Venture Beat
Facebook may announce company policy changes for gun-related pages in the coming weeks, VentureBeat has learned.
The social network has been under pressure from the powerful Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Moms Demand Action civic group to ban gun-themed fan pages on the site.
Sources close to the conversations told VentureBeat, “Talks are progressing. The discussions are ongoing; there have been positive developments.”
An extensive investigation by VentureBeat last week revealed that adults and children were making arrangements to buy, sell, and trade guns through the many Facebook fan pages devoted to guns and the people who use them, sometimes in violation of federal and state gun laws.
Facebook is well known for violating privacy rights, so it's no surprise that it would consider adding to the list of violations.
ReplyDeleteContinuation of our "baby proof" society. Making laws for the slightest possibility to try and eliminate danger. Silly.
ReplyDeleteFacebook's loss would be Armslist's gain.
ReplyDeleteOf course the NRA gunsucks who make a huge amount of money selling to criminals, insane lunatics, and felons will be outraged. HOW DARE THEY ENFORCE THE LAWS!!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/student-points-finger-like-gun_n_4895507.html
ReplyDeleteThis is the kind of garbage you anti gun idiots promote
What a moronic comment. You are letting your gun think for you, gunsuck loser.
DeleteActually, I and most gun control folks DO NOT promote that. But, the interesting thing about it is the no-tolerance gun-control fanatics who do promote that kind of nonsense are the exact counterparts to you lunatic gun-rights extremists. No wonder you like to keep pointing them out, there's a sort-of kinship there.
DeleteOne group supports rights, while the other opposes them. That's a huge difference.
DeleteWrong Greg. You support storing guns where kids can access them. You support selling guns privately to prohibited people. You're as fanatical as the nuts who get upset at the pizza gun but the difference is your thing gets people killed.
DeleteMikeb, if you're going to lie about my positions, do you really expect me to accept what you're saying?
Delete"The social network has been under pressure from the powerful Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Moms Demand Action civic group to ban gun-themed fan pages on the site."
ReplyDeleteMayors Against Illegal Guns --- 20,744 likes · 118 talking about this
Moms Demand Action ---- 148,738 likes · 35,534 talking about this
National Rifle Association ---- 3,070,597 likes · 225,312 talking about this
Nyan Cat --- 2,931,838 likes · 166,174 talking about this
www.facebook.com
Yep, real powerful....
I thought that was pretty odd too. But, perhaps it's not wholly inaccurate. The Moms especially do seem to have some clout.
DeleteI think some are beginning to tire of the MOM rants,
Delete"Members of the Massachusetts chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America tried deliver a petition with more than 12,000 signatures at Staples headquarters in Framingham on Tuesday morning to Staples' CEO but were asked to leave the property."
"A small group of women held signs in Framingham this morning, but were asked to move off Staples property."
http://framingham.patch.com/groups/business-news/p/moms-kicked-off-staples-property-but-deliver-120000-signatures-to-retailers-security
I'm guessing the whiny Moms Demand Field Corn aren't going to be very satisfied with this.
DeleteSo, basically they are getting the same kind of victory as they got from Starbucks, as in pretty much nothing. Trying to sell something illegally on Facebook likely already violates their terms of service. Not really different from trying to sell drugs on Facebook.
DeleteI wouldn't call the Starbuck's victory nothing. And I wouldn't say the Facebook victory, which is in today's news, is the same. It's much bigger.
DeleteWhat--that Starbucks went from not banning guns in Starbucks to . . . not banning guns in Starbucks? Victory!
Delete(snicker)
The official statement issued by Starbucks asking you gun nuts to leave your guns at home was a major victory for our side. Of course you have do mock it and pretend it's nothing, like the lying bullshit artists you are.
DeleteThe official statement issued by Starbucks asking you gun nuts [sic] to leave your guns at home was a major victory for our side.
DeleteWell, given your inexplicable bafflement over the difference between mandatory and voluntary, I suppose it's not surprising that you think that asking that customers disarm themselves is the same as requiring it by policy.
"The official statement issued by Starbucks asking you gun nuts to leave your guns at home was a major victory for our side."
DeleteMike, you have fairly consistently maintained the philosophy that those who own and carry firearms need to be, I believe you use the term, "constrained by law", and expecting voluntary compliance is inadequate.
Starbucks could have very easily constrained permit holders by law by following local laws to ban permit holders from their venues. However, they chose to ask for voluntary compliance.
The MOMs also always spread photos on their site whenever that can get some business to post a sign banning permit holders, which is normally all that is required to legally ban these permit holders.
