Hallo, Mark Suckerberg and Alyson Ferrera, how low!

Abigail Pereira Aranha

Source: Huffpost Brasil, "Entidades entregam carta a Dilma Rousseff com críticas a eventual acordo com Facebook", http://www.brasilpost.com.br/2015/04/24/brasil-facebook-marco-civil_n_7132048.html

Hi, Mark Zuckerberg! So, are good arguments a reason to block an user for 30 days in your social media now? I have been informed of you have earned money to censor opponents to our current Brazilian government. I have been informed that hate speech against Israel does not violate the Facebook's standards, while the same content against Palestinians does[1]. I knew that violence against men, whether as joke, whether as "serious" speech, is allowed in the Facebook laws[2]. But now, do you accept a report from some sucker because he / she was finalized in a debate? I was blocked for 30 days, since February 6, because I unmasked the user Alyson Ferrera (www.facebook.com/alysonferrera.sy), who said he was against extremisms to left-wing and to right-wing, but he was insulting another user because she was anti-leftist; he also presented as a benefit from Socialism the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, which had 60 years when the Workers' Party was legalized and 82 years when it won an election to the first mandate to our presidence. You forgot an item in the box to report: "Is this comment about you or a friend?" "Yes" "Why don't you want to see this?" "It's true and I can't withstand someone to say it".

One can say who is bothered must leave, but only the wicked can live together well with evil, as well as only the righteous bothers with it. But no one sucker can say "shut up" to the truth. "For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth" (2 Co 13:8).

But meanwhile, your Facebook was several times in our news, in the wrong side:

1) February 5, a feminist girl said on Facebook, without any police complaint, she was harassed in the Quitandinha Bar and the owners and employees denied help. Evidence against her: the surveillance cameras records[3].

2) Wellington Monteiro told us, February 13, that Women Police Station found him innocent of a rape charge[4]. Evidence against him: a post on Facebook. Evidence in his favour: witnesses saw him and his accuser leaving together, hugging one another, the party in which she was supposedly raped.

3) Again, you are using your freedom as a private entrepreneur to hamper our popular protests against our president and your trade partner Dilma Rousseff. "Facebook is accused of hampering the disclosure of protests against Dilma"[5].

It was not shown in our newspapers, but you blocked, once again, the Brazilian anti-Socialist journalist, writer and philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, because he refuted one more sucker. Writing like a addicted bitch accusing him of pedophilia and murdering or making slanderous profiles against him is allowed in the Facebook laws, right?

But within these same 30 days I was blocked, last week, "Brazil Facebook head arrested for refusing to share WhatsApp data" to our Justice[6]. You took so seriously your freedom to share our mobile numbers, our locations and even our friends lists to your partner companies. As well as your freedom to ask identity card to restore our profiles whenever some Puritan cows or leftist militants cause us to be blocked.

Ah, what about your business with our government? Your partner, the President Dilma Rousseff, after 14 months in whose she basicly worked to not to fall, can loose her mandate due to corruption and can even be arrested. Interesting: our politics is decaying, your Facebook is decaying too.

Well, I have to thank you for the time in my two profiles on Facebook. Here, I met some readers I had in my blogs and I got some new readers. I am not a professional writer, but I have something to write trying to be profitable to whosoever spend some time with me, unlike mr. Alyson Ferrera and myriads who report me and my best friends. Many of my best friends here, I brought to Google Plus. I have a profile on Pornhub too, and I brought one friend as my follower. Ah, I lost my first profile because, after all, immoral persons hate sexual contents. The suckers who only write to annoy anti-leftists and whose only cultural credential is gathering another idiots to defame and report someone else's page or profile will be the only kind of persons who will remain in the Suckerberg social media?

NOTES

[1] "When it comes to incitement, is Facebook biased against Israel?", Jerusalem Post, Jan/05/2016, http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/When-it-comes-to-incitement-is-Facebook-biased-against-Israel-439436.

[2] One case among my own flagrants, June 2014: http://avezdoshomens.blogspot.com.br/2014/06/violencia-contra-o-homem-23-mulheres.html.

[3] https://www.facebook.com/julia.velo/posts/1027796097294719

[4] https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=989806097753606&set=a.528779730522914.1073741827.100001726752717

[5] "Facebook é acusado de atrapalhar a divulgação das manifestações contra Dilma", Blasting News, Feb/22/2016, http://br.blastingnews.com/sociedade-opiniao/2016/02/facebook-e-acusado-de-atrapalhar-a-divulgacao-das-manifestacoes-contra-dilma-00799495.html.

