Facebook’s Head of Global Policy Management, Monica Bickert [above], just posted this official statement regarding their policy on posts/pages related to the sale of firearms on both Facebook and Instagram:
Facebook, at its heart, is about helping people connect and communicate. Because of the diversity of people and cultures on our services, we know that people sometimes post or share things that may be controversial or objectionable. We work hard to find a balance between enabling people to express themselves about topics that are important to them, and creating an environment that is safe and respectful . . .
This balance is important to how we view commercial activity on Facebook or Instagram. We have strict rules about how businesses can use our advertising tools. For example, we do not permit advertising for illegal drugs, tobacco products, prescription pharmaceuticals, weapons, and several other products and services, and restrict advertising for products such as alcohol, adult products, and gaming. In all cases, we have systems in place to review and remove advertising that violates our policies, is false, deceptive, or misleading.
Of course, most of our tools are free to use, and many people and organizations use them to establish a presence on Facebook, including to promote commercial transactions. While people can’t use our services to actually sell things to each other, they can set up a Page or make an occasional post to their Timeline to find a roommate, sell a home, or solicit contributions for a church or nonprofit organization. Just like posting on a bulletin board at a supermarket or community center, these activities may be considered commercial, but we treat this type of sharing like any other type of sharing on our services – and we respond to reports when something violates our Community Standards.
People sometimes use our free tools to discuss products that are regulated or controversial. In some cases they promote these products for sale or use, even though it’s not possible to complete a sale on Facebook or Instagram. While we’ve recently heard specific concerns from people about offers for the private sales of firearms, this is one of many areas where we face a difficult challenge balancing individuals’ desire to express themselves on our services, and recognizing that this speech may have consequences elsewhere.
Today, we are introducing a series of new educational and enforcement efforts for people discussing the private sale of regulated items:
- Any time we receive a report on Facebook about a post promoting the private sale of a commonly regulated item, we will send a message to that person reminding him or her to comply with relevant laws and regulations. We will also limit access to that post to people over the age of 18.
- We will require Pages that are primarily used by people to promote the private sale of commonly regulated goods or services to include language that clearly reminds people of the importance of understanding and complying with relevant laws and regulations, and limit access to people over the age of 18 or older if required by applicable law.
- We will provide special in-app education on Instagram for those who search for sales or promotions of firearms.
We will not permit people to post offers to sell regulated items that indicate a willingness to evade or help others evade the law. For example, private sellers of firearms in the U.S. will not be permitted to specify “no background check required,” nor can they offer to transact across state lines without a licensed firearms dealer. We have worked with a number of individuals and organizations on the development of these efforts, which will be implemented and enforced in the coming weeks. We are grateful in particular for the advice offered by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Americans for Responsible Solutions, Sandy Hook Promise, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action, which helped us develop an approach for the private sale of firearms. We also appreciate the feedback provided by the Facebook Safety Advisory Board.
As always, we encourage people who see anything that violates our policies to report it to us using the tools found throughout our services. Facebook and Instagram will continue to remove content, and notify law enforcement where appropriate, when we are notified about things shared on our services that suggest a direct, credible risk to others’ safety. We will also continue to strictly enforce our advertising policies.
We believe these collective efforts represent the right approach in balancing people’s desire to express themselves while promoting a safe, responsible community.
Self-congratulatory statement is up already: “This victory marks a HUGE milestone in the history of our movement – and it all took shape in just a month! In the past year, moms have gotten Starbucks, Facebook, and Instagram to listen and respond.”
Guess they wont mention Staples….. 🙂
If MDA was any more full of themselves, Shannon Watts could run for POTUS.
(Please, dear God, no.)
unimaginable bu[[$hit
if they’re bowing to this sort of pressure, god knows who’s a$$ they’ll be kissing later on.
Arent these the same people who were against internet regulation before? Hmm
Seriously though, talk about a d-bag shoutout list.
Did they even ASK anybody on our
Nevermind, dumb question.
I was just thinking the same thing.
HAHA!!! Yep…
Who still signs into Facebook as a minor?
I remember back in its infancy the first thing you learned was to always tell it you’re 18 or 21. Even if you’re 11 or 13.
That’s a universal truth wherever “net” censorship happens. You’re however old you want to be or have to be to get inside and see all the goodies and if for some reason what you want is region blocked you can be located in any country you want to be.
That’s the beauty of the internet. Nothing means anything. Take note of that any MSM tards who see Twitter as a trustworthy source of news.
Hey Facebook!! How about talking to and working with Pro Gun groups!! Oh wait!! Your liberal pansy ass supports screwing Americans out if their God given rights!!
I hope your Facebook face plants into a bottomless pit never to be seen or heard from again!!
*steps off soap box!!
