[governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil

Fri Jun 1 23:42:59 EDT 2012

Similar happened in HK yesterday and about 10 social activists including
one opposition legislator had their fb accounts suspended for a few hours.
 I contacted fb public policy people and around the same time their
accounts gradually came back unblocked.  fb has not provided clear
explanation of the reasons.

English report: (paid content)
http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=445f1383709a7310VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&ss=Hong+Kong&s=News

Widely reported in Chinese newspapers also.

Charles

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:00 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Oksana,
>
> Why/on whose orders/recommendation were they blocked?
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Oksana
> Prykhodko
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 6:24 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake
> Subject: Re: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in
> Brazil
>
>
> 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
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120602/e750253b/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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