Eye laser surgery campaigner burned by Facebook takedown Imagine fighting a big UK company for years for the simple right to campaign fairly online against an under-regulated industry. You go on to win a dispute resolution case probed by Nominet to keep your perfectly legitimate gripe website alive. You also successfully defend yourself against the firm's strong-armed appeals. Then …
FB: "When we receive a proper claim of intellectual property rights infringement, we promptly remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing content."
Dear Facebook,
Please take down Facebook, immediately, while my case winds its way through the courts.
Thanks.
"I do make a point of showing the ads and clicking on some of them from time to time,"
Well yes. I used to consciously permit ads too, till some of the ads got so intrusive that blocking was the best way of restoring some usability to the site. My mouse skills leave a little to be desired, so when a mistaken click in a border area fills the screen with an unwanted fullscreen animated advert, what am I supposed to do?
I'll turn the blocker off every now and again; if things have improved I might leave it off.
I still have a rejected comment submission on my profile on here because it happened to diss a famous recruitment agency that was pushing sponsorship The Reg's way.
I was most miffed at that. I thought The Reg was better than to censor comments in such a fashion.
@RegGuy1
Euro competition? What, someone does your job better or cheaper than you? Shocking. Where is it okay for that competition to come from? A local student from down the road? She might be the next one to try and under-cut you. Or is it the prospect of competition full stop that you're against?
Its just that in my humble experience, if you're decent, you can get a job. For sure maybe that easy-street job from ten years ago isn't so plentiful, but be patient - a time of plenty will soon be here again.
I still have a rejected comment submission on my profile on here because it happened to diss a famous recruitment agency that was pushing sponsorship The Reg's way.
I was most miffed at that. I thought The Reg was better than to censor comments in such a fashion.
Better at what? The Reg is here to make a profit, just like the websites I run myself. What, exactly, did you expect? Do you want The Reg to sacrifice their money so you can rant for free? If someone disses one of my advertisers, I'm going to take action, too. Anyone paying me is showing loyalty to my hard work. I want to reward that.
I understand your position and your need for justice, but - at the end of the day in the real world, these websites - The Reg, Facebook, Twitter, etc. - are out there to make a profit. That keeps the lights on and feeds my family. You and your opinions are not more important than my family. For-profit businesses are not the outlet of social justice you're looking for. I know this doesn't sound "right", but it is the way it is.
I say this gently - if you still want social justice, do it with your own money. Don't demand that others spend theirs to pay for your opinions.
>> Do you want The Reg to sacrifice their money so you can rant for free?
Any why would one person posting a comment cause the Reg to lose their money...
Reg is known as an IT website with an certain style and to be non-conformist. Censoring comments because they offend some advertisers, word will get round. They lose their following, they go bust.
Important point. Yes they are out there to make a profit, but they make that profit from us and as a result we are not powerless, we may be the product but piss off enough of us and we go. Then they are productless and let's see how long they last then.
So if it happens and it's important, get the message across. Enough bad publicity and the tables will turn.
>> if you still want social justice, do it with your own money
Possibly the most stupid thing I've read today and I was on FSTDT earlier.
I have looked at this rejected comment which dates back to August 2013. I am fairly sure the recruitment site was not a customer of ours at that time - although it had been previously for some years.
Personally, I would have accepted your post - but our moderators are particularly vigilant when it comes to potential libel - and sometimes we err on the side of caution. This is understandable as we are responsible under UK law for everything that is published on our site and we do not have resources to check claims made in posts.
If you post on someone else's site, they can take it down at their discretion. Internet forums and social networks are the "Wild West", if a grumpy moderator doesn't like you then tough.
Of course if you are making part of your living through a page on FB it gets murky. Has nobody sued FB for this yet, and at least made it to court?
"if a grumpy moderator doesn't like you then tough."
