Dawkins calls out Facebook’s “outrageous double-standard.”

Apr 2, 2013

Mark Zuckerberg & Sheryl Sandberg: Restore peaceful Pakistani FB page; compare to page w/ stoning-to-death how-to.


Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg,

Thank you for your many positive accomplishments. Please reverse the policy under which Facebook shut down a non-violent page of secularists and atheists in Pakistan. This shutdown is not making the world “a more open place.”

Those who wish to crush the human rights of Pakistani secularists protested to Facebook about this non-violent page of an oppressed minority. Facebook supported the bullies — and the non-violent Saaenji page was deactivated:https://www.facebook.com/%C2%ADsaaenji 

This page is in the Urdu language. It was an act of bravery even to create the page.

Meanwhile Facebook has long allowed a page which provides specific image instructions on to how to stone people to death according to God’s law:https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=311857638916798&set=a.119310908171473.13457.102621139840450&type=3&theater

When the stoning page was repeatedly reported to Facebook, Facebook replied that the level of graphic violence is acceptable – yet Facebook backed down to bullies who seek to oppress non-violent minorities. The Pakistani secular page is a voice of non-violent rationalism. Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg, based on your history, we are confident that you are people of good will. This violation of human rights cannot be your personal intent.

We are confident that you will condemn, and reverse, this unconscionable policy immediately. We request that: 
1) the non-violent Saaenji page be reinstated; 
2) the page advocating violence be shut down (or at least have consistent guidelines — See #1); and 
3) policies are created to prevent bullies — mob rule — from crushing the rights – and the voices — of those in a peaceful minorities.

Sean Faircloth, Director of Strategy & Policy 
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science

***************************************************************

To: 
Mark Zuckerberg & Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook 
Restore peaceful Pakistani FB page; remove page with stoning-to-death how-to; set policies to protect minorities from mob rule on Facebook

Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg,

Thank you for your many positive accomplishments. Please reverse the policy under which Facebook shut down a non-violent page of secularists and atheists in Pakistan. This shutdown is not making the world “a more open place.”

Those who wish to crush the human rights of Pakistani secularists protested to Facebook about this non-violent page of an oppressed minority. Facebook supported the bullies — and the non-violent Saaenji page was deactivated: https://www.facebook.com/%C2%ADsaaenji 

This page is in the Urdu language. It was an act of bravery even to create the page.

Meanwhile Facebook has long allowed a page which provides specific image instructions on to how to stone people to death according to God’s law: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=311857638916798&set=a.119310908171473.13457.102621139840450&type=3&theater

When the stoning page was repeatedly reported to Facebook, Facebook replied that the level of graphic violence is acceptable – yet Facebook backed down to bullies who seek to oppress non-violent minorities. The Pakistani secular page is a voice of non-violent rationalism. Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg, based on your history, we are confident that you are people of good will. This violation of human rights cannot be your personal intent.

We are confident that you will condemn, and reverse, this unconscionable policy immediately. We request that: 
1) the non-violent Saaenji page be reinstated; 
2) the page advocating violence be shut down (or at least have consistent guidelines. See #1); and 
3) policies are created to prevent bullies — mob rule — from crushing the rights – and the voices — of those in a peaceful minorities.

Sean Faircloth, Director of Strategy & Policy 
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science

Sincerely, 
[Your name]

Written By: Sean Faircloth
continue to source article at change.org

30 comments on “Dawkins calls out Facebook’s “outrageous double-standard.”

  • I reported a page a while back that contained posts calling for people to be shot just because of the country they came from and for another man to be hanged just because of the colour of his skin. Facebook’s response was that it didn’t breach their T & Cs.. Interesting.



    Report abuse

  • 2
    maria melo says:

    In reply to #1 by loydall:

    I reported a page a while back that contained posts calling for people to be shot just because of the country they came from and for another man to be hanged just because of the colour of his skin. Facebook’s response was that it didn’t breach their T & Cs.. Interesting.

    Where did this happen ? It is criminal, even a thread.

    I invited my friends to sign the petition.



