More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Belinda Etezad Rachman

Belinda Etezad Rachman

Posted: April 12, 2010 02:53 PM

When Facebook Dumps You, What Can You Do?

What's Your Reaction:

When actress/singer/performance artist, Ann Magnuson posted photographer Austin Young's artfully done recreation of the 1974 Roxy Music album, "Country Life," as her Facebook profile photo on Monday, April 5, 2010, she had no idea of what the consequences would be on Wednesday, April 7, 2010. On that morning her husband, architect John Bertram, started receiving Facebook emails asking why Ann's page was missing. Soon the viral word was spreading that Facebook had taken away Ann Magnuson from our midst. Let there be panic, action, organizing and protest. Suddenly over 4,000 friends and over 1,000 fans had no contact with Ann unless you had her email, and she had no way to reach us. No more tales of private parties at the old Magic Castle or other posts on her interesting activities. Word spread so fast that day that blogger Richard Metzger of Dangerous Minds gave over his space to Ann so she could put up a post about the situation and he gave her the following introduction:

"Dangerous Minds pal Ann Magnuson was rather unceremoniously booted from Facebook this morning? If Facebook wants to look seriously unhip, picking on someone as awesomely cool as Ann Magnuson would seem to be the right way to go about it. But I'll let Ann explain."

Ann went on to speculate as to what she thought happened to her. As soon as this blog was posted, fans and friends immediately started commenting on the situation. The very first comment was the inspiration for what happened next.

Marc Campbell wrote that when Mikal Gilmore (writer and senior editor at Rolling Stone) had been booted off Facebook for posting a 1960s album cover of a topless Joey Heatherton on his wall, he had started a Mikal Gilmore Group Page to pressure Facebook into reinstating Mr. Gilmore. He suggested that someone do the same for Ann.

When Thomas Negovan read the post he did exactly that and threw up a Facebook page, Reinstate Ann Magnuson on Facebook (That group has 5,013 members as of this writing). But word was still spreading. Ann reports her fellow performing pal from NYC, Tom Judson, was talking about her situation on a drive time radio program while promoting his new show. A Facebook employee called the show to say he would look into it. Other people with Facebook connections started pulling strings.

By April 8th Ann reported she was having "Facebook withdrawls" and wondering where all her information went? Where were her photo albums? Where were all her contacts?

"I feel like I got yanked out of bed and sent to Siberia in the middle of the night. What is scary is that they never tell you why. You just vanish.'"

By Friday morning, with Ann's profile still missing, it was clear nothing would happen without more pressure being placed on Facebook so I searched the site for any kind of contact information to reach an actual person. What is fascinating is that there is nothing in the way of a Contact Us button but there is massive amounts of info regarding the taking out of Facebook ads. If you want to give them money, they are absolutely available to you, but try and find someone to talk to about a Facebook eviction and you are on your own.

Next strategy, google Facebook. The Wikipedia entry said that Sheryl Sandberg was the COO. I Googled her and found she is on the list of 50 most powerful women, but I also found a Facebook link. It took me to a place on Facebook I had never seen before called the Press Room. Now all of a sudden there were contacts galore to reach the Facebook press office, so at 8:30 a.m., I asked for a statement for this Huffington Post story about why Ann Magnuson was ejected from the site with no notice or warning.

At approximately 10:15 a.m. on Friday morning, Ann's page suddenly appeared, minus the "offending" photo. We will never know exactly what motivated Facebook to restore Ann's page but it raised a lot of questions about what is and isn't "appropriate content". Just like the old raunchy 42nd street, with it's peep shows and strip joints gave way to the child friendly Disney world of today, Facebook feels compelled to make everything "kid friendly." Those who agree with Bill Maher that the world should not be reduced to its lowest common child denominator find it constricting to abide by arbitrarily enforced rules that limit creativity. One must look to Facebook's legal counsel to get a clue as to who is setting the rules.

The VP and General Counsel is a guy named Ted Ullyot. He was George Bush's Deputy Assistant and he was also Chief of Staff at the Justice Department. He was U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia's law clerk when he left Harvard Law School. I would not bet against someone who said this guy is probably best friends with people who admire Dick Cheney. Is it any wonder there is no recourse when one is "rather unceremoniously booted from Facebook?" Should we be surprised that there is no fair process to determine what is or isn't "sexually suggestive content."

