Unless you live under a rock on another planet, you’ve probably heard of - and been on - Facebook. Facebook is famous for its simultaneous applications aiding in “friend” expansion, unlimited multimedia picture and video, and not to mention familiar, anti-username, open, stalking-worthy news feed capturing all your friends’ activities and information. But, just because they’re great doesn’t give Facebook the right to remove other people’s pictures or profiles without proof, reason, or warning the user beforehand, which is exactly what they did with three knowns below.

Now, before we get to that, I’d just like to introduce my experience with Facebook. Facebook has followed me throughout my first 3 years of university, through thick and through thin. And when I say thick, I mean the various hate groups I encountered about my fellow friends, peers, and even family. These hate groups were often created by hostile acquaintances who gathered sometimes hundreds of Facebook “friends” to slander an individual’s appearance, popularity, and personal habits. And as resented as that individual was, knowing that no one deserved the consistent outcome of these hate groups I read about in newspapers, I would report the group 1, 2, or 3 times. Now, if I report a group once and specify the exact quote(s)/group that were inappropriate or harmful to another person’s feelings or reputation, the group should be shut down ASAP. If Facebook can see that there is a hate group alone, without question, the hate group should be taken down right away. But, reporting 2 or 3 times is too many; in one instance, a hate group was left on Facebook for a month! And to think, Facebook would allow content that can motivate a user to kill someone - if not themselves - yet they confiscate anything that is simply “suggestive” or “inappropriate.”

On August 20th, Toronto Playboy model Anissa Holmes contacted Facebook to inquire about why her accounts were deactivated from the website. Facebook then alleged that Holmes’s account was disabled, because of nudity and other sexually explicit content, including messages that could represent some form of “harassment.” While Holmes’ fan page and profile page demonstrates that she is a Playboy model and, thereby, does show pictures of her in provocative attire, she was never nude and definitely did not bother anyone on Facebook. In this case, where Facebook should have record of evidence whether these messages existed (unless they deemed them “harassment” by a different standard) and reciprocate Anissa’s account, Facebook instead declares this account termination a “final decision” without even telling her beforehand to remove the so-called problem i.e. pictures. Even if the pictures are sexually implicit to one person, Anissa has the right, the freedom to express herself and her body in these pictures. She didn’t post a naked or pornographic picture; she didn’t break any law. If anything, Facebook deviated against the law by confiscating her account without warning or proof. To take someone’s pictures or personal information is not only stealing in this case, but opposing Canadian privacy laws or hence what our ancestors fought for, the Charter of Rights and Freedom. Especially if those pictures are personal family pictures that Facebook has no reason to hold: “If they’re going to delete me, at least give me back access to my pictures. There’s no legitimate reason why they have family pictures,” Holmes says. Poor Anissa worked diligently to establish a fan base on Facebook, which she considers a very effective marketing and promotional tool for her career (among many other careers). Her profile page exceeds 3000 friends and her fan page boasts over 8300 - 3000 of those friends were vital business contacts i.e. photographers, magazines, directors, casting agents, etc. To start from scratch is unforgivable; according to legal persons, Anissa should file a complaint to the federal privacy commissioner.

I wonder how Facebook comes up with these ideas - deceptions, things that never were - when they should possess every single item (picture or profile), even when it is erased from the World Wide Web. A GTA club promoter (who would like to remain anonymous) reveals that the last night his account was disabled, Facebook stated that he had a naked picture on his profile, which - shocker! - he never did! Even if someone reported he had a naked picture, Facebook should further investigate if this is actually true before ridding what could be the user’s emergency contacts. In fact, you can report the exact picture; therefore, Facebook could determine themselves if there is any nudity in the picture. Other times, he got kicked off Facebook because he was adding people to his friends list too quickly, which doesn’t make sense to him, “because this site is all about making friends.”

Finally, another unnamed entertainment industry contact involved with a mainstream Toronto glamour article exposes his incident with Facebook. He claims Facebook indicated his pictures were “inappropriate” without saying which pictures were inappropriate and then disabled his account 4 days later. While, through my own experience, I know that Facebook asks for a reason when you report someone’s account, he speculates that even words cannot suffice adequate validity to disable someone’s profile. “What if some guys are just jealous of me and the girls I have on my page, and they just report me for that reason?” I guess there is no way to really prove what other people’s intentions are, Facebook or no Facebook.

Facebook is powerful. It can improve friendships, relationships, and even businesses. But, it can also sabotage reputations, efficiency, and the law. It may protect children from pedophilia on a social networking website, but it also protects the names of admins who remove themselves from hate groups to be unknown and unsafe from the victim. Facebook can change your life or ruin it!