    Report abuse

  • 3
    bridget.cash says:

    I saw a post someone made on a group that they were going to beat their child when the child got home from school. The child’s wrongdoing? It seems that the child walked home from school with one of the neighbor kids, who according to the abusive mom, was gay. So she announced that she was going to beat him to teach him a lesson about befriending gay kids. My response was to ask if anyone knew this mother’s address so she could be reported to the child protective agency in her area. FB sent me a warning message that my comment was in violation of their TOS.



    Report abuse

  • 4
    greenengland says:

    Reply from Facebook following my report . I reported the Islamic photo for graphic violence.

    “StatusPhoto not removed
    DetailsThank you for your report. We carefully reviewed the photo you reported, but found it doesn’t violate our community standard on graphic violence so we didn’t remove it.”



    Report abuse

  • 5
    phil rimmer says:

    Sean, 1 and 3 are the only reasonable claims in your piece here. I’m with Hitch and against the first request in item 2. I want to see and know who my enemies are and what they think. Silencing them (asking they be silenced) is a hostage to fortune in so many ways.

    FB is two-faced, though and should be boycotted for their pathetic act of cowardice.

    EDIT The offensive images (and they really are) are of capital punishment, not simply “violence”. It doesn’t sit well for the complaint about such images to come from the last indecent home in the west of capital punishment, though I am sure you, Sean, will be anti capital-punishment personally.



    Report abuse

  • This is not an isolated incident. A friend of mine is an atheist who lives in Saudi Arabia. He recently posted something about religion and made a comment that there was no god. Then (and his Facebook profile is set to private) he received a message in his inbox from the Mutaween religious police that the post was “haraam,” or forbidden, and demanded that he take it down. He reasoned that FB must allow the Mutaween access all posts made in the jurisdiction to monitor this kind of posting. Mark Zuckerberg…?



    Report abuse

  • Deleting my account now. I will mail everyone on my “friends” list the link to that revolting page. I notice that it doesn’t just give pictorial instructions for killing a woman, it has someone check to make sure she’s dead. Oh, not dead? More stones, please. I have never been so disgusted.
    Steve



    Report abuse

  • I thought I recognized the image. It is from the National Post. It is a Canadian newspaper. The graphic was made to be informative to those in the west who may not know how a stoning is performed. Seems it is no being coopted for barbaric means.

    Report it to the National Post. Hopefully they may be able to use copyright laws to have it taken down. I’ve reported it to them already but the louder our voice the better the odds we can succeed.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/11/20/graphic-anatomy-of-a-stoning/



    Report abuse

  • 9
    neylandboy says:

    I reported this as hate speech/symbols and as graphic violence. It makes no difference, their software just rejects the report and puts the page status to be within their guidelines. These people are sick! That goes for the evil, evil, inhuman fools who produced the page and facebook for not taking it down.



    Report abuse

  • 12
    whiteraven says:

    Isn’t there some value in having available this eloquent testimony to a continuing gift of Islamic and Judaic tradition as counterpoint to their prouder contributions to humanity? Stoning must have been practiced elsewhere, it must predate Judaism and permeate prehistoric traditions of that region, but why does it have such a strong, persistent claim of the mind of those people and that place?



    Report abuse

  • 13
    Alternative Carpark says:

    Note in the infographic the different depths male and female victims are to be buried.
    Women must be buried deeper, up to their necks – lest their breasts become exposed in the course of their slaughter.



    Report abuse

  • 14
    chris 116 says:

    In reply to #7 by Agrajag:

    Deleting my account now.

    I wouldn’t be so hasty. Imagine this scenario: FB stick to their pro stoning pages, whilst anti free speech for secularists position. It’s a no news week and the media run the story for days. Revulsion grows along with the idea of a ‘Close your account on Friday for free speech’ thingy.
    Instead of being a blip on the radar you could be part of a satisfying blob.

