Post: #26

(01-30-2014 11:54 AM)scorpion Wrote:  Honestly, who gives a shit about Facebook anymore? I bet if you could isolate user activity by sex, it would be 80+% female at this point.

It has always been 80% female. While men have used Facebook as a means of getting laid, I would suspect lower addiction rates to Farmville and certain, less use of Facebook in public via smartphone to avoid experiencing the horrible discomfort of being in a public space without appearing important and busy.

Post: #27

(01-30-2014 12:39 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  I think FB was fair in this case in that they gave you an opportunity to remove the post, which I think would have kept your accounts in tact had you chose to do so.

It might have been arguably fair had FB clearly stated it was an ultimatum, instead of making the ultimatum under the guise of a 'respectful request'.

Post: #28

They allow porn stars to have accounts, though. What message does that send?

Have an unpopular opinion? You're gone. Screw for money? That's cool.

Two suggestions:

1). Write about it on ROK and try to get the mainstream to pick up on it.

2). Create a covert FB parody account claiming that ROK is terrible when it's actually promoting ROK (i.e. "Return of Kings is Hate Speech!!").

Then let us all know about it so we'd be in on it. We could be like: "Yeah, how hateful. But be sure to keep posting because we need to monitor."

Post: #29

(01-30-2014 12:46 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  2). Create a covert FB parody account claiming that ROK is terrible when it's actually promoting ROK (i.e. "Return of Kings is Hate Speech!!").

Then let us all know about it so we'd be in on it. We could be like: "Yeah, how hateful. But be sure to keep posting because we need to monitor."

Yes, this is a good idea. A snark/parody concern troll FB account.

Post: #30

(01-30-2014 12:46 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  They allow porn stars to have accounts, though. What message does that send?

Have an unpopular opinion? You're gone. Screw for money? That's cool.

Two suggestions:

1). Write about it on ROK and try to get the mainstream to pick up on it.

2). Create a covert FB parody account claiming that ROK is terrible when it's actually promoting ROK (i.e. "Return of Kings is Hate Speech!!").

Then let us all know about it so we'd be in on it. We could be like: "Yeah, how hateful. But be sure to keep posting because we need to monitor."

Roosh has the power to put Facebook on the first page of Google with bad press.

Hit them back I say.

Hit them back twice as hard.

Wald

Post: #31

(01-30-2014 12:46 PM)Saga Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 12:39 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  I think FB was fair in this case in that they gave you an opportunity to remove the post, which I think would have kept your accounts in tact had you chose to do so.

It might have been arguably fair had FB clearly stated it was an ultimatum, instead of making the ultimatum under the guise of a 'respectful request'.

Personally, I think a choice is fairer than no choice. Considering his accounts had been suspended multiple times, they could have even just banned his accounts outright without giving him any say in the matter. According to their policies, that's within their right.

How is this any different from the rules of the forum? If a forum member violates forum rules - whether he's aware of them or not - he gets banned. Some members get banned without any warning while others get a few chances. And no banned member has the right to appeal that decision.

You also have to look into the business considerations for FB, the resources involved in having to repeatedly police one particular account on a website that has over 1 billion users. They have a cost-benefit analysis to investigate, even as it relates to their users collectively and the posts they report as being offensive.

Post: #32

(01-30-2014 12:25 PM)Snowplow Wrote:  I'm not that tech savvy but someone could start up a social media site that you're free to post anything. No report button, thumbs down type button, no banning. If you can't handle what the world offers....you're free to log off. Oh wait, RoK is kinda like that!

That's essentially what tumblr is.

Hell, they have pron categories.

I'm learning how all these different social sites work for promotional purposes and from what I've seen Roosh's post that caused an uproar on FB likely wouldn't be an issue at all on tumblr.

Post: #33

tumblr is where Hunter Moore went so yeah, ROK needs to set up a tumblr.

Post: #34

A couple weeks ago I put up a post covering why I'm not using facebook to promote my site;

http://myproviderboyfriend.com/why-we-ar...-facebook/

Post: #35

(01-30-2014 01:51 PM)Menace Wrote:  tumblr is where Hunter Moore went so yeah, ROK needs to set up a tumblr.

But isn't Tumblr about pictures? Would RoK be posting screenshots of its articles or something?

Wait, that's Pinterest. But then Tumblr is about microblogging, which must be too small for the average size of RoK articles?