After reinstatement a friend suggested Ann check her privacy settings. She reports that she was shocked to discover that she had neglected to "click Friends Only."
"I didn't realize I had to redo my privacy settings yet again after Facebook's upteenth 'facelift.' And while I'd hate for innocent tots to be exposed to the 'horrors' of Seventies-era Roxy Music spoofs, the Kardashians are probably exposing them to worse daily."

Ann is being quite the lady about the whole brouhaha, now questioning whether or not this was the "best thing to post." But she says the lesson she learned is that there is nothing private, that this is her "wake up call to always be aware that I am not in my living room with friends where I can say anything I want."

She feels we might be just an "eensy weensy bit naïve" to treat the Facebook corporation as anything but "They are a business after all", she reminds me, "Plus, we did click on that box agreeing to those 'terms' Having said that it is a bit like a lopsided relationship where you, a little too late in the game, suddenly realize they know everything about you and you know really nothing about them! Haven't you handled divorces where that is the case? When one side has all the incriminating information and the other party is left holding the WTF bag?"

True, but at least when you are getting divorced, you may not see it coming, but there is oversight and a process that allows you to have input. What a helpless feeling it must be to have your Facebook life disappear, with no notice, not being able to save anything. For Ann and those of us who love to follow her on Facebook, there is a happy ending but the overwhelming majority of people whose Facebook account is terminated are not so lucky. We are their customers who generated an estimated income of $550 million for Facebook in 2009. One would think that before an account was terminated, the party would have an opportunity to defend oneself or at least have a way to save content and contacts before being cast into outer darkness.

"When I posted on the (Reinstate Ann Manguson) page "We are a community, not a series of binary codes." Thomas Negovan told me, "I meant that we should not be policed by robots who haphazardly make decisions that, when we try to communicate with the establishment, is like screaming into a digital abyss. This shift from human customer service to webcrawling digibot is far too representative of what our culture has become."

 

Follow Belinda Etezad Rachman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/belindaesq

 
 
  • Comments
  • 28
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janmarbol
Unapologetic Independent Progressive
10:20 PM on 04/21/2010
You want MORE proof than this?! Look at this page, it's a huge group calling for "Obama to die" Is facebook KIDDING? They make a ruckus over that picture but yet this hate group is allowed? Do you see what I mean? One thing is being against a government administration, but another is this. Liberals wanted to impeach Bush. These are calling for Obama's death. Who is to say that one lunatic on here won't take this serious?

http://www.facebook.com/pages/DEAR-LORD-THIS-YEAR-YOU-TOOK-MY-FAVORITE-ACTOR-PATRICK-SWAYZIE-YOU-TOOK-MY-FAVORITE-ACTRESS-FARAH-FAWCETT-YOU-TOOK-MY-FAVORITE-SINGER-MICHAEL-JACKSON-I-JUST-WANTED-TO-LET-YOU-KNOW-MY-FAVORITE-PRESIDENT-IS-BARACK-OBAMA-AMEN/111712585523370
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janmarbol
Unapologetic Independent Progressive
02:28 PM on 04/19/2010
Being dumped by Facebook would make me happy. I would send them a thank you e-mail.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
heariam
05:19 PM on 04/16/2010
I got booted off of fb for some reason the other week I haven't figured out why yet. I sent them email and my account was back in about 10 minutes.... go figure.... i don't curse and everyone i talk to is family except a few and i don't except just everyone that want's to be my friend. all they send me is invites to games and i'm not a gamer so i don't have anything in common with them...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janmarbol
Unapologetic Independent Progressive
09:24 PM on 04/16/2010
see if you can skim through these posts and you find any helpful information:
http://getsatisfaction.com/facebook/topics/who_to_contact_when_facebook_ignores_you
04:46 PM on 04/16/2010
Oh, America. You confused, poor, pathetic, prude. Get over it! Let's go away now, too, Facebook.
You have had your sorry day.

Don't fight to be part of a club that won't have you as a member.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing is laughable. You can see some of the most alarming porn online within seconds, even without trying (look up teabagging, why don't you, for a mild example).