    Chris



    Report abuse

  • 15
    QuestioningKat says:

    Sorry to differ from people here, but as horrendous this illustration is, I am OK with it being posted. Knowing that this is what happens, I’m a little wiser (and a bit more heartbroken.) There is something clearly wrong with this practice and it needs to be exposed for what it is. I was under the impression that stoning did not have restraints to the extent depicted in the illustration. I guess I had a naive version from watching Christian Bible movies as a kid; the Mary Magdalene version has left out much.

    Facebook selectively banning some while not others seems very problematic. How do they choose? If they feel a group might incite violence, they stop it whether it is positive or not. ??? It makes me wonder if suffragettes or abolitionists would have been silenced (if Facebook existed long ago) because they were causing a stir which could lead to violence.

    “True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.” Facebook needs to learn to accept a certain level of tension that reaches for a higher goal.



    Report abuse

  • 16
    Vorlund says:

    The instructions are very clear no equivocation or hermeneutics here over the will of Allah. It is a disgusting and graphic depiction of savagery but nonetheless useful and informative. Everyone should be able to see this and how the devout of the cults of abraham’s god conduct their peaceful activities. After all we can’t have people making exagerated or false claims about religions being malevolent or violent.

    I have never had a facebook account, I will not be opening one but thanks to those for drawing our attention to this.



    Report abuse

  • 17
    Apostate68 says:

    Here’s a Facebook page, Islamic World News, calling it’s followers to “be Quick and report to FB about this page”, calling it an “ANTI ISLAM PAGE”. If you read the posts, Islamic World News is clearly anti-Indian and anti-Semitic. Does Mr. Zuckerberg condone that page? Or its organisation of its followers to prevent free speech on a page that doesn’t share its views?



    Report abuse

  • 18
    Agrajag says:

    In reply to #14 by chris 116:

    I wouldn’t be so hasty.

    Maybe I was reacting a bit viscerally. It could also be the case that the page serves more as a highlight to the nasty side (well, most of it) of islam than a “how-to” resource. It certainly could help further alienate rational people from islam.

    And I see that the other page has been reinstalled, so it’s not as much an issue of fairness anymore.

    I’m still deactivating my account, because I rarely look at it and haven’t found it useful.

    Steve



    Report abuse

  • 21
    This Is Not A Meme says:

    In reply to #18 by Agrajag:

    In reply to #14 by chris 116:

    Maybe I was reacting a bit viscerally.

    Not at all. Sounds rational and moral.

    Sanction through omission of action. Even if deleting your account does not amount to a social revolution, it should still be done if that’s how you feel about the issue. A person doesn’t need to be patted on the back or part of a grand strategy to do the right thing. FaceBook makes a lot of money and has a lot of power due to the collective contributions people make with their pages, even if they are rarely accessed because that too is data.

    If you gave to the Catholic church thinking it was a benign charity group, and then found out about its harms, you wouldn’t wait for a mass movement to stop supporting them. Chris 116 is just making up pretend, fantasy, “what-if” scenarios, and that does no good. I wish more people would follow your example. This is not the first egregious abuse of power to come from Zuckerberg. This issue is important to you, but many have pulled out of the system over matters of privacy, security, investments, business chicanery, and other ethics issues.



    Report abuse

  • 22
    Mirthandirxiii says:

    I know very little about facebook, I have no interest in it. My understanding is you can like a page but can you dislike a page? You can at least comment on it right? Basically I am thinking maybe a shaming campaign against the page. Share it with everyone and comment on how barbaric and primitive it is. Dislike if possible. Let them know repeatedly how the rest of the world feels about this practice. Just an idea.



    Report abuse

  • 23
    Reckless Monkey says:

    Something that should be thought about here in relation to this. Facebook owns what you put on it. Read the terms and agreements. You sign over your rights the moment publish anything on this page. This is one way they make money. I teach Information Technology and one of the things I get my students to do is do a vanity search (look for their own names on google). Quite a few are horrified to find pictures of them and their friends along with meta-data attached to their images “getting pissed” etc. This is because the equivalent of ratings on the Internet is clicks, how many hits can your site get. This is used by advertisers to judge how popular a site is. So to get maximum clicks they give your photos etc. to Google images so maximum clicks are obtained when someone is looking for “people getting pissed”. Now this doesn’t happen if your privacy settings are high (although this has been occasionally reset-the cynic in me thinks deliberately). So I wonder if Facebook demands you sign over the rights to what you post does this not make Facebook somewhat responsible for what is on there?



