Her profile loads, but you'll notice you can't add her as a friend, follow her, or view any associated content like comments or likes. I think this indicates Facebook has banned the user, but I might be misinterpreting stuff caused by her privacy settings.
the more informative blog post [1] doesn't really give any evidence that she was banned -- just locked out of her account and unable to recover it. i don't even see enough evidence to conclusively blame facebook.
As someone who has gone through the exact steps she showed, it’s most likely because FB believes she has more than one account or they believe her account isn’t real in some way.
Ladyada is the founder of Adafruit. Adafruit is a company that sells hobby electronics, micro controllers stuff of that nature. She has a bit of a following in that diy community from her articles and videos.
I'm a fan of Adafruit and dislike Facebook but this post is unprofessional. I understand why she would be frustrated, yet this does not seem like the appropriate way to respond.
Facebook banned our founder Ladyada. Nothing public, just trying to log in and manage our company page. We reached out to the people including the CTO, no reply, so that’s that.
[ screenshot of "content not available" fb error ]
11 years ago, Limor was doing electronics, Mark Zuckerberg was doing other things. 7 years ago, same thing.
2010 Zuck: "I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend’s Name]: What? How’d you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don’t know why. Zuck: They “trust me” Zuck: Dumb f*cks"
> screenshot of what seems to be zuck joking about ugly people
I wonder if that’s the case? The blog post was made on a Tuesday just after the times shown and the screenshot references being drunk. Could be coincidence, but maybe not?
When you play in someone else's yard don't be surprised if one day they ask you to leave. FB is not your property, you're a guest and they can kick you out anytime they'd like for any reason they'd like.
Agreed. Unless Facebook can provide evidence that a person is misusing/abusing the service, I feel it's entirely reasonable for a person to _expect_ access given how prevalent it is.
Maybe they should even have an external arbitration for such situations (I don't think it's at the level of the courts _yet_).
> Maybe they should even have an external arbitration for such situations (I don't think it's at the level of the courts _yet_).
That expectation would be a false one. It seems like a reasonable expectation but nonetheless the user is powerless if FB decides their social network is better off without you. Why on earth would they allow an external arbitrator to meddle with their property? Why give up any of that power and control?
The only reason FB needs to be reasonable is out of fear of emerging competition if you boot enough people w/o cause.
In many countries, and in many social circles, Facebook can be thought of as a relatively integral part of society. In the same way that internet access has been ruled a basic human right, I think in certain circles, Facebook is getting close enough that they can't hide behind "we don't want you" anymore, and need to acknowledge the fact that they are more like a public utility.
There is a significant difference between 'thought of' and 'are'. In reality fb is not essential to anyone's life, merely by the fact that you need a computing device connected to the internet to access it. If you have internet access you have other means to communicate with people that are not reliant on fb. There is no way in the near term that fb will be governed as a utility, and I believe doing so is more harmful than not because that will only force fb to exist in the future with government protection vs letting the market determine if a new/better/different social network can arise.
FB can definitely have an effect on your life, but it is not essential to your life. Not an essential utility. You can be turned down for a job due to an infinite number of reasons not directly related to the work itself. I do not see how this means it should or should not be governed or self-regulated though?
Does anyone else get the feeling this was potentially a drunk post? The incoherence and rambly nature make me think the poster was potentially intoxicated when posting.
27 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 67.5 ms ] thread[1] https://blog.adafruit.com/2017/10/18/facebook-update-removed...
There is very frustratingly little information on this article.
The OP was written with Phillip Torrone's account
Copying it here
---
Facebook banned our founder Ladyada. Nothing public, just trying to log in and manage our company page. We reached out to the people including the CTO, no reply, so that’s that.
[ screenshot of "content not available" fb error ]
11 years ago, Limor was doing electronics, Mark Zuckerberg was doing other things. 7 years ago, same thing.
[ screenshot of what seems to be zuck joking about ugly people https://imgur.com/a/K9M4y ]
2010 Zuck: "I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend’s Name]: What? How’d you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don’t know why. Zuck: They “trust me” Zuck: Dumb f*cks"
Maybe someone's been drinking behind the keyboard again?
I wonder if that’s the case? The blog post was made on a Tuesday just after the times shown and the screenshot references being drunk. Could be coincidence, but maybe not?
FB would probably rather regulate themselves than be deemed "a public good" or "necessity" and have someone else do the regulating.
Maybe they should even have an external arbitration for such situations (I don't think it's at the level of the courts _yet_).
> Maybe they should even have an external arbitration for such situations (I don't think it's at the level of the courts _yet_).
That expectation would be a false one. It seems like a reasonable expectation but nonetheless the user is powerless if FB decides their social network is better off without you. Why on earth would they allow an external arbitrator to meddle with their property? Why give up any of that power and control?
The only reason FB needs to be reasonable is out of fear of emerging competition if you boot enough people w/o cause.
My past employers have in the past rejected candidates due to a FB profile (i.e., candidate had dangerous-looking pics in his/her public image).
Wouldn't you say FB as a cause for getting rejected for a job impacts one's life, non?
Of course the employer never said a thing about candidate's FB profile, just "declined to proceed".
Your vision of corporate property rights being inalienable is not based on evidence.
On an unrelated note, be sure to check out the unique and awesome captcha they use at the bottom of the page!
Ask HN: Why does FaceBook insist on attaching business account to personal one? | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15492981 (Oct 2017, 8 comments)
>thisone: once I try to access anything in the dev pages, my account gets locked, I have to submit a photo, wait two days, my account is back