Censorship is alive and well, I see. Ann Magnusson is a performance artist. ART.
photo
ColdSnowMan
Global political pundit wannabe amateur
09:01 AM on 04/14/2010
I found the photo. I'm not surprised Huffington Post wouldn't run it either.

It is a bit racy and not G-Rated.

That is the thing, public photos in Facebook are supposed to be G-Rated.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janmarbol
Unapologetic Independent Progressive
09:53 PM on 04/14/2010
Well, if it's supposed to be G-rated, then why is Ms Kardashian's derriere plastered on Facebook in see through panties, full blast, in your face type thing?

Furthermore, Ann's pic is not that 'racy'. What's racy about it? They're covering every inch that could 'offend' the "faint of heart". And it's artistic.

Go to the mall. Have you ever seen Victoria Secrets humongous window displays? Are they more 'modest' than her pic? I don't think so... and those are publicly displayed to everyone of all ages.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
JScott
John Galt's last name is McGuffin-Smithee
01:00 AM on 04/14/2010
That's why my facebook profile doesn't have my real name on it even to those who are friends because after all (I think i read it here) that they essentially own everything you put on your profile page....so one thing they are NOT going to own is my name.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janmarbol
Unapologetic Independent Progressive
09:55 PM on 04/14/2010
lol, I went by a pseudonym myself for the longest time (until recently) FB does stuff that makes people paranoid. They're just not 'kosher'.
01:06 PM on 04/16/2010
my pseudonym profile was disabled last week. i only created the profile in order to administer my fan page. now i have no access to my fan page.

i've been going back and forth with "Josephine" at appeals@facebook, but i think i'm conversing with a computer program because Josephine can't seem to comprehend simple concepts like "I only want to access my fan page."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janmarbol
Unapologetic Independent Progressive
12:39 PM on 04/13/2010
sorry, the link to "Facebook Principles" I posted here is not working. Here is the correct link:

http://www.facebook.com/principles.php

Please pay close attention to #1, #5 and #7 -
and note that #5 refers to "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities" (that is vague)

This was the group friends set up for me when it happened to me. I didn't have 4K friends to come to my rescue :) but as you see some people made comments that this was happening to them as well.
http://www.facebook.com/principles.php#!/group.php?gid=90909071679
01:08 PM on 04/16/2010
i'm guessing that saying "We say "F$@# you Facebook", we want our friend back (in full function version!)" is not going to help your cause.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janmarbol
Unapologetic Independent Progressive
09:27 PM on 04/16/2010
no, but by then my posting privileges had been already revoked days prior, so who cares... that group page was created after the fact (and I sincerely doubt FB even noticed it with all of 18 members lol)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janmarbol
Unapologetic Independent Progressive
11:49 AM on 04/13/2010
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/note.php?note_id=421663771153
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janmarbol
Unapologetic Independent Progressive
11:48 AM on 04/13/2010
Again, Facebook is very, very vague about what you can or cannot post and USE that vagueness as an excuse to get you. People can't guess.

You see, by being vague, they can censor you for something totally stupid and on a whim (supporting ulterior motives) I'm convinced they have vague rules for this purpose. They need to make clear rules. That way there's no confusion as to why an account was banned.

As you posted on here, Belinda, Ann got banned for something really lame whereas there are other pix you included in the article much more graphic but yet allowed by FB.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Belinda Rachman
Fly in the ointment lawyer
12:56 AM on 04/13/2010
The whole idea of me writing this article was to show people how benign the photo was and they did not post the photo. If you have not seen the photo, follow the Dangerous Minds link, then follow the Kardashian link that shows her totally nude ass. Now you tell me, why would FB toss out Ann for posting that lovely homage to Roxy Music but leave Kim's bare rump up? People need to make some noise about this because customers shouldn't be treated like this. Look at what their projected earnings were last year. They only get income like that because of us! REPOST, TWEET UP, etc. etc. Start the conversation going.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:05 AM on 04/13/2010
The difference is someone (or perhaps a concerted few) clicked on the "report" button and reported Ann's recreated photo. Apparently, thus far, no one's done that (or there hasn't been an accumulation of "reports) about K's Big A.

What is also distressing is Ann was not notified with even a "warning" - they deactivated her and that was that. Some people receive warnings to take down the "offending" photo. Even then, if you google around, you'll find many who received the warning one minute and were deactivated the next minute. No consistency at all. It would appear that it's all automated - get enough "reports" and you're automatically deactivated.