    Report abuse

  • 24
    Anti-theist preacher says:

    the page on stoning is not available any more.. at least not from my computer..
    how can those idiots from facebook condone such a page in the first place.. were they stoned???



    Report abuse

  • 25
    Anti-theist preacher says:

    In reply to #13 by Alternative Carpark:

    Note in the infographic the different depths male and female victims are to be buried.
    Women must be buried deeper, up to their necks – lest their breasts become exposed in the course of their slaughter.

    according to the report: if you can wriggle free during the stoning, you will be set free.. I think that´s the main reason women are buried a tad deeper.. remember that women are even worth less than dogs and pigs in those societies.. so giving them even the slightest chance of being able to set themselves free….would diminish the fun of throwing stones.. they are also wrapped in three sheets of linen or whatever, so exposing breasts won´t happen easily



    Report abuse

  • 26
    gandalftheblack says:

    There is this webpage in facebook named GIBRALTAR ESPANOL run by Spanish fascists, the page is full of racist nasty comments towards Gibraltarians and Brits naming them parasites, pirates, drug smugglers, etc that is if they arent using death threats…the site also has reactment photos of a Spanish invasion of Gibraltar and videos, one of a school play where kids are dressed as Spanish guardia civil murdering three young Gibraltarians and another a video that blames Britain for all the worlds problems that is remiscent of the nazi propaganda videos of the thirties towards the jews. I have complained many many times in facebook, and apparently i am not the only one, but facebook comes up with this stupid answer saying that the site does not vulnerate its hate speech policy
    Thing is the relation up until not long ago between Spaniards and Gibraltarians was cordial, in fact many Spaniards work there, but tensions arose this summer and this site is making the wound deeper with its hate speech, but of course does not think so…



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #26 by gandalftheblack:

    There is this webpage in facebook named GIBRALTAR ESPANOL run by Spanish fascists, the page is full of racist nasty comments towards Gibraltarians and Brits..

    There’s no excuse for ‘nasty, racist comments’ but Gibraltar is on the UN decolonization list and Britain is refusing to resolve the issue. It is of legitimate concern to Spaniards that the British are defying world opinion by maintaining their control over their colony, with the political and economic difficulties that this causes..



    Report abuse

  • 28
    Pabmusic says:

    In reply to #27 by aldous:

    In reply to #26 by gandalftheblack:

    There’s no excuse for ‘nasty, racist comments’ but Gibraltar is on the UN decolonization list and Britain is refusing to resolve the issue. It is of legitimate concern to Spaniards that the British are defying world opinion by maintaining their control over their colony, with the political and economic difficulties that this causes..

    Oh dear! The families of the Inhabitants of Gibraltar have lived there as Britons for almost as long as Euorpeans have lived in the USA, and in fact longer than the USA has been independent. There must be a point to be made there…



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #28 by Pabmusic:

    The families of the Inhabitants of Gibraltar have lived there as Britons for almost as long as Euorpeans have lived in the USA, and in fact longer than the USA has been independent.

    The USA is no longer a British colony but Gibraltar is.



    Report abuse

  • 30
    Steve W says:

    In reply to #27 by aldous:

    In reply to #26 by gandalftheblack:

    There is this webpage in facebook named GIBRALTAR ESPANOL run by Spanish fascists, the page is full of racist nasty comments towards Gibraltarians and Brits..

    There’s no excuse for ‘nasty, racist comments’ but Gibraltar is on the UN decolonization list and Brita…

    The UK government position as I understand it, is if Gibraltarians vote in favour of joining Spain, then the UK government will accept that position. My understanding of the Spanish government’s position is that it has more benefit in making a fuss over Gibraltar than actually persuading the Gibraltarians to become Spanish citizens.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.