Zuckerberg Is Keeping the Wrong People off Meta Platforms – Registered Sex Offenders
As a result of a statewide survey of Florida law enforcement agencies that found that 146 out of 271 reported instances of social media platforms used in human trafficking were attributable to Meta platforms, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody is demanding that Mark Zuckerberg explain the high volume of human trafficking across Meta platforms.
Moody stated that these findings were extraordinary. They are extraordinary when you consider that over half of these reported instances in human trafficking used a Meta platform – platforms that people who are registered as a sex offender are not allowed to use.
So, the safeguards are not working. The registry is failing the public again because the overwhelming number of future sex offenses will be by people NOT on the registry who are currently allowed on these platforms.
Think about it: A group of people is NOT allowed on Facebook, etc., yet the 90+% who will be committing future sex offenses and are not on the registry are allowed.
Moody and Zuckerberg need to understand that what they are doing is not working, i.e., not allowing people with a past sex offense who are not sexually re-offending to be on Meta platforms. Until they understand the research, they will never come up with a solution to fight human trafficking.
The “Public safety threat” is making policies NOT based on research.
I have a question, since when a sex offender cannot go on Facebook? there is no law against that, as long as you submit your ID you are ok. Moreover the supreme court said that sex offenders cannot be ban from social media. so where is this coming from?
This is coming from facebook’s own terms of use. It is not new.
It’s long been Facebook/Meta’s own terms of use, not something the government mandates. It was probably put into place because half the reason why Myspace fell apart was because of a supposed prevalence of “pedophiles” who were luring children on the website at the peak of the “To Catch a Predator” hoopla.
Joy, the 2016 Packingham vs North Carolina Supreme Court decision said that governments can’t pass laws denying access to social networking sites–a free speech issue. This does not constrain private entities like Facebook.
And I don’t see why we sue Facebook. Many utilities and public services due business on their Facebook book page but we are barred from accessing this information. They treat it has a public forum it’s run as a public forum but it’s considered private. I don’t see how when it’s a public traded company.
How are we to voice our first amendment rights when you are barred from even interacting on the government Facebook forum. Let alone Facebook “Marketplace” kind of interesting they named it that since the intended it to serve as a digital marketplace. But we being barred from entering into the marketplace are facing modern Jim Crow laws in a digital marketplace. Barred from interacting with the rest of the community of exchange of goods and services.
https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/hate-speech/ From there terms and services “That is why we don’t allow hate speech on Facebook. It creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion, and in some cases may promote offline violence.
We define hate speech as a direct attack against people — rather than concepts or institutions” seems to me that there encourage hate speech by disallowing all speech by exclusion against us.
Be careful what you ask for, Eugene. I could see a solution where social media sites allow registrants but place a notice saying “registerd sex offender” on their profiles. That may sound far-fetched, but we’ve seen it on US passports, driver licenses, and similarly with stars of David on Jews in Nazi Germany. Afterall, registrants would not be banished from the marketplace, and the public still “protected.” This could easily be justified as no more punishment than the registry itself.
Humans can be extremely protective of their beliefs and will often dig in their heels when those beliefs are challenged, even in the face of objective data. Sometimes a direct frontal assault can be counterproductive, and drive the opposition to even more radical responses. The obvious and rational solution to the social media question would be to eliminate the registry entirely.
Fdle definitely send stbe information to FB. Years ago Inhad. FB page. As soon as FDLE started collecting the identifiers my account was suspended. I tried to contest it but was told in no certain terms to go to hell.
It’s all about money. Nothing else.
The country I live in did a compliance run on July 6 . I wasn’t home so didn’t see them. They have 5 cop cars with 2 cops in each car. I wasn’t home so missed them. They came by the next day and left a large yellow sign about 1 foot by 2 feet on my front door saying in very large letters “ sex offender compliance check” you could easily read it a block away. I read they made 60 compliance checks with 4 citations and no arrests. They didn’t say how much it costs. What a waste of $.
The next country over did research aided by the FBI to go after sex trafficking about the same time. They made 22 arrests and possibly helped a few victims. There were no persons required to register involved in this sting.
Which of these do you think is a waste and which one is actually doing something?
Interesting…leaving a sign saying what it says on your private property without permission is illegal where I’d use the Butts County, GA case as a foundation for it, where placing a sign was not permissible (https://narsol.org/2022/01/halloween-signs-declared-unconstitutional-butts-county-sheriff-gary-long-appears-to-have-conceded/ & https://reason.com/2022/02/01/11th-circuit-says-a-sheriff-violated-the-first-amendment-by-posting-warning-signs-on-the-lawns-of-registered-sex-offenders/).
It is one thing to do a compliance check, which is another discussion altogether for those one and off paper, but to leave such a notice is another. I would say the court could find there are least restrictive means to leave such notices (no, not in the mailbox which is illegal too) of those being checked on that doesn’t violate the 1st Amendment by drawing notice to your domicile in such a manner or leaving no notice at all given the message it is conveying while drawing negative attention to you.
Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen for an atty who is willing to take it on with the 1st Amendment as the foundation, IMO.
What “county” do you live in? In Florida?
Zuckerberg could not care less about who uses his services.
I agree totally. Disallowing registrants is simply a public relations move so that Meta can appear to be doing something to protect the public. From a revenue standpoint eliminating registrants is a no-brainer for most businesses. That is why registrants often can’t find jobs or housing, and why politicians pass idiotic registration laws.
The mere presence of a registry implies that those on it are a danger, and feeds unwarranted fear surrounding former sex offenders. Without registries the public would not be spooked like a herd of wildebeest.
There are people with the “SO” label on FB. They only use it for business.
How are others being prohibited?
I’ll never get back on it again. There’s a reason they changed the name to Meta. They’re data mining every scrap of data on every human on the platform. And the purpose is hugely frightening.
On a related note, I found this humerus yet frustrating. After I moved to Georgia, I called FDLE to have my Internet identifiers removed from their system. The person I talk to said that they couldn’t do that. I asked them if they’re still going to be sending this information to Facebook et al. every few weeks and this person claim to have no idea what I was talking about and said that they don’t do any such thing. I’m not sure if he was lying or just splitting hairs in that they don’t actually send this information to Facebook because Facebook actually requests it. He may have been technically saying oh we don’t send them your name but if they ask about any email, we will tell them. Yes that’s a sex offenders email. But we know the facts. And we have a general idea of how long it takes for you to be removed from the system if you attempt to join.
My understanding is that FDLE has a list of all internet identifiers used by registrants but not attributable to any specific person. So, if you register “bigboba@bobasucks.tea”, Facebook cross references that identifier to their list and kicks you off not necessarily knowing who you are. Just knowing the identifier is registered.
That is how they explained being able to avoid a judge’s order against community and public notification.
Here is where the FB usage becomes a true problem. FB has been publicly touted as the modern day town center. Business takes place there, people meet there, the GOVERNMENT shares data to the people there. My last comment once again shows how prohibiting ANY persons from such sites prevents unaltered sharing of info. Such as, what do to do in an emergency, who to contact, how to contact, you get the idea.
I asked friends of mine with security clearances and was told overwhelmingly they did not use FB or only very limitedly to protect their clearance status. I was then able to influence a group I am associated with to develop a web site that is NOT FB connected for the club use, sharing info, etc. It took two years, but now two fewer groups have a foot print on FB. There are other ways to undermine Zuckerburg and his friends.