Under US law in particular, once a moderator gets involved the company is liable for what it misses (Cubby vs Compuserve, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. ) - although there's a safe harbour provision written into the 1996 CDA
It's becoming _extremely_ common to have gripe pages taken down by making bogus "copyright infringement" claims. At some point there's going to be a reckoning - making a false DMCA complaint is a criminal offence but for some reason noone's ever been prosecuted for it.(*)
(*) DMCA complaints are the way these are usually taken down, even if all parties involved are outside the USA. There's a legislated dispute procedure but Facebook and Google don't bother with them.
I disagree. If you open a bake shop and refuse to serve people with brown skin then you (rightly) get trouble from the authorities. Why should it be any different on the net when someone opens a social website that allows anyone to walk in? I can see taking down obvious unlawful or defamatory stuff, but that's not what is being discussed here.
"If you open a bake shop and refuse to serve people with brown skin then you (rightly) get trouble from the authorities."
Only if you specifically don't serve them because of colour, creed or sexual preference [and - cynically - are stupid enough to say so]. That's a prejudice issue, not retail law. Shop owners can refuse service to anyone they like and kick people freely out of their shop. Their shop: their rules. They are not obliged to serve us and a sale is a two-way voluntary contract. I have a friend who owns a shop who has said on numerous occasions that not one person who has said "I know my rights" ever really has. We have a very misplaced sense of entitlement as customers.
"Why should it be any different on the net when someone opens a social website that allows anyone to walk in? "
As fair-minded as I am, I don't believe that any site or shop should be forcefully obliged to serve anyone, or continue serving them if they don't want to. That said, in this case it looks like FB have indeed been unfair in their decision-making. I support their right to make that decision, but not their process.
She is not "making a living", just raising awareness of the unregulated methods that are allowed in the UK. I have spoken with Sasha and it's clear that she is on a crusade to prevent others suffering as she has. Anyone who is considering laser eye surgery should be given an accurate evaluation of the chances of the procedure failing - which any procedure can. However the companies fudge over these numbers and require you to sign away your rights.
It is free to use Facebook.
Therefore, the users of Facebook aren't customers.
If they are not customers, what are they?
Bystanders? Not likely.
Freeloaders? Doubtful, it wouldn't be tolerated for long.
Partners? What a whimsical thought.
The users of Facebook are, in fact, products. They are Facebook's product. As in: "What can we offer you? We can enable you to reach out to 1.2 billion consumers" or "We can offer you lists drawn from our database of 1.2 billion consumers, with extensive consumer / behaviour profiles and other data".
It is the people who 'reach out' to these consumers who are the customers of Facebook.
Certainly don't host your content on them.
Host it somewhere else under your control and link it in, then you never lose anything but exposure.
All the companies I know that do social networking post to one place that is sucked in via RSS to all their Facebook, Twitter, etc. and usually just links with shortlink to their "official" website.
That way you can be "removed" but not silenced.
"That way you can be "removed" but not silenced."
Given she has a web-site and I quote
"comments posted on Rodoy's website opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk"
I think she's already followed that path, it's just that fleecebook and twatter I guess have more prominence in the public's unconsciousness.
@JDX: Agree 100%
Social networking sites give the false impression that everyone with an IP address is your trusted friend and have tricked humanity into thinking that sitting in front of a computer, unkempt and in your underwear is the same as going out and interacting with people face to face.
"These corps are nothing more than privacy slurping, web parasites, arrogant and prepared to ignore morality and law in pursuit of profit."
As opposed to those 'good corps.' who aren't greedy immoral b4stards like big pharma, BAe, Boeing, Walmart, Microsoft, Google and Apple?
Q: I ask again that you provide details of my alleged IP infringement and name of complainant...
A: ... you may want to contact the complaining party to discuss this matter further...
You may indeed but can't until FB fesses up to who it was! FB seems to have rather deliberately missed the point there.
I liked the bit where Facebook said they are "not in a position to resolve a dispute", they know most people cant, or wont, bother getting legal on them, so its a clever fob off.
Perhaps Facebook are under the impression that as part of any take down, the claimant also tells the other party that they have made the request.