So other than limiting access to those posts to those over 18, it sounds like they’re going to be doing a whole lot of “reminding” and not much else.
That is my impression as well. I posted below about how this really is a loss for the anti’s in the overall scheme of things.
But it will still be used as a “win”.. And sadly since no one ever talks to us, it almost is. However it really didn’t do anything…
Exactly… They’re basically doing nothing, except *possibly* blocking minors from seeing guns for sale (good luck enforcing that), and making a rule that people don’t say “no background check required,” which is a response to the fake ads planted by MDA that said things like “no background check” and “AR-15 includes a dust cover.”
For most of us, based on this press release, I’d say there will be no noticeable difference.
I just hopped on Twitter out of curiosity. I haven’t yet been banned by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (a wholly owned subsidiary of Mayors Against Illegal Guns). Win or not they’re already taking credit for the change.
The tweet:
Moms spoke, #FacebookListened and changed policy involving gun sales. Read about it in NY Times: http://ow.ly/ugWod
” We are grateful in particular for the advice offered by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Americans for Responsible Solutions, Sandy Hook Promise, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action, which helped us develop an approach for the private sale of firearms.”
Not surprised.
This story was a tad sensationalist. I do however agree that the gun grab isnlike gal and illegitimate. I am personally a proponent of civil disobedience. Violence begets violence and I never want my children to know what it is to live in fear.
So I take it Facebook will be working around the clock to take down the bazillions of images of underage drinking, smoking and drug use?
Yeah, doubting it.
Its their website, their rules. If you dont like it dont sign up for their spy program.
We are grateful in particular for the advice offered by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Americans for Responsible Solutions, Sandy Hook Promise, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action, which helped us develop an approach for the private sale of firearms. We also appreciate the feedback provided by the Facebook Safety Advisory Board.
Imagine the media if they had a policy explicitly protecting gun posts, and said, “We are grateful for the advice offered by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot, Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the National Rifle Association, which helped us develop an approach for the private sale of firearms.”
What’s with that image? Who is Monika Bickert?
If I am reading this correctly, while this seems at first to be a win for the anti’s, it really isn’t. Basically, Facebook is saying that as long as nothing illegal is going on, they won’t stop folks from setting up the sale of a firearm. They didn’t fold under Milfs Demand Action’s pressure and ban the use of Facebook for anything firearms related.
Isn’t this really a win for our side?
I was thinking that exact same thing! Nowhere and here is it saying it’s going to restrict sales of firearms only to ensure that they are done within the scope of the law. MDA and an MAIG wanted them to stop gun sales completely. They didn’t get their way.
Pretty much.
Yeah. I was thinking the same thing. They pulled a Starbucks maneuver.
Has anyone told them that in most states, that isn’t actually illegal?
Probably, but they don’t care. It is provocative and that is what they want to avoid. They don’t want people using their gubnint backed info mining operation to promote rabble rousing.
I was just thinking the same thing. In Arizona no background check is required so why would they on one hand say I’m supposed be following the law but if I do, then am I going to be punished for it?
Bottom line, just don’t put that in the post. There’s nothing that says that you have to put in that you need to run a background check. Only that you can’t put in that you WON’T run a background check.
You don’t have to say, “No background check”. Simply say, “Private sale.” If your buyer is too stupid to make the connection, you probably ought not to sell to them.
Does this policy about the sale of regulated items include non-OTC narcotics and items like food stamps or EBT benefits? I know which side of that bet I’d place my money on.
Odd picture of the woman, as she looks like a “gun girl” too.
That’s what you get for putting all your marbles in the hands of a 20 something upper class kid from New York.
A drivers license or ID card makes a perfect pad for a sucking chest would if you didn’t have the proper pad in your first aid kit. Saw it first hand on a rifle range.
Another of those “Just give them what they want” stories… Here in Phoenix, a couple was home when the robbers broke in. They tied up the man, and raped the woman. Then proceeded to burn him over his entire body with a hot iron. He had 3rd degree burns over most of his body. Some times it’s not worth it to let them have what they want.
maybe the people who are so against it should actually monitor what their children are doing online, and promote other to monitor their children’s activity online, instead of just complaining about it? but I guess it’s easier to just complain about it and wait for someone else to do something instead of actually being a good parent.
I hope FB goes tits up, not cause I care, but just because I’m an asshole and I don’t like it.
Luddite.
This sucks, we do a lot advertising of our inventory there. Wait and see I guess.
Let’s all remember this is based on fake posts the groups like MDA made themselves and screen shotted.
