TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012 ... ghazi-Gate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to this story, Facebook censored a post that pretty much said "the SEALS were there when Obama needed them, but when the SEALS needed Obama, they were denied"

Has anyone else been censored for anti-Obama posts? I know from my liberal friends on Facebook the anti-Romney posts are certainly not censored.

Not from mine or any of my friends' pages.

Hogwash.... Nothing from my page, or any other I see has been censored. ..

Yeah... I'm inclined to think this is made-up, exaggerated, or a coincidental glitch.

philip964 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012 ... ghazi-Gate

According to this story, Facebook censored a post that pretty much said "the SEALS were there when Obama needed them, but when the SEALS needed Obama, they were denied"

Has anyone else been censored for anti-Obama posts? I know from my liberal friends on Facebook the anti-Romney posts are certainly not censored.

I have posted a variety of anti-obama stuff on FB and don't know of any of it being censored.

I've seen the post at least 8 times....easily

I don't know what the deal was, but I posted that same picture where it says "when Obama called the SEALs" and "When the SEALS called Obama" lastnight... this morning that picture is GONE from my facebook.
I don't know if its a glitch or what but I am closer than ever to deleting my account. Its the only way my relatives get to see pictures/video of the new baby.

Its not all made up for sure. Something is happening. The most likely issue is that people are "flagging" or "reporting" those images and then they are deleted.

Maybe related, but Mike Gallagher said he tried to advertise his book "50 Things Liberals Love to Hate" on Facebook, and the ad was rejected. After he talked about it on his show for a few days, he said FB contacted him and said the rejection was the result of an error.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/eri ... _blog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ok this is from the Washington Post not the conservative Washington Times. Facebook has admitted human error in the censoring of the SOS Facebook page.

Apparently it did not violate any of Facebooks guidelines and the two deletions and the 24 hour "timeout" were in error. It was human error not a computer scan error. So an individual at Facebook did it. Why. The article speculates it was because of complaints from the Obama campaign.

What the SOS folks did was very in your face, they tagged the Obama photo with the Obama campaign's facebook page, so it would show up there as well.

So for those of you who have not been censored by Facebook for your Obama rants post a photo and then tag Obama's campaign page. Apparently that will do the trick.

I posted the link to the Breitbart article to see if it stays up or gets censored. It is pretty in your face as it directly points the finger at Facebook for censorship and at the same time slams Obama (rightfully so in my opinion) for his mishandling of Benghazi.

I posted a link to the Washington Post story which has a nice picture of Osama and Obama. So far its still up.

I think Zuckerman should post his tax returns,,,both of 'em.

philip964 wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/eri ... _blog.html

Ok this is from the Washington Post not the conservative Washington Times. Facebook has admitted human error in the censoring of the SOS Facebook page.

Apparently it did not violate any of Facebooks guidelines and the two deletions and the 24 hour "timeout" were in error. It was human error not a computer scan error. So an individual at Facebook did it. Why. The article speculates it was because of complaints from the Obama campaign.

What the SOS folks did was very in your face, they tagged the Obama photo with the Obama campaign's facebook page, so it would show up there as well.

So for those of you who have not been censored by Facebook for your Obama rants post a photo and then tag Obama's campaign page. Apparently that will do the trick.

Another possibility is simple the "scale" of the posts. It would be interesting to know how large the audience is for those who have had posts removed versus those who have not. It could be that FB only pulls the ones that might get a lot of attention.

As far a why this SOS post was pulled....it could just be a matter of another angry liberal making things right for The One --the same attitude as those who deface and steal Romney signs in people's yards, but thinks he or she is more effective on a larger scale.

philip964 wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/eri ... _blog.html

Ok this is from the Washington Post not the conservative Washington Times. Facebook has admitted human error in the censoring of the SOS Facebook page.

Apparently it did not violate any of Facebooks guidelines and the two deletions and the 24 hour "timeout" were in error. It was human error not a computer scan error. So an individual at Facebook did it. Why. The article speculates it was because of complaints from the Obama campaign.

What the SOS folks did was very in your face, they tagged the Obama photo with the Obama campaign's facebook page, so it would show up there as well.

So for those of you who have not been censored by Facebook for your Obama rants post a photo and then tag Obama's campaign page. Apparently that will do the trick.

I had my FB posting privileges partially suspended a few weeks ago because some liberal objected to one of my comments as spam.......on a fellow conservative's FB page. I was told I was suspended, and that there was no recourse. I was also told that if I stopped posting for a while, my privileges would eventually be restored. I was also told not to bother trying to contact FB as they would not respond to my messages. I was able to post on my own timeline, but not on anybody else's. So I posted a rant about FB. A lot of my FB friends responded, and so I was able to carry on "conversations" with them that way. About 4 or 5 days later, my full privileges were mysteriously restored, with no notification.

The upside is that I had been wasting a lot of my time on FB, and I started wasting a lot less time there. The only reason I really want to keep my account is because I have two business pages on FB that I'd rather hang onto, but if I had to stop posting there entirely, I'd be OK without it.

The Annoyed Man wrote:The upside is that I had been wasting a lot of my time on FB, and I started wasting a lot less time there. The only reason I really want to keep my account is because I have two business pages on FB that I'd rather hang onto, but if I had to stop posting there entirely, I'd be OK without it.

I have deleted my FB account a couple of times. I think the novelty has worn off for me.