You hopefully have a doctor who has your best interests at heart (very rare these days) and will advise on all the risks and whether you are a good candidate for this surgery.
That said, my uncle who lives here in the US has been wearing contacts/glasses since he was a teen. He went for an evaluation and was given the green light. 24 months later he complains of constant discomfort in both eyes and has to use eye drops on a regular basis for his dry eye conditions. He tells me he has close to 20/20 vision but not as good as he had when he wore glasses. He went from being dependent on eyeglasses to being dependent on eye drops. Furthermore, this is considered elective surgery so no insurance here in the US will cover this. He regrets the decision but as it is irreversible he will have to deal with it or have more corrective surgery. He declines of course. He considers himself fortunate after reading some of the other eye surgery disasters.
At one point I too was considering this surgery but I think I will stick to my contacts/eyeglasses. My vanity will have to suck it.
Egg-Aactly! I had some minor procedure done on my eyes some 10 years ago and the surgeon suggested that I could get my vision corrected with a LASIK procedure.
Of course I laughed, the guy asked why, I point to his glasses - and he goes "Oh, yes, but ...".
I still checked the brochure, but then I found in the "terms & conditions" that they would not guarantee that I would get rid of my glasses after the operation. Dodgy - do not want!
"Where there is money involved, and it's elective, where is the incentive for the doctor to have your interests at heart above his/her own interests, namely bank balance?"
Exactly why private medicine should be illegal in any civilized country. Medial staff should be paid a salary with absolutely no options for bonuses. It should be a good salary, mind you.
I used to use some eye drops for a period of about 12 months afterwards after which it was no longer needed (the eye drops are similar to/the same as contact lens solution anyway, so its not much of a hardship). Because my correction was about the maximum of which they were capable of at the time (-9.75, -10.50) I expected some issues, but the advantages of not having to wear two substantial lumps of glass on my nose are substantial, and the cost of the operation has repaid itself many times over in the saved cost of glasses/contact lenses.
Eye surgery does not work out for everyone, but personally I think the small chance of something going wrong is worth taking for the benefit of 15-20 years without need for glasses.
"Eye surgery does not work out for everyone, but personally I think the small chance of something going wrong is worth taking for the benefit of 15-20 years without need for glasses."
I only know two opticians.
Both wear glasses.
Neither are planning on getting laser surgery until it 'gets better'.
That rather makes my mind up on the matter.
I only know two opticians.
Both wear glasses.
Neither are planning on getting laser surgery until it 'gets better'.
My optician wears glasses too. Odd?
I'm very happy for those of you who've had this surgery and experienced both an improvement in your sight and quality of life. I'm also not too proud to admit that I am envious. My problem is this procedure is irreversible. You have to admit you did roll the dice by having this surgery and the odds were clearly in your favor. I gamble with my money, not my health. Glasses/contacts are a pain sometimes but not enough for me to make a decision I may regret for the rest of my life. As technology evolves maybe some day there will be a procedure that will offer a permanent solution with minimal risk. I suspect by that time I will be too old to care.
Anyway if there is one silver lining to my myopia it would be dispensing with reading glasses. I can see up close with razor sharpness simply by removing by glasses/contacts.
This is why I waited til the age of 40, as my prescription had been stable for a few years.
I had similar concerns but it helped that the 3 other people, my dad included, that I knew personally who had had it done had all been successful.
I weighed up the risks against the benefits and looked at the independent stats for my prescription range - over 90% going better than 20/20.
I prepared fully, and did what I could during the surgery to maximise the chances of success.
I can still read fine print in books without issue. Very, very tiny script, such as tiny markings on a cpu, can be a little difficult without a magnifying glass.
The procedure was quiet scary - especially when you are temporarly blind.
But I am very glad I did it.
That's a crock. You gamble with your health every time you eat barbecued food or go outside on a sunny day... a rogue particle could knock a free radical loose. You gamble every time you eat food you haven't prepared or use crockery someone else has 'washed'.
You gamble every time you play sport - a knock could detach your retina or any number of other things.
