article to that. Since the time of our previous article, Facebook has not only continued it’s unjust attack against independent media platforms, it appears to have increased the attack. The most common reason given for any platform being removed, “X post has violated our Community Standards.” So, seeing that posted by so many, we decided to take a look at their community standards. What we ultimately found, was a policy purposefully written to be extremely vague. Even with the vague writings, it remained obvious that Facebook, was in fact, in violation of their own policy. This article is going to break the policies, to which we believe are being implicated, down for everybody.

Community Standards: Section III Part 11: Hate Speech.

Below are a couple of paragraphs from the “Hate Speech” section of their Community Standards. For those of us, who have been on Facebook for awhile now, we have seen this policy broken by the Social Media giant countless times. How? Let’s review it:

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below.

Sometimes people share content containing someone else’s hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others. In some cases, words or terms that might otherwise violate our standards are used self-referentially or in an empowering way. People sometimes express contempt in the context of a romantic break-up. Other times, they use gender-exclusive language to control membership in a health or positive support group, such as a breastfeeding group for women only. In all of these cases, we allow the content but expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it. Where the intention is unclear, we may remove the content.”

In the past, we have seen cases to which Facebook removed hate speech. However, we have also seen them outright ignore it. The first paragraph is very important in that it informs you as to what they define as hate speech. The contradiction, however, comes within the second paragraph; specifically, these sentences:

People sometimes express contempt in the context of a romantic break-up. Other times, they use gender-exclusive language to control membership in a health or positive support group, such as a breastfeeding group for women only. In all of these cases, we allow the content but expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it.”

Now, if you’re like me, chances are you have shared something along these lines; you shared something to bring awareness to the initial form of hate speech. In the case of me doing it, for example, Facebook banned my account for 30 days while leaving the post I was exposing up. In fact, according to Facebook, the original post was not in violation.

But the bulls-eye on the independent journalist doesn’t end there. Another area, to which Facebook has targeted journalists is:

Part IV: Integrity and Authenticity: Section 16: Spam

We work hard to limit the spread of commercial spam to prevent false advertising, fraud, and security breaches, all of which detract from people’s ability to share and connect. We do not allow people to use misleading or inaccurate information to collect likes, followers, or shares.”

This policy, as a whole, is highly questionable. Not only is it extremely vague, it leaves to many doors open, one door is a rather new policy of theirs, however we will get into that later. This policy has literally made it so that it’s up for interpretation as to what “spam” is. You get a media platform, for example, that posts often on a specific arena, Facebook could potentially remove that platform utilizing the claim that they are “spamming” the site. In fact, they could go as far as to state they are spamming the site with “hate speech.” this one paragraph has, in the past, raised questions. And seeing that this is all Facebook has written within this section, it’s obvious as to why.

While section 17 is also one for concern, let’s skip to the section that is really important within Part IV.

Section 18: Fake News

Reducing the spread of false news on Facebook is a responsibility that we take seriously. We also recognize that this is a challenging and sensitive issue. We want to help people stay informed without stifling productive public discourse. There is also a fine line between false news and satire or opinion. For these reasons, we don’t remove false news from Facebook but instead, significantly reduce its distribution by showing it lower in the News Feed.”

Now this policy has, to some regard, affected War on Corruption. The problem here lies beyond what Facebook is claiming, this one goes into “Freedom of Speech” and “censorship.” the problem with this policy, like so many, is it’s extremely vague. Furthermore, this policy raises many questions regarding Facebook’s stance on constitutional rights and liberties. According to Facebook, they wish to maintain a “safe environment.” However, it seems they also wish to silence any platform that attempts to conduct legitimate journalism. Because of how this policy is written, it can essentially be translated to say, “We, at Facebook, intend to impede any media platform that politically opposes our ideology.” At least this wording is more accurate.

Facebook literally has a novel sized section of policies. Like the above mentioned, most of their policies are extremely vague and left for individual interpretation. One thing that is not vague, however, is how Facebook utilizes the vagueness of these policies. Due to the way they are written, it has given Facebook a back-door into enforcing them when, and how, they see fit. Because of this, multiple platforms within the past year have suffered; the most recent platform within the long list, “The Daily Haze” (TDH.) It is apparent that Facebook conducts a malicious form of censorship, silencing anybody who opposes them. The solution? The only solution is to simply find another Social media site.

Advertisements

Illegal counciling services?

It seems, as of late, that we are in the business of exposing people. Rather it’s a group of advicates pretending to be that-advocates, a group who placed families in danger by allowing a convicted pedophile into their group, or this lady…we seem to be busy.

Recently, we had been contacted by Melissa MacDonald, a member of team “Revitup.” She contacted us about a potential scammer, Lisa Michaele Walker-Mcmillan (Michaele Mcmillan.) Mcmillan operates several groups within Facebook. Among them, “Wounded Hero Project.” The group, according to the image below, is essentially claiming to be a counciling center. Now, as we all know, to make such a claim, one must be licensed in the field.

