Category Archives: Cyber

Family Rights Movement: Observations (Opinionated article)

LEGAL DISCLAIMER.

We are making this disclaimer for legal purposes due to the content: This article is not intended to defame, slander, attack, or harm any individuals or their organizations. This is an opinionated article, written to express an opinion regarding the “family rights movement” as a whole.

The issues

Introduction

By now, most people are very much familiar with the “Family Rights Movement.” While, on the surface, we know it as the movement dedicated to the ratification, or expulsion, of CPS/DFS, there is a much deeper element that lurks within. This article is going to discuss why the movement, to many of us, is viewed as being a complete failure. However, we are going to at least play fair, we will highlight some of the good that has arisen from it over the years. Within this article, we are going to be covering a few core issues:

  1. Pettyness
  2. Artificial advocates
  3. Fabrication of information

The three categories are among the most serious issues I have witnessed within this movement. In fact, these issues are a big contributor as to why our platform completely removed itself from this arena, only touching on it if certain criterias were met. For instance, if an individual was causing people financial, emotional, or even harm to their case, we covered it. Sadly, that in itself has changed upon completion of this article.

Pettiness

Within the movement, emotions are one of the biggest contributors to this segment of the article. The thing to understand, in defense of the movement, is most of these people are hurting in a very deep way. However, that isn’t always the case. Spending just a few moments looking into the various groups, pages, and even personal pages, the disfunction becomes quickly apparant.

For the sake of simplicity, we are going to divide the movement into three categories: victims, advocates, and advcoate victims. While this may appear insignificant, it is, in fact, critical. The victims within the movement are families who have lost their child(ren.) Rather their case is currently opened, or was previously so, they are the ones seeking a variety of support. Many of these people allegedly have PTSD. For an advocate, it’s reccomended that they have training in this area. However, most don’t. To handle somebody who has been through such a traumatic event, with no training, is nothing short of a reciepe for disaster.

Among some of the other issues, is the constant bickering. Within the movement there is a lot of “he said/she said.” Where most other movements try to vet this sort of thing out, the Family rights movement has failed in an epic way. On nearly every group, page, etc. that relates to this movement, it is almost assured that there will be some form of drama. The drama varies from “exposures,” which are highly debatable for a variety reasons, isolation of “undesired” individuals, and the list goes on. While there are close groups within the movement, if you’re not one of those individuals, it is best to simply keep the list of people you trust to a bear minimum.

Within the movement there is a radical mentality of “perfection.” What this means is that certain individuals, or groups, are harshly targeted for minor mistakes, where others are simply forgiven. For some people, this means that no matter what, at some point they are going to get the short end of the stick. The short end of this stick comes in a variety of forms. A person could be isolated with the loss of those they considered friends. Furthermore, they could be berated in public, in the form of videos. And, to add onto this, they may get a combination of videos while their names are being dragged through the dirt on a variety of pages, though we have not seen this done to an innocent person in sometime.

Artificial Advocates

Now, if the above section isn’t “ramming a harpoon into the bear,” this segment just may do that. An artifical advocate is a person who, online, proclaims to be an advocate. However, if a person claims to be the Pope, does that make them such? To be considered an advocate, one must have training, or at least a great deal of knowledge of family law. Within the movement, there are a lot of people who make claims of knowing this, and thus making them an advocate. However, very few of them are being honest. For many families, this becomes a game of “Russian Roulette.” If you are seeking an advocate, we always suggest conducting research into the individual first. If you fail to do that, get the wrong “advocate,” your case may have a closing that is not what you expected.

Now, we are going to tie the “advocate victim” into this section. An advocate victim is a person who has been through the system. In many cases, they use this background to suggest that they know about the system; that is not true. While there are some good people out there, who have conducted research, you want to ensure that you find the right person for you. This type of “advocate,” however, does have one advantage: They know what moves CPS/DFS may make. For this reason, it isn’t always a bad idea to casually speak to a willing participate about this subject.

Fabrication of information

One of the worst things I have seen personally, over the years, is outright fabrication of information. Generally, this coinsides with a “smear campaign.” A smear campaign is the malicious, and willful, bullying to ruin a person’s reputation. This is a vicious but very rampant issue within the movement. The source of this usually derives from speculation. For instance: Person A sees you speaking to Person B. Person A doesn’t like person B. Regardless of your personal opinion of person B, person A begins to make accusations that you somehow “work” for person B. Generally, these campaigns are conducted with malice intent, lack of knowledge, or a simple lack of communication. Regardless, they cause the targeted individual emotional distress.