Having dental treatment has risks too. You gamble that saving your tooth or reducing your toothache is worth the tiny chance of something seriously wrong happening.
As you get older and get a cataract, you gamble that improving your eyesight is worth the small risk of making it even worse.
Heck, even contact lenses have risks.
I had laser surgery at the age of 40.
Best thing ever. I had a relatively mild prescription, -2.5, some astigmatism.
Now I have MUCH sharper vision, twice as good as 20/20 - I forget the nomenclature. I have increased night vision. The only downside is I cannot focus on close things as near as I could before, by a few inches. But this would have been inevitable with age anyway. Long distance sight is pin-sharp, amazing really.
I had dry eyes for about 6 months, now I can hardly remember I wore glasses/contacts at all.
I do agree there needs to be regulation.
Everyone is different, and its true you should have a doctor who would refuse your treatment if you were not suitable, I myself had laser eye surgery, I chose the company carefully and only after a recommendation from a friend (not optical express)
Sure its not for everyone, but I am very happy with my results, I know my eyes will still likely deteriorate, but this gives me many many years until I need glasses daily again (or another surgery of some kind)
I am crossing my fingers they will be able to grow new lenses/corneas by the time it gets too bad so I can get my eyes fully fixed (I dread the years where I'll need reading glasses because my lens hardens...)
There are artificial lenses. I had one implanted recently after having the natural lenses taken out as a kid 40+ years ago because of cataracts. In my case there were complications, and I'm not entirely happy with them, but there are hundreds of thousands of these implants done every year and it has changed many people's lives for the better. So when you're older, you can have your cataract removed and a new lens implanted. Just don't start googling about age-related eye conditions, such as retinal tears and macular holes, you'll just worry yourself into your old age!
For some people it's a dream, for others it's a nightmare.
What kind of nightmare is it? It's one that you see every waking second through your laser damaged eyes.
I know.
I have to wear glasses so that I don't see it.
Recovering from this (self induced) poke in the eye takes a very long time.
I had it done a couple of years ago. I now have better than 20/20 vision. I do sometimes get dry eyes when tired, but that gets sorted out by one of those spray things maybe a couple of times a month. I've also lost some of my previously excellent close-range vision but not to the extent that I need reading glasses.
Do I regret having it done? Not a bit. The drawbacks now are less than the drawbacks of glasses or contacts.
Are there people who end up with ruined eyesight? Yes there are. But you have to balance those against the millions of people who have had successful treatments. I also wonder how many of those with subsequent problems didn't take their eyedrops properly in the weeks after their treatment.
Feel a bit sorry for Rodoy, and I will think twice before having laser surgery now, even without seeing her Facebook page.
The public has been kidded over the years about the nature of "free" internet services. We all thought it was great in the mid 90s when Hotmail gave us free email, and it was. The megacorps rolled out more and more free stuff. We (the techies) got very excited and encouraged everyone to gorge themselves on this wonderful free lunch. We didn't notice the chef subtly changing the ingredients. The public misapprehension about what they are eating is now so massive that even clever people like Rodoy can wander onto Facebook and actually think ...the service offered a "trusted, safe storage medium".. NO. Nobody wants to offer you a "trusted, safe storage medium" for free. Sorry if we (the industry) ever gave the wrong impression.
No. Here is a definition of all free internet sites: they are somebody else's computer. And should be treated as such. That is all you need to know to stay safe. Perhaps Freebook is okay for sharing a few photos you don't care about , with people you don't care about. But I wouldn't even do that.
Campaigners should acquire their own server and self-host it too. I have a server. On a shelf in my bedroom. It depends only on BT and EON electric, and I pay them. However you choose to do it, if you are dissing a megacorp, don't expect free help from other megacorps.
"Google serves up an advert for Lasik eye surgery!"
That's the value of targeted advertising.
And if you click on it for a laugh or whatever, it'll follow you round the Interweb for days,.
That's the value of targeted advertising.