Although we had no reason to doubt Melissa’s claim, we make a habit of going in with a skeptical eye. With this, we contacted the page. We simply asked for verification of the clege they attended as well as a photo of their certification. If provided, this article would had given them some problicity. Well, clearly that is not how things went.

After waiting for about an hour, Mcmillan did respond. The response was simply, “hello Melissa.” I explained who I was, what I was doing, and even offered to call. Although it showed that the messages were read, no reply was ever given. With that, we felt that we had enough information to proceed with an article.

We conducted a search, one in Arkansas as well as Kansas, to verify rather or not her organization was legit. Because, in one image, we saw LLC on the name, we began there. To not much of a suprise, no such LLC existed in either state. We than conducted a 501c3 and 501c4 search. Both had the same results: No such organization existed.

We went to the group’s Facebook page and decided to pull the provided phone number. If this was a legitimate counciling service than the number should be in its name. What we found was the phone number was operating on the AT&T network and it was Mcmillan’s personal cell.

This was more than enough for us to write this article. What we have here is a woman who is illegally providing a counciling service to veterans. She has no legit business, no certification in the field to which she provides service for, and no legit phone number to her artificial business.

While her intent might be good, we say this with much hesitation, the facts don’t lie:

1. She is not trained to handle PTSD, depression, anxiety, and the many other issues that vets face.

2. She is operating an illegal counciling center, under the radar of the State medical board.

3. When questioned, she simply avoids the subject. People do this when they know they have been busted.

4. What she is doing is not helpful, cute, or funny. She is targeting a group of people who, in many cases, are vulnerable. These people are often fighting suicidal depression and thoughts. To play doctor, or councilor, is not something we should take lightly.

We had conducted this research with an open mind. Because Mcmillan refused to answer one simple question, it has lead us to believe that she is a complete fraud as well as a threat to those who feel vulnerable. Below, we will show the entire conversation. We are doing this for accountability. If we provide it, she cannot say that we omitted her response from this article.

War on Media

If you have been on Facebook recently, chances are you have noticed several media platforms that have gone silent. CopBlock, Free thought project, The anti-media are just a few to have been taken down by the infamous Facebook company.

Although surprising, we honestly can’t be shocked by this move. With a history of privacy issues, constitutional violations, and censorship concerns, Facebook steps the bar up once again. The first move made by the company was the option to report “fake news.” While this may seem harmless, it gave Facebook the ability to remove any platform that went against its own political agendas; naturally, we see police accountability and independent platforms removed.

For the platforms that still remain, this should be revered as a serious concern. After all, the pages taken down had millions of followers, where most of us don’t. It is no longer a question of “if” Facebook will take us down, but when?

Because of this concern, “WoC” has already began making plans. Being that we often shared postings from the now removed platforms, we know that being under the radar is impossible. We have simply covered to many controversial areas. Rather it be police brutality, CPS, corrupt courts, and even went toe-to-toe with a very questionable 501c3, it is likely that we will be removed soon.

But what of Facebook? What will happen to it enlight of these actions? Already people have began leaving the site. Independent Social Medias have began to boom because of Facebook. The flaw with Facebook is ot relies on advertising to make money. Basically, they sell your information, use your information on your profile, to direct ads to you. Well, less people means less ads and equals to less money.

What Facebook has failed to realize is if everybody suddenly left their site, the company would literally go bankrupt. In a huge way, the masses have more control than what Zuckerberg is willing to admit.

The Facebook commentary

Anybody who has ever heard of the infamous social media site, Facebook, is probably already aware of the numerous contraversies surrounding it. With this in mind, we shouldn’t be all to surprised that the site has been violating privacy laws in its collection of personal data.

As you maybe aware, or not, anything you post to Facebook is considered fair game. So, that boyfriend/girlfriend breaking up with you post…don’t be surprised when you start getting ads for dating sites. Now, that collection of information is not what we are here to discuss.

If you go to your account settings, there is an option to download a copy of what Facebook has collected on you. Upon doing this, I found that they had more information than what they legally should have. Text messages, my phone contacts, etc. are just a couple of things they had stolen from my personal phone. So, is collecting this information legal? No.

In order for law enforcement to obtain this information, they must first get a warrant. To get a warrant, they must have probable cause. Now, because Facebook is not law enforcement, they cannot obtain a warrant. However, they can conduct internal investigations if you are employed with them. So what does this have to say about their collection information on you?

Your text messages, your contact list, who you called, the duration of said call, etc., Facebook obtained in violation of Federal privacy laws. Because they cannot obtain a warrant, shrouded their collection in secrecy, and made no attempt to inform people, we now see the newest hashtag, #DeleteFacebook.

With this hashtag trending, it does make us wonder rather or not Facebook has finally come to its end. Although, there will always be people associated with the Social media site, alternative sites have taken this oppurtunity to grow their user bases. Given the extensive, and yet, contraversial history of Facebook, leaving the mega site may not be a bad idea.

