@Abbe: My sentiments exactly. Actually, hardly a few hours go by without another attack on our freedom. We are living under a tyranny and not many people are even aware of it. It’s scary.
2010-09-15 08:17
Mike
This has nothing to do with freedom or democracy. Facebook is a private company, and can do whatever they want with their site. It sucks, but isn’t deserving of the rhetoric the first two commenters are spewing.
2010-09-15 10:32
Andrew
Criminal.
2010-09-15 10:37
Richard M Cisco
I can’t believe facebook did this. Have they published any official reason that it was ‘abusive’? What is their definition of ‘abusive’ – I really hope someone savvy with confronting corporations on their policies follows this up and publicizes this.
2010-09-15 10:38
DragonTat2
It is quite possible that some other fb users who consider themselves to be “real patriots” reported the page as abusive. IOW, it may not have been a decision by fb, per se, to block the page.
I suggest you forget about Facebook and use Google buzz in place of it to get your message out. Lot’s of people using buzz (not to be confused with Yahoo Buzz) as a social site.
One will need a Gmail account to initially set it up. Please do so.
– Stephen Allen
Toronto
2010-09-15 10:58
Hobson
The URL format of your old page, facebook.com/savebradley, appears to be the format used for personal pages. If you did set up a personal page for your campaign then you did indeed violate Facebook’s terms of service.
2010-09-15 11:28
Rumi (المؤلف)
@hobson – We did not set up a personal page.
A lawyer consulted with the Bradley Manning Support Network, reviewed the stated terms of service, reviewed our page, listened to a description of our actions, and was unable to identify anything that would constitute a violation.
Facebook has not told us what we did to ‘violate’ the terms of service. We waited several days and, when we still didn’t get any reply, we published this in hopes of encouraging a response. It’s possible this was an automated hold on our account because numerous people flagged us in hopes of taking us down. If so, we need a way to alert Facebook to what happened so they can remove the restrictions.
2010-09-15 11:55
Olof
This has *everything* to do with democracy. Corporations (and the people in them) are part of the society, part of the democracy. The attitude that ‘companies can do what they like’ is what helps apathy win time after time. Shame on anyone really thinking that’s an answer – you’re not part of the same human race as the rest of us, especially when you attack people who think otherwise.
@Olaf: Mike is correct. FaceBook can do whatever they want, but not at the behest of the US gov (doesn’t take tight tin-foil to make the leap that the gov is probably behind it somehow). Nothing anyone can do unless that were to be proven.
Mike should take note however, my original comment (one of the first two) says nothing about making FB do anything. Mike might have checked my link that goes to a freedom / freemarket oriented web site — just click on my name — before criticizing my “rhetoric.”
Democracy has nothing to do with private business. Private business is private, period. If a private business harms you and you can prove it, then you take them to court or arbitration and work it out. That’s called justice.
If you believe the public should tell the business what to do, that’s called Communism. I’ll pass.
2010-09-15 17:34
AM
I find it sad that you voluntarily use, and thereby, legitimize a company whose stance on freedom and privacy is as bad, if not worse, than the government you seek to protest against. Rather than shit bricks about about how “Facebook did this to you”, why not simply refrain from using such a site as the means by which you try to effect the change you desire?
You only strengthen Facebook with your patronage of them, and by so doing, give them the power to control the success of your efforts.
2010-09-15 17:45
Mike Gogulski
@AM: That would be because Facebook is currently the 800-pound gorilla of social publishing. We wouldn’t be connected with 10k+ people through a different channel in 2010 over the space of 3 months.
2010-09-15 19:38
Richard M. Cisco
@AM – facebook agrees to a contract of usage as well and has set its own standards to abide by. A contract is a contract.
2010-09-15 21:24
Justin Hopkins
@Mike I agree with @AM to some extent. I deleted my Facebook account long ago when it became clear that they are an unethical company. What happened to the save Bradley page is only the latest example. I also agree with you when you say that fb is the only way you could have connected with so many so fast. That said, in my experience connections made on fb are extremely tenuous. I think the level of effort your fb “supporters” are willing to put forth may be limited to clicking a link or two. Certainly very few would be willing to risk ridicule, teargas, or arrest to support your cause.
2010-09-15 22:18
AM
“A contract is a contract.” Says who? Where does this “unalienable” right come from?