(Apparently if you say something often enough it has to be true).
i was allways told, from being very young, never to look directly into the SUN as it will damage your eyes. In my late middle age i now require glasses to see things close up. Why anyone would have a focused beam of light aimed directly at their eyeballs is beyond my understanding....i'll stick with my glasses thank you very much.
I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or not but its never touted as shining a laser in your eyes.
Its touted as a corrective medical procedure.
Your description is analogous to describing surgery as having your body cut open by a man with a knife, accurate but wilfully unhelpful for the case in hand.
I don't see why this attracted so many downvotes. It is an interesting question and something I would want properly explained to me before hand as well.
Yes it is physics and needs proper engineering including safety mechanics.
Anon because i program software for laser eye surgery devices.
Sadly, within reason, it's Facebook's rules on their site. So if they decide to remove your content, too bad as there's probably something in the agreement you blindly ignored when you signed up for it, which says they can do whatever they like with whatever you post to their site.
I use it as a useful tool to promote my work and my business but never be fooled, they are not interested in giving me a platform to promote even though I pay to advertise, they're more interested in strapping us all down and force feeding us everyone else's content.
Always remember that nothing comes from free in online social networking, "If one dances with the devil, then one must pay the piper."!
Since the campaign is allegedly about regulation for laser eye surgery in the UK I would expect the campaigner to have websites and social media pages that do not name any particular supplier of the service. Or is that not the point...
I guess that wouldn't garner as many column inches in the press if there was no "big business stopped me complaining".
(Safety glasses on)
Right wing hate mongers that openly mock facebook are OK - yes you Britain First.
but
Left wing campaigner who warns people of what can go wrong with corrective surgery isn't.
One has link bait and traffic generating to it's pages and another has an occasional visitor. Seems like a marketing decision to me.
I don't think the OP is saying that Facebook is acting out of political motivations, simply that the Heil Hitler brigade get lots of clicks and therefore make money for Facebook, whereas Optical Express Ruined My Life doesn't get many clicks so they are disposable.
If it was the Optical Express campaign getting all the clicks and the brownshirts getting hardly any - and if the brownshirts were making embarrassing claims against Facebook advertisers - I've no doubt the jackboot would be on the other foot.
I had corrective surgery about 12 years ago. The first company told me they couldn't do the surgery I required (so some do have your interests at heart).
the second company used the new (at the time!) waveform technique and it has, touch wood, been fine over the last 12 years.
The missus who was watching said the worst part was the smell of them burning my eyeball with the laser.
Afterwards I started hearing horror stories of others - would I have it done again. NO
am i glad I had it done and it worked out great. YES
I presume facists are right wing skinheads who, as an additional offence against society, use Facebook.
For those who hadn't noticed, Facebook is located in a country which is veering to the Right at a speed which Putin and his oligarchs can only wonder at. Unfortunately perhaps the only alternative the Left can offer is the Guardian dating website - though this at least might result in a few more left wing kids.
"If the reporting party withdraws their complaint or you obtain a determination of your legal rights, we would be happy to follow up about possibly restoring the removed material." (My emphasis.)
Why on earth would they not restore the material if the original complaint went away or was proved to be groundless?
'Rodoy said she thought the service offered a "trusted, safe storage medium"'
Did the fact that it was someone else's computer not register?
Still, she's getting some benefit of the Streisand effect.
Personally, I'd not think twice about laser eye surgery; I'd think an infinite number of times. No surgery, no contact lenses. You only get one pair of eyes & it's not worth risking damage when specs are so much safer.
It was safety concerns that prompted me to get my eyes lasered. Hurtling along on a motorbike and being rendered suddenly blind by contacts sticking to eyelid or specs misting up was getting a bit too risky. Yes, I could have swapped the motorbike for a milk float or a harley (hahaha) but that would have been no fun over the mountain.
In the USA you have a constitutional right to know the complaintant.
Sue Farcebook for everything you can and I hope you win. It's the only thing that will ever "get their attention".
