Franklin Graham: Facebook’s Ban on My Account Was a ‘Personal Attack’
Katherine Rodriguez 31 Dec 2018 Breitbart News
The Rev. Franklin Graham called Facebook’s decision to place a temporary ban on his account a “personal attack” on him in a Sunday interview with Fox News.
“Why are they going back to 2016,” Graham, who serves as president of the evangelism organization Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, told Fox News on Sunday after he spoke about the social networking site’s efforts to police content.
“I think it was just really a personal attack toward me,” he added.
Graham’s comments come one day after a Facebook representative confirmed that the evangelist had been banned from the social networking site for 24 hours because of a 2016 post on North Carolina’s House Bill 2.
The post in question referred to rocker Bruce Springsteen’s comments calling House Bill 2— also known as the bathroom bill— a step “backwards instead of forwards.”
“He says the NC law #HB2 to prevent men from being able to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms is going ‘backwards instead of forwards,’” Graham’s post from 2016, which referred to Springsteen, reads. “Well, to be honest, we need to go back! Back to God. Back to respecting and honoring His commands.”
Graham, whose Facebook page has been restored, called the social media giant’s censorship efforts a “problem.” . . . .
I can’t think of a more innocuous thing to say than what he did. And from 2016?
Facebook is garbage.
He should cancel his account. I don’t understand all these people who don’t like a product continuing to use it. Especially since it isn’t a necessity of life.
Facebook has some 15,000 moderators. In this case, one clearly went overboard. When contacted, Facebook restored the post and account, and has sought to directly apologize to the administrator of the site. That is not flawless service, but they were quick to realize and correct the mistake.
I agree. I get that he and others want to take advantage of the perceived benefits of Facebook, but it wouldn’t take long to destroy Facebook if enough of the people who feel, and are in fact, targeted by it were to quit. Otherwise is is like writing a letter to the editor about its bias. The paper doesn’t care and the people who agree with the bias don’t either. They are however happy you give them your money by subscribing.
That’s great, and glad they “fixed” it. Hopefully the mod was disciplined or sent to diversity training to understand the diverse set of beliefs he or she is moderating and why they aren’t hateful.
My comment, however, is reflective of how I feel about Facebook in general. For all the good, I see far too many negatives to outweigh the former.
Others obviously feel differently, which is fine.
I think we all know diversity training (indoctrination) doesn’t work in that direction.
Since the moderation was deemed to be in error and quickly remedied, I think it is a safe bet that the moderator in question got the message.
Perhaps. But possibly true of social media in general.
On this I agree. Facebook just happens to be the Xerox of the social media industry,
Public figures like Graham use Facebook because like it or not it is a primary means of reaching thousands upon thousands of people. Especially young people. Restaurants do it, radio stations do it, etc etc. Twitter too. If so many people didn’t get information from Facebook then people like Graham could and probably would ignore it. That just simply isn’t the case unfortunately.
Of course he has a choice. Somehow his father managed without Facebook.
And if he competing with his father for followers and converts, that would mean something. But he isn’t. Now why he expects fairness of someone of Zuckerberg’s ilk, I dont know, so perhaps it is somewhat on Graham for believing the terms he signed up for.
His father also survived without cable TV, the internet, and in home plumbing. Not sure that is any more relevant to the discussion of Facebook’s treatment of Graham, which appears to be an isolated incident for him, anyway.
Before it existed…
Billy Graham was all over TV and radio. I don’t for one second believe that Billy Graham wouldn’t have been on Facebook if he was trying to evangelize today.
Not saying I disagree with the sentiment that people should get off Facebook, but until that happens it is particularly unrealistic to expect a public figure to forego it as a media platform when so many people are reached that way.
Billy Graham paid for the time on television. Even then he had to follow their rules. Maybe their rules were easier to follow, but he had to follow them.
Facebook is “free”. But like the nonexistent “free lunch”, it comes with caveats. These include having to page thru ads and follow what they deem to be okay postings.
Just to be clear,I don’t agree with some of Facebook’s standards. But, as my mother used to say, beggars can’t be choosers.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.