In other instances, partial truths are given out. Within the movement, over the years, this has been seen more than once. In fact, at one time, this was almost an epedemic. A partial truth is when an individual knows the entire story, but chooses to use words that are intended to make the target look bad. Regardless of the reasons why, the target is the one who suffers from this ignorant. In nearly every one of these issues, rarely is the intended target allowed to speak in their defense. Generally, they are forced to watch their names, pages, or groups get strung out on a rope. Occassionally, however, they are able to speak. This usually happens when the situation is being done via postings. However, more times than not, friends are lost and nobody listens.

The Good

There are people out there who will scam you for money, ruin your case, and think nothing of it. There are people who don’t know what they are doing, who intend to help. However, there are people who do truly mean well, will have your back regardless of the cost. On my personal Facebook, for instance, I have surrounded myself with these people. Some I have known for awhile now, some I am still getting to know. For all of them, however, their actions speak. Over the years I have lost many friends, while that is never easy, I don’t fret it for to long. These are the people who, ultimately, had proven themselves to be “flaky,” “toxic,” or simply those with ill intent.

If you are lucky, you will find those who will have your back.; this is one of the biggest highlights to the movement. You may find the advocate who helps you get your child(ren) home, I personally know of some who can-and will. The Family rights movement has dozens of severe issues. However, within the mix of those issues, there are a few good people; those people are the ones worth keeping.

For our platform, this is most likely the last time we will ever write about this movement. While there are a few things good, it is often very difficult to write articles such as this; this is especially true when you know there are good people within the movement. Furthermore, we don’t feel there is anymore benefit to touching on this subject any further as it has, over the years, spoken for itself. Rather that be good or bad, that is truly up to individual perception. With all of this being said, we are closing this chapter.

 

Advertisements

Exposure pages/groups: Legit or is it harassment?

In the field of journalism, regardless of the sort of platform you operate, you can expect that somebody will, at one point, challenge your information. Earlier tonight, a page calling themselves, the “Victim’s Rights Advocacy Group,” had made a video to which they target a few individuals. However, within the video, they make a claim that was found to be questionable. Doing what we do, one of our admins challenged the claim. The claim was against the girlfriend of journalist, Meko Haze, Paige Adrian Chapman. Though the accusation, in itself wasn’t much, it accused her of being a “traitor.” At this point, our admin asked to see the evidence.

“There are many sources of information that can be easily looked up. You can do your own homework and catch up. But if you insist we would be more than happy to do a “Traitors Caught Red-Handed” video.”

The above is a portion of the reply given to our admin upon challenging the claim against Meko’s girlfriend, Paige. If so much “information” exists, as the administrator claims, than why was it so difficult to simply provide the said “information?” In normal circumstances, it isn’t. However, it is much harder to produce information that doesn’t exist than it is to provide something that does. With this response, the agenda of this specific page became clear. At the end of the statement, the admin makes mention of creating another “video.” It is presumed, based on the overall context, that they would, in some way, include either our admin or the overall platform. We will use this time to make the following statement:

“You may create any video you wish, your 253 followers may enjoy it. However, if you wish to include War on Corruption, please bear in mind, that we are a much larger platform, on multiple sites. If you do create a video, by all means, let’s see some of this alleged evidence you were so unwilling to provide.”

A key point to know is if a platform is posting factual information, providing documentation isn’t a problem. At this point, however, the group’s owner, became aggressive, and proceeded to ban the individual prior to deleting comments. While that may not seem like a “big deal,” it actually sheds a lot of doubt into the credibility of her page. However, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen this sort of irrational behavior. Another group, “Un-blessed BIG Liars, Frauds, and Fakes” has displayed similar behaviors. But are groups like this actually legal?

Legal Issues?

Exposing an individual for malicious, illegal, or unethical deeds is one thing. However, looking into these groups, they go well beyond simply exposing an individual’s wrongful deeds; in fact, they borderline harass whoever they are after. So who makes this list? From what we can tell, it’s anybody who simply pisses the page owners off. While we have exposed some of the nonsense from Jamie, Fran, David, etc. we have always left it to specific situations. Beyond those situations, we have made a point of not hammering them. The pages in question, however, make a point of constantly harassing individuals they target, this is where the harassment aspect begins to form.

According to the dictionary, harassment is defined as,aggressive pressure or intimidation.” According to pacer.org, cyber harassment can include:

  1. electronic forms of contact
  2. an aggressive act
  3. intent
  4. repetition
  5. harm to the target

Over the years, I have seen many pages like this. They have three things in common.

