Anti-cycling Facebook page gains 32,000 fans (Page 2)

This user's post has been ignored.

The case law for free speech roundly rejects speech that incites acts of violence or disturbs the public order, therefore this page is not protected under the first amendment. But in order to bring it to the government's attention, there needs to be a suit filed against Facebook, the creator of the site or all 3. The government has bigger fish to fry than monitoring Facebook. I agree with some of the previous folks in that we should just flood the Facebook flaging system until they take it down.

Facebook is a private business and their customers have a right to tell them what kind of environment they'd like FB to have. If FB doesn't listen to its customers, then it won't have any.

That said, I'm of the "don't give the group any more publicity" frame of mind. 

Cyclists Against Reckless Drivers Foundation posted this on Facebook:

Facebook's Simon Axten told us the group has been reviewed and deemed kosher by the company's staff. Presumably the reason they are not removing this group boils down to how one interprets the phrase "actionable threats of violence." Here's Axten's explanation:

We take our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities very seriously and react quickly to remove reported content that violates our policies. Specifically, we're sensitive to content that includes hate speech and/or actionable threats of violence. The goal of these policies is to strike a very delicate balance between giving Facebook users the freedom to express their opinions and beliefs, even controversial ones, and maintaining a safe and trusted environment.

We've reviewed this group and determined that it doesn't violate our policies. We encourage users to report anything they feel does violate these policies using the report links located throughout the site. Thanks.

Found the entire article.

I sent them a second request, and thought I'd share it, especially given the fact that there was a recent case in LA, where a person received 5-years for vehicular assault for running 2 cyclists off the road in a fit of rage. Perhaps they will listen to this one? Marc Watson is a winner by the way

TO FACEBOOK:

This page promotes and advocates violence against cyclists. It is no different than discussing shooting up a school. They are discussing and plotting vehicular manslaughter on this page. A very legitimate crime. I know that there are many people that have reported this page based on the discussions on Beginner Triathlete, a forum I belong to, however you have failed to act on removing it. In the event that one of these people does end up committing a crime against a cyclist, you will have supported the discussion and planning of such an event. You can find information on a recent case in LA, where a doctor received a 5-year prison sentence for assaulting two cyclists with his car. (http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/01/news/l-a-road-rage-doctor-gets-five-years_102274)

By keeping this page alive for 32,000 people, you are supporting the open discussion of criminal activities.

Furthermore, the page is littered with inappropriate language and death threats, which was one of the first posts I saw from the front page:

"Marc Watson: chris u f*cktard ill give u a go c*nt i drive with a shank knife and a f*ck hathet c*nt ill kill u you f*ckin idiot just another dumb f*ck cyclist thinkin he owns the road my patrol make a blob of flab on the ground outa you dumb f*ck"Please remove this page immediately. You are foolish for continuing to allow this to continue on your website.

Best regards,

Triscott26

Facebook-just another glimpse into how close to legally retarded the general public really is.

How about everyone on here becomes a "fan" of There's a perfectly good path right next to the road you stupid cyclist!  and then post on their discussion page?  And what would we post about which would be most effective? 
a. Trying to reason with idiots? (as big of a waste of bandwidth as an abortion debate) 
b. Counter arguing, threatening, talking tough? (adding fuel to their fire) 
c. Participating and encouraging ("yeah" "+1" "stupid cyclists in their sissy tight pants!") (adding more fuel to the fire)
d. Or perhaps hundreds of mild, boring, calm, positive responses saying "share the road", "have a nice day", "give cycling a try, it's still as much fun as when you were a kid", until people become so tired and bored with the whole thing the issue just quietly fades from interest. 
e. Or let's "do nothing", I give this whole issue about 12 more minutes of it's "15 minutes of fame" before it's completely forgotten.  

Facebook page There's a perfectly good path right next to the road you stupid cyclist! now has 34,612, while I prefer to ride my bike in the street so deal with it you stupid motorist! now has 1,457, and HELP REMOVE this HATE GROUP against cyclists! now has 25,811.  All of these numbers have increased by more than 10% in the last two days (though there are many duplicates).  Of course facebook isn't going to do anything, they've got a horse race going on.  It's like having The Donald feuding with Rosie!  The issues are unimportant.  If some redneck side swipes a cyclist tomorrow that's an "unrelated incident" (collateral damage).  The real issue is ratings, publicity, advertising click throughs!

Anyone else sense that we are pawns in all this?

Next year it will be the model train hobbists against the cat lovers!  Or whatever, this was the oddest combination I could come up with.

Give a man a bike he'll be happy all the way from the pawn shop to the liquor store.  Teach a man to bike he'll be fit and happy his whole life, except when he's plotting how to sneak the purchase of carbon race wheels past his wife's audit of their credit card statement.  Teach a man to build a website where thousands of people debate hating cyclists and he'll be a millionaire!

Edited by AtlantaBill 2010-01-10 10:03 PM

Both the Pro- and Anti- pages and groups etc. boil down to one thing, and one thing only, once they've determined there's been no policy or content violations; every additional page view generates ad revenue for them.

I hate the "Remove blah-blah-blah group from FB!" pages.

Yes it's a private organization and can censor what it wants, but IMO censorship is almost never the correct answer. 

So what if a group of people don't like cyclists.  Are any of you surprised about it?  We just have to do our best to follow basic traffic laws and try to kindly correct people when they tell us to get on the sidewalk. 

Never used FB, never will.

this pretty much tells me how rediculous these myspace / facebook pages really are.

If it were just an "I hate cyclists" group, I doubt you'd see this reaction.  There are multiple people, images, posts, etc. within that page that advocate violence towards cyclists.  THAT is why you're seeing this kinda reaction.

Try to start an "I Hate Wheelchairs" group and advocate tipping them over and off wheelchair ramps and see how long that stays up.

i think its so retarded to join a page.  seriously how much can you hate someone on the bike?  people need to grow a brain. 

wondering what would happend if i started a page that said "i hate cute puppies" would FB shut it down.  i am just going to start rediculous pages on FB see if people will join. 

You will get followers... just like "Meow Mix" has followers. 

"There's a perfectly good armchair right next to the layout you stupid cat!" 

According to this logic, most religions would be outlawed.

????
How do you figure this? Most religions have at least a nominal element of universalizable ethics - essentially some version of the golden rule.  The only two exceptions are Satanists and White Supremicists.  It is only the fringe elements that exclude non-group members from the "be decent to one another" philosophy.

I bet if you ask a white supremacist if their group has ethics, they would say that they do. These people firmly believe that the white race is superior and that their position of "advancing the white race" is completely ethical. Some even find support for their position in the Bible, although how they do it I don't know. And no, I'm not defending them at all. I'm simply pointing out the problems of banning groups. Who gets to decide what is ethical? And please don't say that it's what the majority thinks because you may not necessarily like what the majority thinks.

While I completely agree that this anti-cycling group is odious, it is not the same as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

What would happen if I posted on their wall or started these FB pages:

"There's a perfectly good country south of the border you stupid Mexicans" or "There's a perfectly good place in hell for you stupid homosexuals"....

I'd get banned in a heart beat!!!

I think the lack of action by the Facebook admins shows where they stand on this issue. Sad.

looks like the group was removed from FB...good work all who contributed!

Good!  Thanks Facebook.  Unfortunately the removal of the page doesn't change the views of all the people that joined it.

Still there when I click on it.  They just changed who is allowed to post there since there was a flood of pro-cyclist comments on there lately.  Can't have all that positivity.

Oh, it seems like it is back up then  It definitely wasn't there this morning!!!  I guess I'll take back that thanks to Facebook then.