Calling the request for voluntary compliance a major victory is quite a departure from your normal goals.
The Starbucks statement, although not legally binding, was a slap in the face of your precious gun-rights movement. And not unlike the Facebook decision, given the popularity of Starbucks, it was one helluva big deal.
DeleteIt was a "slap in the face," eh? Funny--I hadn't realized that slaps on the face are so painless--undetectably so, even.
DeleteEnjoy your "one helluva big deal."
You must be quite the pessimist about the future of forcible citizen disarmament if you are reduced to spinning this sort of thing as monumental wins for your side.
The Starbucks statement, although not legally binding . . .
DeleteTo call it "not legally binding" is to understate how small that "victory" was for your side. Not only is there no legal force behind the request, it is corporate policy to not ask armed patrons to leave.
The CEO basically wants to sell coffee, rather than be conscripted into someone else's culture war, and he was smart enough to give the Bloomberg Moms (BMs) just enough to allow them to claim victory, without doing anything to offend most gun rights advocates.
There are a couple counter-petitions, urging Facebook to refuse to be conscripted into the Bloomberg Moms' (BMs) War on America. Please consider signing and sharing both:
ReplyDeleteCalGuns
1 Million Moms Against Gun Control
They lost.
DeleteNot according to the Brady Campaign.
DeleteWhat the hell are you talking about. Didn't you see the news today?
DeleteI'm talking about the Brady Campaign's reaction to the supposed "victory" here:
DeleteUnder pressure from the Brady Campaign and our partners, Facebook released an updated gun policy today. Some will call this a victory; we strongly disagree.
Facebook’s new policy continues to allow unlicensed sellers to advertise guns for sale – a policy we have told Facebook makes it far too easy for dangerous people to buy guns without a Brady background check.
Share your disappointment with Facebook and tell them prohibiting unlicensed sellers from posting guns for sale will help prevent dangerous people from buying guns.
While other online communities, like Google and Craigslist, have sent a clear message by prohibiting unlicensed sellers to advertise guns for sale, Facebook continues to put the interests of the corporate gun lobby ahead of public safety.
The solution is simple. Facebook should prohibit any posts that advertise the unlicensed sale or transfer of firearms in the United States.
Because you and I both know it’s only a matter of time before a gun purchased through Facebook is used in a terrible tragedy. We can’t let that happen.
Tell Facebook today they need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
Assuming all of the activity is legal, couldn't Facebook face a lawsuit for failing to provide services to a group based on their political beliefs? Haven't we learned that you cannot discriminate as a business against any group?
ReplyDeleteYou mean couldn't Facebook be sued for not breaking the law? I guess they could, but only a gunsuck moron would consider that possibility. Geezus, you folks are paranoid losers.
DeleteANOTHER loss for the forces of death, criminals, and arming the mentally ill.
ReplyDelete. . . arming the mentally ill.
DeleteSomeone's trying to arm you, Pissed-On Lib?
Well, judging by the BMs' declaration of "victory" when Starbucks did not ban guns, and their next declared "victory," straight up lying about having forced a policy change at Staples, it's no surprise that they're once again declaring "victory" this time.
ReplyDeleteThe Brady Bunch, on the other hand, is at least honest enough not to pretend to be happy.
Wow. I knew about their attempt at Staples failing--and I'd heard about someone affiliated with them reporting that they turned in 120,000 signatures instead of the real 12,000 (though that could have been a typo on the person's part). But I hadn't heard about them lying and claiming they got the policy changed.
DeleteThat's just sad.
They clearly have very much taken to heart the lesson that the perception of power is power, so they claim victory everywhere, and hope that most of the public doesn't notice.
DeleteIt's the same reason so many anti-gun folks keep yammering about the supposed decline in the NRA's power.
It turns out it wasn't a lie. It's in today's news. The joke's on you guys again.
DeleteWhat the hell are you yammering about now?
DeleteFacebook issued their policy change today. Wake up, Kurt.
DeleteFacebook issued their policy change today. Wake up, Kurt.
DeleteOh--hadn't realized you were talking about Facebook's "change in policy" that has the Brady Campaign in tears, especially since the lie I referred to was the claim of "victory" in Staples.
You're quite the double-talking flim-flam man, Kurt. Keep shucking and jiving, man.
DeleteYour inability to keep up with the discussion isn't "double-talking flim-flam[mery]" on my part. Functional illiteracy on yours, perhaps, but there's not much I can be expected to do about that.
DeleteEveryone else understood Kurt was talking about the moms lying about staples--reading comprehension--get some!
Delete