  1. They rack up a few followers.
  2. They begin targeting individuals, groups, or pages.
  3. And finally, they seem to eventually phase out.

While we aren’t fond of some of the people mentioned on pages such as this, we are even less fond of blatently harassing, stalking, and bullying an individual. At some point, one must pull the ethics card. For groups like this, we have decided to do that very thing. We have seen personal information such as home addresses blasted into groups like this, what exactly is that exposing? If anything, information such as this can potentially place somebody into a dangerous situation; this is not “exposure.” This is outright digital stalking, and WoC is standing up against this behavior.

P4P: Final Review

As you have probably figured out from the title, this is most likely the last article we are going to cover on this subject. While it is our goal to protect vulnerable families from those who may potentially cause them harm, we can only beat this dead horse so many times. For those who have followed our platform, you are most likely aware of the alleged “non-profit” organization, “P4P.” Punished 4 Protecting, which was founded by Francesca Amato-Banfield, is an organization that has been under fire for sometime now. The reasons for such scrutiny vary for many reasons. This article is going to cover, not only this questionable organization, but its founder as well.

Punished 4 Protecting

Punished 4 Protecting was founded in early 2018. While this alone has no merit, it does in that Francesca Amato claims to have been around for many years, that is the only claim she makes that is factual. According to Amato, P4P is a “non-profit” organization. As a matter of fact, the below image is one to which makes such claim.

70687609_10156117359077303_421226430769135616_n

As stated, she claims to be a “non-profit.” What exactly does that entail? To be classified as a non profit, an organization has to be a 501(c)3. Organizations of this nature are tax exempt. However, with “P4P” one simple issue arises; it’s not a 501(c)3.If anything, it would be a  501(c)4. This sort of organization is defined as, “an organization that is not geared for profit and operated exclusively to promote social welfare. However, her organization is neither of these. It is incorporated and as such, cannot be a 501(c)3 or 501(c)4, We covered this issue in one of the first articles regarding Francesca’s organization. You may read the article, Sorry: 501c3 not found. 

When looking at the “P4P” site, you will notice another contradiction. Looking at the name, it has one slight flaw that disproves it being a “non-profit.” The minor issue is simply “inc.” If that doesn’t sound like anything critical, it actually is. It is because an organization cannot be incorporated and be a non-profit; it is either a corporation, or a non-profit, it can’t be both. While this could be argued as a simple oversight, looking into the list of New York’s registered non-profit organizations, one organization is missing: Francesca’s.

The above image brings fourth another problem. In the same post, Francesca, the family advocate, actually threatens Ashley Cooper with CPS. Now, for an individual who is “bringing down the system,” wouldn’t this be a bit counter-productive to her cause? If anything, it does demonstrate what lengths Francesca is willing to go to silence anybody who opposes her. Given the dialogue, one can presume that Francesca is fully aware of who Ashley is. Though this is also useless by itself, it plays into something we will be covering shortly.

Francesca Amato-Banfield

As we have stated, Francesca is a woman that has been encircled with controversy since 2017. With a variety of articles and YouTube videos, she has been repeatedly accused of being a con-artist. Furthermore, there have been many accusations regarding her friendships with registered sex offenders. In recent times, she faced accusations of spreading “sovereign citizenship” ideologies. One such example, comes from early 2019. Francesca Amato, alongside her typical group of associates, had a “one cure fix all” affidavit. While they claimed this affidavit worked, no evidence has ever been produced to validate this claim.

70458054_10156117127127303_9187273085839998976_n

In the first image we presented, it is clear that Francesca seems to know about Ashley’s case. Furthermore, she alleges to know enough to even know who the caseworker. However, in this most recent image, she is seen asking, “Who are you?” and, “Again who are you?” This question is a complete 180 from the original image. How does one implicate to know about another’s case if they don’t even know who that individual is to begin with? The fact that a self proclaimed advocate would resort to, what is essentially a form of blackmail, to silence anybody who speaks out against her, has only added to the controversy surrounding her.

Francesca Amato-Banfield, as we can tell from our research, is not an advocate. The amount of controversy, damaging information provided by her, and various other forms of questionable deeds has many people raising a brow. If the controversy isn’t about her directly, it surrounds her associates. One example of such is David Jose who, according to many people, takes money from a victim and then proceeds to block them. As if that isn’t enough, photographic evidence shows him illegally withdrawing funds out of bank accounts.  If you intend to use an advocate to fight your case, do your research. Don’t just pick the first beautiful flower you see, it may be toxic.