HOWEVER, you are not a US Citizen, and you should really create your own regular website and never use Farcebook or other social media for anything critical. If you were in the USA you could use small claims court for about $30 you can sue anyone (almost) for up to $3,000 but you have to prove damages.
Unfortunately, NOBODY has Zuckerberg type money floating around or their lawyers.
This is far too common with these big companies on the net. One of my sites is listed in Symantec's dnsblock "hate site" flagger. I've sent them numerous emails asking them to please tell me what the offending page(s) is and why it gets classified as "hate" of anything, but they will not say.
It seems that most of these outfits simply respond in a rather blunt way to any complaints, which leaves them (and us) wide open to gaming by anyone who takes exception to any legitimate criticism.
Frankly, I would be happy to see the end of these big outfits on the net. They are a waste of bandwidth and becoming ever more insipid and boring anyhow. What happened to the promise of 'democratization' of the net, where everyone can self-publish freely?
This is one of El Reg's recurrent stories I see.
What makes me rather unsympathetic to this person's activity is that:
a) She (or he¹) was not actually a customer of the company being slagged off, but rather a less well-known competitor.
b) The purpose of this person's site / campaign / whatever you want to call it, is purely to portray certain companies in a negative light (clue is in the name). It is perfectly within anyone's rights to do so, but I would prefer more of an informational effort with contrasting opinions and analyses, since personally I do not like slagging anyone off in public--even companies--much less using opinions (aka "testimonials") as opposed to hard facts.
c) Eye surgery is one of those medical / aesthetic procedures that seem to cause a lot of anxiety amongst the general public, and this very much appears to me as an effort to capitalise on that for whatever odd reason. I really do find the site in question rather unhelpful for people considering eye surgery, and really not something that could be considered "in the public interest", as an impartial, balanced site could be.
¹ Incidentally, is the editor here sure that Rodoy is a female? Sasha is a common Slavic affectionate diminutive for Alexey, Alexander, and Alexandra, only the last of which is female. Just mentioning in passing.
Looking at her Youtube effort, if she wasn't born female then her gender reassignment surgeon is a genius.
Eye surgery is something which has such catastrophic potential downsides that unless it really is needed it surely shouldn't be considered. Clearly quite a lot of people need to be told this. Problems with a boob job are one thing, loss of sight is very much another.
Eye surgery is something which has such catastrophic potential downsides that unless it really is needed it surely shouldn't be considered. Clearly quite a lot of people need to be told this.
I was probably one of the first buyers of soft lenses when they came out, and was also approved for RK when it was invented, but I know about materials and cutting soft flexible tissue to a depth of 90% is likely to have consequences so despite the test I said thank you.
When laser eye surgery came out I researched it, because I needed a -5 correction (that translates as not being able to find my lasses without my glasses) and I did not want glasses. I ended up with a London company that had a good process and decent, fully qualified medical staff supervising the process (they're still around, by the way). It is now more than 25 years ago that this was done, and I have loved every minute of that - I still have far sight for driving, just for near sight I need reading glasses.
I would be the first to agree that regulation is needed, but this outfit did it right pretty much from day one - they rigorously filtered out the people that had eye issues so that they could concentrate on the majority that has no problems.
I call troll, she was the recipient of poor eye surgery who by an inept surgeon who was told "tough" when she complained. This matter has been the subject of several investigations, including one that was televised, all of which confirmed her claims which is why she won her court case. Putting false information on this site on behalf of your employer only makes you look small.
> I call troll,
You can call whatever you like.
> Putting false information on this site on behalf of your employer only makes you look small.
And jumping to "conclusions" like that makes you look pretty fucking stupid, Andy.
However if I have said anything that is demonstrably, or at least arguably, false, feel free to correct me.
> Here's a little tip, Optical Express employee.