*head spinning*

Post: #36

(01-30-2014 01:34 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 12:46 PM)Saga Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 12:39 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  I think FB was fair in this case in that they gave you an opportunity to remove the post, which I think would have kept your accounts in tact had you chose to do so.

It might have been arguably fair had FB clearly stated it was an ultimatum, instead of making the ultimatum under the guise of a 'respectful request'.

Personally, I think a choice is fairer than no choice. Considering his accounts had been suspended multiple times, they could have even just banned his accounts outright without giving him any say in the matter. According to their policies, that's within their right.

How is this any different from the rules of the forum? If a forum member violates forum rules - whether he's aware of them or not - he gets banned. Some members get banned without any warning while others get a few chances. And no banned member has the right to appeal that decision.

You also have to look into the business considerations for FB, the resources involved in having to repeatedly police one particular account on a website that has over 1 billion users. They have a cost-benefit analysis to investigate, even as it relates to their users collectively and the posts they report as being offensive.

I think it's different because it's one-sided and driven by mob rule, not the business owner or moderators' discretion.

It would be like if we all complained to Roosh about liberal members' "hate speech" and he removed them, but all he let conservatives stay for saying the same things (or worse).

What the Facebook people need to realize -- and I hope they're reading -- is that the same mob mentality that got Return of Kings removed is also what gets breastfeeding pics banned and who-knows-what else. One day it's them, the next it might be you.

Obama won't always be president and if conservatives get in charge, expect FB to be buddying up to the new regime by removing liberal posts and pages in the name of "security" instead of "hate speech" (both questionable concepts).

Post: #37

(01-30-2014 02:04 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 01:51 PM)Menace Wrote:  tumblr is where Hunter Moore went so yeah, ROK needs to set up a tumblr.

But isn't Tumblr about pictures? Would RoK be posting screenshots of its articles or something?

Wait, that's Pinterest. But then Tumblr is about microblogging, which must be too small for the average size of RoK articles?

*head spinning*

The first paragraph of a post, plus a link back would work. It's not a bad idea, if someone wanted to take ownership of it and make it happen.

Post: #38

(01-30-2014 02:04 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 01:51 PM)Menace Wrote:  tumblr is where Hunter Moore went so yeah, ROK needs to set up a tumblr.

But isn't Tumblr about pictures? Would RoK be posting screenshots of its articles or something?

Wait, that's Pinterest. But then Tumblr is about microblogging, which must be too small for the average size of RoK articles?

*head spinning*

Yeah exactly. Tumblr isn't just pictures, it's microblogging, which I think would be redundant since there's already an ROK and RooshV blog.

Maybe you can set up a tumblr page that automatically updates with new ROK and/or RooshV posts as they get published. Works the same way as linking your blog to a twitter feed. Not sure tumblr would reach a wider audience in the way a FB could, but it's probably better than nothing.

Post: #39

(01-30-2014 01:34 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  How is this any different from the rules of the forum? If a forum member violates forum rules - whether he's aware of them or not - he gets banned. Some members get banned without any warning while others get a few chances. And no banned member has the right to appeal that decision.

The main difference is that facebook is a massive, general-purpose site designed to be used by a broad, open-ended audience. Relative to facebook rooshvforum is a small forum aimed at a narrower demographic with a clear topical focus.

Post: #40

(01-30-2014 02:18 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 02:04 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 01:51 PM)Menace Wrote:  tumblr is where Hunter Moore went so yeah, ROK needs to set up a tumblr.

But isn't Tumblr about pictures? Would RoK be posting screenshots of its articles or something?

Wait, that's Pinterest. But then Tumblr is about microblogging, which must be too small for the average size of RoK articles?

*head spinning*

Yeah exactly. Tumblr isn't just pictures, it's microblogging, which I think would be redundant since there's already an ROK and RooshV blog.

Maybe you can set up a tumblr page that automatically updates with new ROK and/or RooshV posts as they get published. Works the same way as linking your blog to a twitter feed. Not sure tumblr would reach a wider audience in the way a FB could, but it's probably better than nothing.

It's about marketing, same as the FB page.

The actual content is on ROK. The other sites are just used to publicize that content.

Post: #41

(01-30-2014 12:28 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  ^ you mean twitter lol.

Nah, Twitter has banned a couple of my accounts before. They use the "aggresive following" excuse.

Post: #42

I'll get some sick satisfaction when I watch the FB stock plummet. Right now there's plenty of articles with financial "gurus" bandwagoning and jumping on board zuckerberg's cock. For what reason I have no clue. Invest in a company that data mines its users and generates revenue solely based off advertising? Ha! That's a bubble if ever there was one.