 

Other related articles:

Secret “Congressional” meeting?

Jamie Johnson (documentary)

Infamous Jamie Johnson gun video (full version)

“Advocate” exploits sexual abuse victim

Illegal counciling services?

 

Oklahoma man exposed live

The internet is a place that should be taken with caution, especially for children. Between the various scams, bullies, and even predators, children have much to be alert to. For some of these predators, however, they’re game is over before it even begins. One such case, is a man named Andrew Weaver of Midwest City, Oklahoma.

Before we get into the “meat” of the story, let’s first discuss who Andrew Weaver is. Weaver is a local man living in Midwest City. From what we were able to find, prior to his Facebook page being deleted, he works at a dairy facility called “Braum’s, allegedly as a manager. He has a wife and at least one daughter. This last fact makes this story all the more disturbing. War on Corruption has, at this point, attempted to make contact with his workplace. If we receive a response, we will update the article. Weaver was not available for comment as we have no method of contacting him. If, by some chance he sees this article, we would love to get a statement from him.

Weaver, recently was exposed by the Oklahoma group, “Oklahoma predator prevention,” when he appeared at a movie theatre in attempt to pick up whom he presumed to be a 15y.o girl. In the video, which can be viewed here. The video begins in the parking lot of the local theatre. Within minutes, Weaver is seen walking away from the group, “OPP” as they attempt to engage contact. However, the confrontation is short lived.

Weaver makes a dash to his car, where he quickly gets in, and makes a speeding dash away from the scene. Eventually, after several insults at Weaver’s expense, and rightfully so, the group is able to make phone contact with him. As they begin asking him questions, we learn a few more things about Andrew; the most damning being the fact he himself was allegedly a child victim. While this is no excuse for his actions, it does demonstrate a common knowledge: people who are victims as children, have a higher chance of being a predator as an adult.

At this time it is unclear as to rather or not the police have been contacted. However, given several indications within the video, it is presumed that the group did not make any contact. With that said, they also mention to Weaver that several officers do follow their page. To this regard, should we get any updates, they will be posted here. As for Andrew, his future has yet to be determined. In retrospect, however, we do wonder how those around him will feel once they learn of his recent fame.

Oklahoma man dies in shootout.

On September 5, 2019 three seperate schools, in the city of Shawnee Oklahoma, found themselves in a “lock-down” situation. For local police, what began as a traffic stop, would ultimately prove itself to be fatal. While we often report on police brutality, wrongful shootings, sadly, this is not one of those articles. Brandon Goodin, who was father to a toddler, was pulled over due to a hit and run incident. The police attempted to serve a warrant for his arrest. However, Goodin had other plans. Goodin ultimately sped off before barricating himself into a nearby home. The police remained outside as the local SWAT unit arrived.

During, what would become a two hour standoff, Goodin was reported to have fired multiple shots at the police. The result of the shooting lead to three seperate schools going into lock-down. An elementary, a highschool, and a middle school. Only after Goodin died of a self inflicted gunshot, were the schools released from the security status. However, this brings fourth many questions. Who was Brandon Goodin and why did he choose to end his own life that day? While the second question may never be known, the first one can be explained with his extensive background.

As we looked through his background, it quickly became apparant that he’s had more than his share of dealings with the courts. Everything from Neglect, drug possession, armed robbery, it was obvious that he had made himself a rather unsuccessful criminal career. We had also found that crimes of a violent nature weren’t out of his category either. In 2000, He was convicted of first degree arson. What this essentially means is he preplanned and followed through with burning a structor. But his criminal history doesn’t end there.

Upon further investigation, we found that 2009 was a very eventful year for Goodin. In this year, not only was he convicted of second degree burlgery he was also convicted to knowingly possessing stolen items, most likely a charge that derived from the burglery. Most of the other events in his background were minor. Stealing street signs, avoiding police, things of that nature.

We found that, according to his Facebook, he was an “Apprentice electrician” at the company, “Shawver and Son.” He had apparantly been employed here since November of 2017. However, as of the time of this writing, we have been unable to establish any contact with this company. While his final post to Facebook has the typical “RIP” comments, understandingly, not everybody shares the sentiment; he did, afterall, cause three seperate schools to go into lockdown. In one such comment, the commenter leaves the simply statement, “Oops bad decision.” While it’s easy to understand why such a comment would be made, it’s the responses that we found to be interesting. One such response reads, “He was a good man. I lived with him. He had a big heart. RIP my friend.” While I do understand that there would be a natural bias, I almost felt compelled to ask, “Does a good man create a situation for children that is potentially traumatizing?” In the end, there may not be a deffinant answer to this question.