OMG! I've been unmasked! :-b
Now, assume for a moment that the AC comments above had been posted by someone under direction of one of the actors in this little story (they have not, both are mine, and I always post AC for reasons explained elsewhere). Could you please tell me on what points (if any) you disagree, and how? Many thanks.
the fact that facebook is clearly saying that she's an IP thief. Now, I KNOW that it's not actually theft under UK law, BUT, surely given our very wide ranging and litigant friendly defamation laws, she could legitimately claim ZuckCo is tarring her with a very bad brush
the fact that facebook is clearly saying that she's an IP thief. Now, I KNOW that it's not actually theft under UK law, BUT, surely given our very wide ranging and litigant friendly defamation laws, she could legitimately claim ZuckCo is tarring her with a very bad brush
Probably not. Even under our laws on defamation you need to show reputational damage. If I say to you "You are a murderer" you can't sue me. It is only when I tell someone else "Martin-73 is a murderer" you have any claim. Presumably her notification was sent to her personally rather than the world at large. If she then tells the world about it herself she is responsible for that damage rather than Facebook.
Facebook's response does not follow the DMCA. Facebook doesn't have to be too involved. But, Facebook doesn't have no involvement whatsoever. From the Digital Medial Law Project's "Responding to a DMCA Takedown Notice Targeting Your Content":
"If your hosting service or other online service provider receives a DMCA takedown notice regarding your content, it ordinarily will respond by removing the complained-of material, and it will do this automatically without making any judgment about whether your content actually is infringing. However, the DMCA notice-and-takedown procedures provide you with protection from a wrongful claim of copyright infringement. The DMCA requires your service provider to notify you promptly when it removes any of your content because of a takedown notice, and you have the right to submit a counter-notice asking that the material be put back up. There is no specific time limit for submitting a counter-notice, but you should not delay unreasonably in doing so. If you send a counter-notice, your online service provider is required to replace the disputed content unless the complaining party sues you within fourteen business days of your sending the counter-notice. (Your service provider may replace the disputed material after ten business days if the complaining party has not filed a lawsuit, but it is required to replace it within fourteen business days.) "
Seems that there is indeed a conspiracy of silence going on with FB, such as removing breastfeeding pictures and links to cancer survivor sites as well (in Daily Mail a few weeks back)
What is going on when even comments criticizing FB get taken down?
I get the impression that the FB moderators need to re-read 1984 before making such sweeping changes without any recourse or even ability to reverse a blatantly silly decision.
As for the recent changes in the law in the UK which have resulted in numerous complaints and IMHO quite rightly so from human rights groups that "the changes are Orwellian".
Such as outlawing purchasing of some chemicals online which aren't even on the precursor list and for that matter used to be available over the counter as recently as 1997.
Adding innocent people to the watch list is also unacceptable as there aren't enough checks and balances to ensure that mistakes aren't made.
I know we have to balance this against preventing terrorism but come on Cameron, think before you legislate lest the UK become a laughing stock on the world stage.
I am Sasha Rodoy, owner and author of Optical Express Ruined My Life (OERML) website and associated FB page currently under dispute.
Currently camping here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/My-Beautiful-Eyes/646365588794480
To be more accurate, OERML FB page would be under dispute if the complainant's identity and details of my alleged defamation were provided to me.
I am posting in the hope that there may be people reading this able to help me... surely someone else must have previously challenged Facebook legally?
I have sent countless emails to FB and received delayed and repetitive messages, presumably from robots as they don't seem to understand what I'm asking.
I have no access to a real person, FB legal representative, or phone number. Instead I am contacted by 'Julius' from Community Operations - who either has short term memory loss or is actually 50 different people!
Before all the Trolls fall into a feeding frenzy, I won't be reading responses, and this is likely to be my only post, directed at anyone who thinks they can possibly help me.
I'm not big on politics (ask me about eyes and that's a different matter) but I understand democracy, and the fundamental human right to a fair trial.
I believe Facebook is in breach of my human rights.
I won’t give up without doing everything I possibly can to fight this! If you think you can help, please email: info(at)opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk
This is my most recent email to FB:
On 6 Nov 2014, at 11:18, OERML <info(at)opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk> wrote:
Re Optical Express Ruined My Life (OERML):
A message I received from Facebook yesterday included this: "Note that we regularly provide your contact information, including your name and email address, the name of your organization or client who owns the right in question, and/or the contents of your report to the person who posted the content you are reporting.”