Post: #43

(01-30-2014 02:59 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  Invest in a company that data mines its users and generates revenue solely based off advertising? Ha! That's a bubble if ever there was one.

That's what google does....


But yes, I do see FB's reach diminishing. The thing is, the demo that is growing and likely to stay is the one that advertising works the best on; The older folks that actually buy shit.

So FB's revenues may not change a lot even if they lose most of the younger crowd.

FB is a good example of a guy coming up with a basic idea that snowballs and goes where no one expected. Remember, it started out as a way for Ivy leaguer's to communicate.

Zuckerberg got lucky and was smart enough to keep it going and now has an advertising company, much like the guys that started google.

Post: #44

(01-30-2014 01:50 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 12:25 PM)Snowplow Wrote:  I'm not that tech savvy but someone could start up a social media site that you're free to post anything. No report button, thumbs down type button, no banning. If you can't handle what the world offers....you're free to log off. Oh wait, RoK is kinda like that!

That's essentially what tumblr is.

Hell, they have pron categories.

I'm learning how all these different social sites work for promotional purposes and from what I've seen Roosh's post that caused an uproar on FB likely wouldn't be an issue at all on tumblr.

Tumblr is a hot spot/cesspool for the most extreme forms of feminism/social justice nonsense. Roosh would get banned twice as quickly there as he was banned on Facebook.

Post: #45

Hencredible Casanova Wrote:How is this any different from the rules of the forum?

Our rules are reasonable. We ban all people equally for violating common sense and good manners, something that Facebook does very inconsistently.

Post: #46

(01-30-2014 02:09 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Obama won't always be president and if conservatives get in charge, expect FB to be buddying up to the new regime by removing liberal posts and pages in the name of "security" instead of "hate speech" (both questionable concepts).

DoBA, I don't think they'll be removing liberal posts anytime soon no matter who is in power. Or anodynely conservative posts either. They'll still be white-knighting and doing the feminists' bidding, rain or shine. To the extent they might remove posts because of "security", I have a hard time believing any administration will be more draconian with respect to that than the current one.

With feminism ascendant, it was always going to be a tricky proposition to keep sites like RoK on Facebook. It's also true that posting articles that include "rape" in their title in any but the most obviously permissible way is baiting them and making it easier for them to make that decision.

RoK clearly has to balance the need for using colorful titles that attract page views with the need to avoid making more enemies than is strictly necessary. In my opinion, anything related to "rape" is an area where it would be smart to tread lightly because there is so much hysteria associated with this and such a high risk of antagonizing people with some actual power. It's fine and in fact necessary to post articles about the False Rape Accusation epidemic and about the abuse of this term by the feminist ideologues. But it's best to avoid seeming to make light of "rape" as such or writing things that can be twisted to be interpreted as condoning it in any way.

I believe Tuthmosis has really hit on a winning formula of writing RoK articles that are funny, accurate, annoy the hell out of feminists, but stop short of baiting the white-knights on hyper-serious bugaboos like "rape" or age of consent stuff, etc. That seems like a generally excellent template for RoK to follow.

Post: #47

Gotta love how FB is limiting the amount of people who see FB fan page posts in order to force page owners to pay for a boost. Here's an idea... if people like a page, let them see all of its posts. Novel. Only 10-20% of my fans see my posts. Some of that could be a timing issue, but most of it is FB straight up blocking views. I barely see a lot of posts from pages I've liked and I always scan back for things I missed in my newsfeed.

Post: #48

Lots of people who are involved in tech, especially those with "sexy" start-ups like Instagram and Tumblr and the like are SWPL types so I don't think they'll be targeting Elizabeth Warren fan pages any time soon.

Post: #49

If you're not actively supporting women and feminism, you're a misogynist and you must be banned or censored. This is where things stand now.

Post: #50

(01-30-2014 04:08 PM)Wutang Wrote:  Lots of people who are involved in tech, especially those with "sexy" start-ups like Instagram and Tumblr and the like are SWPL types so I don't think they'll be targeting Elizabeth Warren fan pages any time soon.

Yep. I even find the word "start-up" to be annoying. Do we apply that term to any other type of business? When a lawyer starts a new firm is that called a "start-up" as well?

And true, if you've ever seen employees of these company, they are typically bearded hipster and SWPL types. Or "the creative class" as they like to call themselves.