Currently, this is a story that is hot with the local media platforms. Although we were asked to cover it, we have opted out of contacting any family, we may do so at a later time. The reason for this decision is to give the family a chance to grieve. As with any story of this nature, there will always be people on both sides of the fence: those who believe him to be a good person, and those that will believe him to be a failed criminal, dying the way he had chosen to live.

Black Salve: Abuse of animals?

For any pet owner, the concept that your beloved “fur baby” has developed a life threatning condition, such as cancer, can be overwhelming. While there are benefits in seeking potential alternative medicines (ie: CBD oils,) there are many alternatives that are not safe. Among these unsafe treatments is “Black Salve.” Before we get into the core of this article, let’s explain what Black Salve actually is.

Black Salve is a rather contraversial alternative treatment for cancer. Also known by it’s brand name, “Cansema,” Black Salve is believed, among it’s supporters, to literally burn away the afflicted tissue. However, in doing so, the product leaves behind a scar known as an Eschar. While there are many who support, and even endorse the “medical benefits” of Black Salve, it is important to understand that there is absolutely no evidence to support any medical claims regarding this product. However, what can be proven are the risks involved with using this dangerous “medicine.” Necrosis, which is literally the death, or dying of tissue, being one of the more severe effects of Black Salve. Other side effects include scarring, delays in legitiment medical procedures, ulcers, and even death.

PicsArt_08-27-06.03.04.png

In the above photograph, we have a very recent post to Facebook. In fact, this post was made just over a year ago. Within the post, the individual, identified as “Master Splinter,” explains that their mother’s pet was so inflicted with cancer that the vet suggested putting the dog down. In cases such as this, it generally means the pet is beyond salvation, the cancer has simply spread to far. Although an actual medical doctor gave this advice, clearly that wasn’t going to fly with this poster. Instead, they went to an alternative practitioner, whom also claimed to be a doctor. Now, let’s point out two problems with this First off, falsely proclaiming to be a doctor is a felony. Secondly, even if the individual at “Herb Healers” was a doctor, it’s doubtful they would suggest using a dangerous product, such as Black Salve, on your dog.

As we continue to read the post, it’s obvious this “Master Splinter” gave the dog Black Salve orally. At this point, we may as well claim “animal abuse;” in fact, in a recent comment, somebody did, in fact, make this claim. The proceeding conversation is photographed below.

JPEG_20190827_180809_6324969098982490535.jpg

 

Clearly, with the Black Salve supporters, stating factual information, such as destroying your dog’s internal organs, makes you an “animal hater.” However, we would have to dispute that. Based on the information we have regarding Black, we would have to concur, this poster should be arrested. While we may agree, the next comment clearly has a different view. If by “saving lives” they mean subjecting their pet to a slow, painful death, than we agree. The poster did a wonderful job of destroying their pets’ body. However, if curing the animal was the objective: they failed epically.

Black Salve is not unfamiliar with contraversy. Those who support and endorse it, are willing to spread their pseudo-science based information. Those who oppose it, do so because of the dangers involved with its use. We haven’t found any updates to this post. However, we presume this dog passed away from this unconvential form of abuse/medication. While we strongly suggest not using this product for any reason, we also recommend that people conduct their own research. Look into Black Salve, see for yourself the information that is available.

Facebook Pedophile group causes outrage

Update:

Just a little over an hour ago, the group mentioned within this article, was taken down by Facebook.

 

More and more, we are seeing groups utilize, and even exploit flaws within the social media giant. Because of this, many of these groups have been allowed, regardless of its content; the group, to which we are exposing, is no different. Recently, what appears to be a pedophilic had been brought to light. Naturally, the group, “Hayden Summerall & jade weber Mc” has placed many activists into a fit of rage. The wall, while clearly displaying innapropriate images of young, non nude girls, is the primary reason behind the outrage. From nearly nude photos, to sexually suggestive poses, young children are portrayed in a variety of positions. While activists are very much offended and upset, Facebook has already displayed, in the past, an unwillingness to remove pages containing content such as this. This only raises further alarms as to how Facebook will choose to implicate, if at all, their “community standards” policies.