However, I will say this - I was on someone fan's page (not Ann's) where a "fan" was posting horrible invectives about various people and I know that I tagged the guy for each nasty post as did others. He was even sending private FB emails threatening those same people. Guess what? He's still on Facebook.

Lastly, as you know, it's not clear if it was indeed the photo or Ann's posts about a current situation in her home state. The email she received from FB reinstating her was not a personal explanation - it was the standard email sent to all who are reinstated after an "incident." It is the Kitchen Sink of Explanations standard from FB. So was it truly the photo - or the vessel used to chill Ann's speech? That's the question we'll never have answered.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janmarbol
Unapologetic Independent Progressive
10:05 AM on 04/13/2010
I am amazed that people aren't outraged at this. I guess if you experience living in a country stripped of democracy (like I once did) maybe these "hints" get to be a little more obvious. What's it going to take, book burning?

This is serious stuff, not only customer service wise (which is a big issue) but who is sitting behind the computer deciding what is 'too graphic'? Who's Mr./Ms. Censor and why does that person decide what I can or cannot see?

And like Charity says, I've also seen/tagged hate speech and horrendous photos and they're still there (posted by internet trolls). I've also tagged pages that violate privacy- still there...and believe me, FB retaliates when you complain. They'll take away privileges or ban you and give you no reason. End of story- suck it up.

When I was not allowed to comment, I tried waiting a few minutes to comment again, and got a warning again... then hours, tried to comment, got another vague 'abuse' warning and a 'try later'. Then, I waited til the next day. Another warning. This went on for days, then weeks. I wish I knew what 'try later' meant to them. Was it hours, weeks, months, years? I think they actually get a kick out of this little game.

Does anyone remember the [threat] poll about Obama? I (and others) reported that to FB, nothing was done. We then reported it to USSS that's when the poll was removed. Hmm
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:36 AM on 04/13/2010
Excellent article.

I'm sure others would agree that it's time for FB's 15 minutes to be up. There are droves of us who would like to jump ship if something similar would come along. I'd gladly take my hundreds to another site, and I'm sure Ann would take her 4,000, too., and so on and so on....

One word, Zuckerberg (FB creator who stole it from his Harvard buddies): MySpace.

Here today, gone tomorrow. Please, developer kids, bring us something else and let's make Facebook the Pet Rock of the new millennium.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janmarbol
Unapologetic Independent Progressive
11:42 PM on 04/12/2010
Belinda Etezad Rachman = FANNED!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janmarbol
Unapologetic Independent Progressive
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janmarbol
Unapologetic Independent Progressive
11:30 PM on 04/12/2010
BTW, the terms you agree to are VERY vague. They do not post limits. They encourage you (and very annoyingly so) to add friends, post comments, become fans of pages, do this, that, and when you do, they somehow end up charging you with 'abuse'.

Look at their so-called "Principles" http://www.facebook.com/principles.php:
#7 Fundamental Service - They violate this 'principle' DAILY when they block people for posting 'one too many' whatever. And no one does anything about it, not even the FCC or FTC...

They also recently booted a peaceful secular group who advocated for 'separation of church and education'. Where's the ACLU on this? And they know about it. I personally made sure of it.

Their own advertisers post raunchy pics all the time. I also get LOADS of right wing propaganda ads. This goes deeper than videos.

If it weren't that I have a bunch of loved ones abroad, I wouldn't use the site. They bully people all the time and keep you hanging for an answer as to why they block you. It's also funny how they choose what is 'freedom of speech'. Racist comments and hate speech are everywhere on that site, but advocate for progress and they monitor your every move... don't post one comment too many (which you don't know what 'too many' is) that they block you.

Thank you, Belinda Rachman, for the info on who is the VP and General Counsel. I can finally rest my case. :)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
heariam
05:14 PM on 04/16/2010
I don't care how anyone lives their life but I am tired of seeing all the women for women advertisements on the right side of every page I go to and the dating advertisements too..... I know it's not vulgar but they are still there and I have no say about what kind of ads should be posted for me to see, who knows I might use one of the ads if it was something I could use in daily life...

IMHO