If there is no background check required to sell a firearm between law-abiding, consenting individuals within a given state, there is no reason for Facebook to be up in arms (no pun intended). I don’t mind Facebook requesting that gun/sales pages clarify their positions regarding the proper following of local, state, and federal laws where applicable. But the fact is, if my old friend from high school is selling his Glock 27 and posts it on his Timeline, he also has a responsibility to ensure that his firearm is going to someone who is legally able to own a firearm. Perhaps Moms Demanding Immoral Action With Bloomberg assumes that background checks are the only surefire (no pun intended, again) way of making sure that guns aren’t going to felons or violent offenders. This is, of course, categorically untrue. Enforcing the laws on the books will never be enough for these people until they have successfully disarmed every law-abiding civilian in the United States.
I always make them fill out a “bill of sale” when I sell through Facebook or anywhere if for nothing more than C.Y.A. To me, this seems like a whole lot of nothing.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/03/04/facebook-in-talks-with-drone-maker-titan-aerospace-about-possible-acquisition/?intcmp=obnetwork
Can we dial back the hyperbole to maybe a 7 or so?!
What Conn. has done is an outrage, but it doesn’t mean we need to start a war with the cops.
If you want to take meaningful action against this, have folks dressed in their Sunday best gather in the thousands outside the state police headquarters, holding a 30 round mag. Leave the AR of AK at home, just bring the mag. If you get enough people they will have to do something. Either arrest the protesters (there’s your case for challenging the law ) or they back down and repeal it.
I think there is power in having vast numbers of ordinary people getting arrested to show a law is unjust.
I don’t see a violent confrontation leading to a repeal of this law, rather it will play into the hands of the grabbers. “See, we need to take their weapons away. These gun guys are just a bunch of terrorists.”
The only way to resolve this is politically. Whether it happens legislatively, I don’t know.
They’re just trying to cover their a$$e$ in a legal frame of mind. They just want to be absolved of being a negligent 3rd party in a firearms related death and any civil lawsuit that follows. Nothing more than that, nothing less.
True story
Several of my retired LE friends and I went to a local Sports Chalet to purchase some Quick Clot when it first came on the market to update our first aid kits.
We each purchased 4 or 5 packets for each of our numerous first aid kits and went through the checkout individually.
I was last in line and the same clerk who handled my friends’ purchases looked at me and said “do you guys know something I don’t?”
How is something *potentially* illegal?
When it’s legal and you don’t like it, and you have media control, it becomes ‘potentially illegal’.
I assume in much the same way that groups like MDA and MAIG are “potentially” the biggest threats to American liberty in existence.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa bwwaaaaaaaaa
Here’s what I envision:
http://thepoultryguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/free-range-chicken.jpg
A bunch of hens clucking….
Doublespeak.
?? The above statement suggests that sales without a background check is unlawful which is blatantly false. “no background check required” is legal in most states. Only states having legislation requiring additional background checks require this. Federal law explicitly details its legality:
Facebook wouldn’t be going around insinuating that it is against the law to perform private sales between firearms would they??? Surely they wouldn’t do that.
“Private sale loophole” since when is a private sale a loophole? Oh yeah I forgot… that makes sense thing need not apply.
Makes just as much sense as verifying a buyer has a drivers license before you can sell him that rusty 84 pickup thats been collecting dust and rust… without a DL check you could be selling to someone who MIGHT be a DUI looking for a place to happen.
Why does WDA count this as a win? The only thing that is going to change is people will stop talking about not doing background checks, which really goes without saying anyway when doing a private sale. Private sales across state lines is illegal so I have no problem with Facebook discouraging it. In the end nothing changes at all. You just have to click to indicate you are over 18 and that you are aware of your local gun laws. Big deal. Am I missing something?
What is this Facebook that you speak of? Is it something that only teenage girls use?
Why wasn’t the NRA invited? The NRA is for keeping guns out of the wrong hands and would have been helpful.
So Facebook is going to take down posts with that kind of language even where no background check is required by law, all because it “implies” some kind of malfeasance?
Who actually writes like that when trying to sell a gun? I can recall one case that I think I read about here, I believe the woman who posted the ad was running for office?
Makes you wonder if that case wasn’t a staged provocation just to lead into this? It is all just so stupid…
Why are we talking about this with CT as the setting instead of NY? Because NY is far more politically polarized. There were rumors of enforcement a while ago in NY with a resounding “BRING IT” from upstate. New Yorkers actually do have time to wait for the courts to grind away. Connecticuters may not.
CT, you really do only have yourselves to blame. Even NY is better off.
Here’s the photo you should have put up there:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200953670866668&set=a.1615788757274.87876.1313008129&type=3&theater
You’re welcome.
I guess if “just humor them so they’ll go away” counts as a victory, so be it.
I’m confused as to why my name is on her page.
So basically they will be building in reminders to the law, the law criminals don’t follow anyway. At least they can say they “did something”.
As usually happens, Moms Demand Action interprets language as they see fit. Facebook is not “changing” any of its existing policies. They have always limited illegal activity, such as selling illegal firearms. They have also always tried to limit access to minors. Why is it that Moms Demand Action and Mayors Against Illegal Firearms never seem to portray the real information.