In the past, groups that had clearly violated the policies Facebook claims to uphold, had managed to slip through the cracks. Meanwhile, independent media platforms, CPS groups, and a variety of activism groups had been deleted, often with no explanation from Facebook. Furthermore, the administrators would often find themselves in “Facebook jail” post deleting of the groups. One such example of this occured with the former media platform, “The Daily Haze.” This was a platform, near the end, that couldn’t seem to evade the scope of Facebook’s selective policy enforcement, often times leading it’s journalist, Meko Haze, blocked from his primary account.

Questions as to rather or not Facebook will actually uphold its policies are currently pending. Once we learn the fate, if any, of this group, we will post the update to this article. However, for now, it is a literal standoff between activists and a diabolical group of individuals who actively, and openly, prowl the social media site. Stay tuned.

Super “Starr”

When we released the article on Francesca Amato, it was only logical that we would, in time, write this article. Looking into the self proclaimed “advocate,” Jamie “Starr” Johnson. While Jamie isn’t as popular as some of the others, she is equally, if not more, diabolical than the Fran club.

Jamie, while it isn’t confirmed to us, appears to have gotten her name known through a specific case. The mother, Nikki (lastname omitted) had a child who was hospitalized. We are going to spare the details as that isn’t prudent for this article. We may cover that at a later time, only with the mother’s consent. To make a long story short, while the child was dying in the hospital, Jamie made multiple videos to which she exploited the situation. Bear in mind, that nobody related to the child had knowledge of this until much later.

In time, the child did pass. Jamie retreated to the hospital grounds, just outside the hospital. Again, without the family’s knowledge or permission, a livestream was made. During the video, Jamie, without consent, had announced the untimely death. Naturally, this created a rather large rift between Nikki and herself. The exploitation didn’t end there, however. While the mother begged her former “advocate” friend to cease, Jamie continued to exploit the death, all while Nikki publically demanded that she stop. From this point forward, Jamie’s shattered legacy spirals downward.

Contraversy involving the self proclaimed advocate doesn’t end there, however. Recently, there have been several images discovered pertaining to the “super starr.” While taking seductive images is not a crime, it has many people asking, “should a family adcocate act in this manner?” The answer is simply, “NO.” When proclaiming to be a family/child advocate, there are certain expectations that one must uphold. For example, an off duty officer posts racially driven statements, they are suspended. While Jamie defends the images, it has risen much concern regarding her advocasy. However, we will let the evidence speak for itself. At the end of this article, we have attached some of the images.

Jamie has caught even more attention. In a recent livestream, in which Rudy Orr and Randy Davis seem to make amends, Jamie went on the offensive. Among words of encouragement, Jamie began a vicious attack against Mr. Davis. During this assault, one of our own began to challenge her. He asked, on several occasions, for evidence to support her claims. Among her claims were: stalking, harassment, and slander. As of the time we wrote this article, Jamie has still failed to provide any evidence.

Following the assault, Randy and Rudy conducted another livestream, openly inviting Jamie to partake. They are heard repeatedly questioning rather or not Jamie would appear to present her evidence. Jamie did not. In fact, while they were doing the livestream, she had apparantly been commenting in the initial post, containing her assault. As far as we can tell, she has no evidence to present and thus avoided any subject to which she is called out.

If this is what an advocate is, I truly feel for any family who are desperate. Before choosing an advocate, look into them. It is strongly suggested that you not only check into them criminally, but morally, afterall it’s your children who depend on you to make the correct choices. We are going to assist in the moral department. Here is your potential advocate.

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.

(Discreditation) Victim or guilty?

About a month or so ago, I recieved a screenshot. In the photo, it had a phone number of a woman who wanted to get into contact. Today, without reason, she attacked the guy who was looking into her case. Her friends have now come to our Facebook page to continue the assault. This is our response to her friends, who insist on bringing their fight to WoC.

About a month or so, as stated, either this individual, or our team, made contact. Her friend, who attempted to start a fight on our Facebook, claims she did not want our “opinion” regarding her case.

As you can clearly see, that is not the case. Not only did she give a contact number (omitted for privacy,) she even encouraged contact. We had intended to do this. However, we were still digging around into her case. We wanted to at least have some information prior to contact.

In one image, she claims to have no idea who our guy is, muchless how he got onto her friends list. We have already proven this to be a lie. Her behavior, being unprovoked however, has me questioning her CPS case. I have seen many “innocent” people, later proven guilty, act just like this. While being under stress is common with a CPS case, it also has an odd way of showing a persons’ true colors.