Facebook: war on innocence

If you have been on Facebook for any length of time, chances are you already know that they optionally enforce their policies. And why not? They are the biggest social media platform on Earth. Not a big deal, right? Wrong!

Because of the random enforcement of their policies, numerous crimes are conducted via their platform daily. While some of these crimes are minor, some are very serious crimes. Just to name a few: drug trade, human trafficking, child pornography, bullying, and various forms of terrorism.

While drug trading is a crime, it isn’t one worth discussing in this article. However, we are going to discuss human trafficking and child pornography together. The reason we are combining them is purely due to how they relate.

If you search around on Facebook long enough, eventually you may come across some “kiddie” groups or profiles. Often times these groups are closed, some are secret, but once in awhile you find an open group. 

Over the years I have come across hundreds of these groups. I did what any rational person should do, I reported it to Facebook. So, I did a great deed, I helped some family whos’  children were being preyed on. But, Facebook actually allowed the group to remain.

And so, because Facebook is so poorly operated, this message is what you will get. However, this doesn’t happen to just groups, this also applies to other victims.

Another area to which we see the piss poor operations of Facebook, is in the harassment/bullying arena. In many cases, you get the standard “we aren’t doing anything about it” message. In other cases, we have seen the bully report the victims’ profile successfully; this sends a huge message. This message is simply: 

If you break the law while using Facebook, don’t worry, we are on your side. However, if you are a victim, you are not subject to be protected while on our site.

Regardless of the proven, and yet dangerous effects this has, Facebook remains selective on how its policies are enforced.

The reason is simple, however. Facebook makes X amount of dollars per profile/page. So, the more they have, the more money they make. In theory, the more money you make Facebook via posts, pics, etc., the less likely they are to enforce policy on you. Simply put, they want you to make revenue for them.

With the rising of social medias such as “MeWe” and “empowr,” it is very plausible that Facebook will soon have a run for its money. That, however, does not phase them. For right now, the mega giant continues its poor enforcement and management of its policies.

Popular pet product fails customer

We have all heard the stories, somebody buys a pet product, it fails, and the company refuses to stand by their guarantees of refunding the product. Well, this is sorta like that.

The popular manufacturing company, “Out!” Is the company we will be discussing. Recently, a young couple bought the ever so popular, urine removal product (pictured below.) However, they never expected the turmoil that would soon unfold.

Upon following the directions and applying the product onto their pet’s urine, they discovered that the product actually did more harm than good. While it did remove the urine, it also destroyed the carpet (pictured below,) clogged their vaccuum, and rendered it innoperable.

However, it was the company’s response to this that has lead them to be on “WoC.” When confronted, the company stated that the customer was at fault for the damages. Although, the young couple followed their directions, they were at fault?

I took the time to visit with the couple, who were obvious upset. They told me that they originally only wanted a refund for the product. However, now they are wanting the company to pay for the repairs of their vaccuum and carpet.

I also took time to look at the damages, needless to say, I will not be buying their product anytime soon. The bottomline to this is fairly simple. When a company produces a product and that product fails, it is more ethical to address the customer’s concerns. So far, this company, based on various emails, has dragged the situation out for more than a week. Who is in the right? What do you think?

Kentucky mother terrorizes man with depression

Recently, we spoke to the victim of a really sick form of harassment. John (name witheld per request) is a truck driver. Recently, he took a trip to Kentucky as he was to be driving teams. So, with this in mind, he decided to meet thean he would be driving with.

According to him, Nikki (name also witheld) and him started out as friends. Being that he was in unfamiliar grounds, he was doing his best to adapt. However, things quickly took a horrible turn for the worst.

According to John, who provided audio recordings, Nikki discussed a custody issue involving one of her children. During this discussion, she began discussing her husband. She made claims of adultry and how she was going to divorce upon completion of the said custody issue. It was, during this discussion, John stated, “nothing in life is certain, aside from death.” Little did he know what he had just triggered.

Within 24 hours, the police were at the front door questioning him on a death threat he had made. Speaking to witnesses, they claimed he was very obviously confused by the accusation. Within minutes, John was escorted from the property via police. It is here te story should had ended.

However, he still had a co-driver there. The two, according to provided logs, drove for about a week. What he did not know, was Nikki had been calling his boss daily, trying to cost him his job.

During the calls, she told John’s boss that he was demonically possessed and he threatned to kill her children and husband in their sleep. He had planned to run away with her. All of the claims having no merit. We looked further into Nikki and found that she had a pattern for this sort of behavior. We had learned, John was not the first victim she had.

Above, is a portion of the discussion between John and his boss. He says he lost a lot of money due to the actions of Nikki. He claims she willfully, maliciously, and knowingly caused him mental distress, trauma when police were involved, ad well as various other crimes. We are posting this because we want to help John get an attorney. Simply put, we hate bullies and this woman is as vile as they come.