I wonder if someone bought a bunch of these in early 2012 thinking they’d be a good investment and now really, really want to get rid of them…..
To get community backlash against this, flag and report airsoft pages. Airsoft is a restricted sale item to 18+.
“I’ll take any victory I can get. Even if it means absolutely nothing.”
I love how they’re parading this around like some big huge victory. Not to stop there, they even put words in FB’s mouth.
This is my shocked face.
Lip service and empty policies. Weeks and months of hue and cry, and what they get is
FB will follow the law? This is a nothing victory for MDA. And not nearly as funny as them getting kicked off Staples HQ policy.
Let them crow about it. Inside they’re crying.
Please confine your shameless shilling to the right hand ad space and get your posts back to news and reviews.
TTAG is better than this, you are insulting your audience.
Resistance … Fail-ing … Mmmust … En-ter … Con … Test for sh-tty … .22 …piss-tol …
MDA, you are so diluted it’s scary!
Try posting what the actual FB policy is verbatim and then we’ll see how much of a victory you scored! ……NONE!
i put the word gun in 15 posts after reading this hehe
Like my herpes this post just keeps flaring up! Just when you think its gone, BOOM, right back in there.
I visited Dick heads sporting goods in Dothan Alabama and asked to see a RUGER mini 14. I was told they do not sell assault rifles I told them it was a hunting rifle and again I was told “no that is an assault file “. I picked up 1 box of shotgun shells (#8 bird shot) At the counter They required my date of birth .(im over40) and for me to complete a small questioner on whether im an illegal or not . When I asked why all of this for a box of shells they told me that their SECURITY CAMERA has already taken my photo and will save it in a data base with the information I gave them in case something ever happen with the ammo I purchased . HMMMM .. I Wonder what he would have done if he realized I was carrying (LEGALLY) A Glock 9mm with an extra mag under my shirt ..I WILL NEVER PURCHASE ANYTHING FROM THEM AGAIN .
Most of the gun debates miss the forest for the trees, in my opinion.
Attempt to apply any of these tests to any other fundamental human right – free speech in particular – have been invalidated. Likewise for several delineated rights, eg the right to vote. Heck, even driving a car – which is most definitely a privilege, not a right – can’t be restricted in this fashion in many states.
So the only real debate point is whether a human being has an inalienable right to self defense by whatever means that individual chooses. If so, nothing else can be said.
If not, why not and where are the limits to be placed, and who has the right to set those limits for another person? And why?
Lol liberals are so fucking clueless.
You wanna see the gun culture in America? You likely won’t wanna see ’em but I’ll still show you just in case you haven’t shook your head in disgust yet today.
Youtube: Bang Da Hitta die L’z
They perform the same, hardly shocking. You cant go wrong with either version.
You already have all the talking points, RF. We won the debate on merits many moons ago. Now this is about persuasion through identification and connection. He wants people to identify with him as a parent and connect with him on mutual love for our children. Well.
Don’t we all? So beat him to the punch. Get the audience to identify and connect with you as the parent of daughters who’ve never been assaulted and never been murdered, because self-defense firearms allow you to protect them. You can’t be everywhere and won’t be there forever, though.
One day they will be adults on their own and they will need to protect themselves. You’re fighting for firearms freedoms today, so that they can defend themselves in the future. That’s part of your legacy as a man and as a father: fighting to ensure that other parents don’t have to endure the spaciousness of anguish that this man has had to over the loss of his son. You’re fighting for his son’s memory as much as for your daughters’ future.
Judge a society by how it treats its weakest members. We owe it to all of our society’s members that they may exercise their right to self-defense.
Why don’t you ask him, Jew to Jew, what he REALLY thinks about “never again”?
So the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in 2009 and we just got a decision in 2014?
How does it take 5 years to get a decision on deprivation of basic civil rights?
This is a culture war, but it’s less about guns than it is about males. Let’s face it — schools hate males, except for that peculiarly neutered variety called “administrators.”
Too dumb to believe.
Level 2!!! Thank heavens the kid didn’t develop level 3 finger gun technology, oh the carnage that would have reulted
when does your finger turn into arm? when you point your finger like a firearm. if my kid was expelled for a hand gesture this would not have been it.
So now your ar can be a big booty girl too
My wife used to work at a hospital in Detroit. You cannot imagine the level of criminal stupidity. Springtime was the time that young men would start showing up with injuries sustained from jumping off pedestrian bridges onto the freeway to evade police. It wasn’t as if these were life-sentence raps either. You can’t fix stupid.
benelli, but primarily because most of my long guns have ghost rings. for my eyes, easier target acquisition in a high stress environment.