You have neglected to provide any of these details, without which I am unable to ask the complainant to withdraw their complaint, or take legal action against them for false allegations causing harm to my legitimate campaign.
Re "We received a legal notice from a business in the United Kingdom that content on the reported Page was defamatory, and on that basis we made the content unavailable in the United Kingdom.”
“Defamation: the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business…"
I legally and undisputably own the OERML domain name and have provided Facebook with proof of this fact.
My OERML website contains similar content to my OERML FB page, none is false, and both sites have been active for 2.5 years.
I therefore question the validity of the complainant’s claim of defamatory content, because were this true then ‘the business’ would pursue a defamation claim against me via the UK legal system. They have not.
It is unfair and unacceptable to excuse the removal of an influential campaign page by simply saying a business made a complaint of defamation.
I intend to pursue legal action against the complainant for a malicious and false claim of defamation.
It is my right to be provided with details of the complainant and if this is not actioned then I have no option but to pursue legal action against Facebook in order to obtain this information.
It should also be considered that Facebook has stolen 2.5yrs of content that I do not have backed up.
Please escalate my complaint to someone at a higher level as a matter of urgency.
FYI: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/05/laser_eye_surgery_campaigner_burned_by_facebook_takedown/
Sincerely,
Sasha Rodoy
"I'm not big on politics (ask me about eyes and that's a different matter) but I understand democracy, and the fundamental human right to a fair trial."
You've come to the wrong place. When xkcd posted:
http://xkcd.com/1357/
most of the crowd here thought it HIlarious and insightful. Basically, FB and Twitter are saying you're an asshole they don't want around and no one can do anything about it because, like, the Internet or something.
.....OERML Facebook was removed for IPR issues from what I can see.
I was banned from FB for 3 days. Have a guess why? -for infringing Rodoy's Intellectual Property Rights. No advertising or multi million pound corporations involved here!! Rodoy complained about me, someone with some clout complained about Rodoy. We both got banned...Simples !
The irony -it seems I was infringing Rodoy's IPR by posting (and therefore publicising) a protest photo on My iPad of a group of willing participants including Rodoy. So Pot, Kettle, Kettle, Black springs to mind - the world's gone crazy but you cannot expect there to be one rule for you and another for everyone else!
I was a Facebook user since the very beginning. Years later I found Facebook to be depressing so I deleted (not deactivated) the damn thing from my life and my quality of life improved.
If you don't like their rules then don't use it. You are the product of Mark Aspergerburg and he's raking in billions of dollars of you and he is incapable of caring about your feelings. He can do whatever he damn well pleases and so can you.
Not the most constructive comment! Whether you like it or not, Facebook is possibly the fastest and far reaching network to promote a cause or campaign. Sasha Rodoy had discovered that and was using it to publicise major problems within a medical industry, not to post pictures of what she ate for lunch! In my opinion, for Facebook to pull years of work off their network, without warning or explanation, is criminal to say the least! I hope she does manage to take legal action against them, because it's fine and dandy that Facebook make money from their advertisers, but at the same time they owe some respect and loyalty to the people who make this possible.
In my opinion, for Facebook to pull years of work off their network, without warning or explanation,
Backup Much!?
I always say to wifey: "You need to worry about what you control!". FaceBook, LinkedIn and Twitter can all go screw themselves and their lawyers - NOTHING I put there is irreplaceable; there is a backup and my pages look like shit too because I left the defaults.
I do not control what they do with the "content" and I don't want to worry about my "investment".
Anyone who wants their cornea 're-profiled' by a laser is welcome to take the risk. I'll stick with my glasses, which I can have fine-tuned to suit my current prescription, or variation thereof (for close work, driving, etc). The last ones I bought (on line), with photochromic lenses, cost £30.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
