[governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil

[Oksana Prykhodko]

Hi, all

Today Facebook blocked accounts of nearly 10 Ukrainian independent
journalists. But, after active campaign in social media and addresses
to Facebook CEO, these accounts were unblocked.

May be it is time to think about ombudsmen for social media - as a
mediator between users and CEO?

Best regards,
Oksana

2012/6/1 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>:
> Hi Marilia
>
>
> On May 31, 2012, at 11:28 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> I am totally in favor of achieving "harmony" on this and other topics. But
> this is a crossborder issue that involves private forces and public
> interest. Tell me the place where we can globally tackle this issue, all
> together, in a multistakeholder fashion and I will be the first to attend
> and try to contribute so that “harmony” can come about. But first we
> probably need to fight for such a space to exist.
>
>
> I guess I'm with Roland and others who'd note that the Internet is not the
> web and the web is not FB, so while FB's TOR are overly paranoid and
> restrictive, there are other places to post stuff, and it's at least
> debatable whether this rises to the level of being global Internet
> governance.  But I have different questions.  In conversations in Geneva and
> here (and the IT4C letter did the same), you've cited FB policies as
> evidence there's an urgent need for enhanced cooperation in the form of
> a platform under the UN.   But why not organize an online campaign---per
> ACTA SOPA PIPA—of fellow FB users to put pressure on FB directly (and for
> that matter, use the IGF in parallel to stoke the debate), rather than
> creating a centralized uber mechanism responsible for this and all else?
>  Why do you think a WG/CIRP/whatever that would be populated inter alia by
> Geneva reps of the very governments that make FB paranoid in the first place
> would be more likely to agree that nudity is ok and FB should allow it
> without fear of government reprisals?
>
> There are many CS and other actors who share your concerns about individual
> issues---FoE IPR privacy surveillance etc---and the meta issue of
> concentrated power but just have trouble seeing a one-stop shop in the UN as
> the right solution.  Since the case for why it would be really hasn't been
> made in any detail, isn't there a risk that insisting it's the only option
> left-minded people may consider (and in some tellings, that any nonbelievers
> are morally suspect, don't care about developing countries, etc) just limits
> coalition building?  Can we agree that at the Baku pre-event and beyond,
> it'd be useful to work through the relative merits of different
> institutional designs?  Personally, I've always favored WGs in the IGF &
> strengthening/connecting advocacy coalitions working in different spaces
> (although as the APC network of networks effort showed, that's difficult),
> but there are other options, a new UN body being just one.   So let's
> compare and contrast?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t