[6] "Brazil Facebook head arrested for refusing to share WhatsApp data", BBC News, Mar/01/2016, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35700733.

APPENDIX

Olavo denounces: censorship on Facebook and marmosets hallucinated (excerpts of "Olavo denuncia: censura no Facebook e sagüis alucinados")

It is not my custom to do that, but I ask all my students and readers TO MAKE VIRAL this message on Facebook, in other social networks and everywhere:

Firstly, Facebook blocked my page. Soon then, my wife's one, Roxane. Now, my daughter Leilah's one.

This is an organized campaign to unseat me from all means of expression? It is.

After excluded from the newspapers O Globo, Zero Hora, Jornal da Tarde and magazine Época, despite the huge success of my articles among tens of thousands of readers, after a thousand attempts to hack my personal website and the one of the Philosophy Seminar, is necessary to prevent my access even to social networks, in order to fulfill the instruction issued years ago by the communist leader Milton Temer: "About Olavo de Carvalho no one will speak". Yes, is necessary to shut the Olavo de Carvalho and leave all the space at the mercy of semi-illiterate detractors that excel in the production of libelous legends and idiotic provocations against an author who can barely read.

The blockades on Facebook only come when the central company in Brazil receives a large number of mass complaints within a few hours. This can happen only in two circumstances: (a) a post is so obviously outrageous that immediately raises the spontaneous indignation of hundreds of people; (b) an organized militancy, quickly put into action called by an articulator, pretends it is shocked and, in a timely manner, clogs Facebook with deceptive claims. The blocking is automatic.

Knowing the complicit tolerance of Facebook to many obscene and criminal messages, it is obvious that no blocking of a message of mine can be explained by the hypothesis "a". Never Mr. Paulo Ghiraldelli, for example, was blocked for his apology of pedophiles, not even for his psychotic speculations about anal intercourse as a widespread practice much earlier, historically, the "discovery" of vaginal penetration...

Now, see the post that, published in my name on my Fan Page, raised the blockade of my daughter's page:

"Functional illiteracy SUCKS. I say that Aristotle's physics only became known in Europe from the thirteenth century and so, comes a wise - such a Daniel Portes - to challenge me and to call me a charlatan, saying that in the Islamic Spain it was known long before. And since when Spanish-Arabic civilization and European civilization are the same? He commits several grammatical errors and he still says he can not argue with someone who does not know how to write. Let there be balls."

Even before the blockade, I had already discovered that Daniel Portes was not a single individual, but an organized team, ready to give an air of great scholar challenge to idiotic provocations based on wrong and insignificant informations.

Mr. Portes, as well as his accomplices, has that accuracy craze on irrelevant minutiae, which is characteristic of the functional illiterate with intellectual presumptions. Not understanding what he reads, he thinks he can shine through expedient to fix it by taking his own incomprehension as standard ruler.

The fact is that the works of natural science of Aristotle have not spread in Christian Europe before introduced in the curriculum of the University of Paris from 1200, owing their wider dissemination to the "succès de scandale" generated by its prohibition in 1227, followed by the monumental defensive effort made, late in the second half of the century, by St. Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas Aquinas, which definitely integrated them in European culture.

That someone had read them in Arabic and even produced translations in an Islamic nation before that is detail perfectly oblivious to the subject, how should see it at first sight any normal reader. But the functional illiterate thinks that clinging to that extemporaneous minutia he can demoralize an author and still make up a great scholar.

Those who rushed immediately to his help came already proclaiming that, with this nonsense, this citizen had fulfilled the silly dream that is now shared by thousands of incapable: "to destroy Olavo de Carvalho". The simple fact that they confess so openly a criminal purpose and they find they can fool the audience covering it in a scholarly zeal appearance already reveals the petty and hateful envy that inspires them - a feeling that only is born and prospers in the souls of incapable and failed people.

Thus, I blocked the access to Portes team to my page, which in no way undermined their freedom of expression, which they continued to enjoy on their pages, with that fierce joy of hallucinated marmosets whose major goal in their life is to destroy the reputation of a writer through confusionist criticism, not of his books, even of his articles or classes, but of his posts on Facebook.

This fact proves, by gazillionth time, that the blocking criterion used by Facebook is in itself imbecile, immoral and criminal - an incentive to any defamatory campaign endowed with a little organization.

Olavo de Carvalho, Feb/15/2016, http://www.midiasemmascara.org/mediawatch/noticiasfaltantes/denuncias/16347-2016-02-15-18-26-06.html. Also at https://www.facebook.com/carvalho.olavo/posts/597730033712408.