A contract isn’t worth the paper its printed on (or in this case not printed on), if it can’t be enforced in a court. Given that Facebook is the 800-lb gorilla as someone put forth in another post, your ability to enforce your “contract” against Facebook is essentially zero. So where does that leave you and your efforts?
The point I’m making is that the “convenience” that makes it so easy for you to amass an armada of “10,000 strong” with the few clicks of a button is also the key to revealing just how weak this coalition is. As J. Hopkins mentioned in his post, much of your “supporters” have supported to the extent they’ve been able to click a button. That isn’t real support – there are larger facebook groups complaining about farmville.
The key to effecting real social change is much, much harder. Your in-person rallies and protests are a start. Get to college campuses activist committees. Notify local journalists of the impending news story they are about to witness. Spread the word among people who care enough to make it a part of their lives, and they will be the ones who will turn out at and actually DO something.
2010-09-16 03:45
David
This is why I gave money and am switching to Diaspora as soon as it is up and running. As social networks like FB and Twitter get bigger and bigger they become a much more important part of our democracy. If you control the media you control the message. We have to take back control of our own content and Diaspora is an important step in doing that.
@Alan Taylor: Why do you suppose anyone would trust you and your services? You are one of the Chihuahuas running around the internet snipping at the WikiLeaks and Bradley Mannings work-horses of the world. You, Wired, Adrian Lamo, you belong in a special land of notoriety. Your type of ‘support’ is not needed around here.
@AM: The fact that you cannot personally afford a successful court battle against an 800lb.gorilla company highlights this: The US Judicial System is anything but judicial, and the fact that you cannot exercise your rights has nothing to do with FB and everything to do with your gov. Strike the root of the problem.
You contradict yourself:
“Your in-person rallies and protests are a start.” A start at what? Meeting people who might be interested in furthering your cause.
“Get to college campuses activist committees” College activists are not on FB? What year is it where you live?
“Notify local journalists of the impending news story they are about to witness.” Oh, you mean like the letters I’ve written to newspapers after learning about what’s going on through FB?
“Spread the word among people who care enough to make it a part of their lives, and they will be the ones who will turn out at and actually DO something.” Well, you got that part right. When the issues are presented on FB, specifically by promoters of a cause and not detractors, the hearts and minds of people can be swayed. When the idea spreads and takes root, you have yourself a movement.
2010-09-16 10:55
nathan
It amazes me that a support group gets taken down, and pages such as this page against bradley, which foster and promote grossly inhumane comments are allowed to stand.
Building on what CertainQuirk has said; it does no good to argue to those that are already supporters (and that can take no major action). So what? You must build a base by reaching those who don’t know or by arguing so as to sway supporters to your side, and reaching to the higher powers involved. Simply having 10k electronically generated supporters on a web site with a private agenda is not enough.
FB works as a meeting place for the like-minded. When thousands of people with the same sentiments can come together in the same place they can forge a movement with a common message. Witness what has happened here with Bradley Manning. (I personally became aware of this movement through FB). Bradley Manning now has a coalition of supporters who have funded his legal representation (over $50K) in a matter of a few weeks. What more proof does anyone need?
What were the terms that were violated? It seems strange that Facebook would just say you violated terms when you didn’t. I mean, somehow attention was drawn to your group, maybe someone complained to Facebook and they had to take away your admin rights until they could look into it.
“Alan Taylor: Why do you suppose anyone would trust you and your services? You are one of the Chihuahuas running around the internet snipping at the WikiLeaks and Bradley Mannings work-horses of the world. You, Wired, Adrian Lamo, you belong in a special land of notoriety. Your type of ‘support’ is not needed around here.”
Guilty as charged about sniping at principally Assange… Bradley Manning and whistleblowers like him… not at all.
@Alan: “Guilty as charged about sniping at principally Assange… Bradley Manning and whistleblowers like him… not at all.”
Really? Help me makes some sense of that then. You wouldn’t have done what Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have done by releasing the material that Bradley Manning is accused of releasing.
So, if you don’t support that, then what is it about Bradley Manning that you’re supporting? You’re just sitting around wishing he had sent the material to you so you could have forwarded it directly to the Pentagon and perhaps spared him a few years in jail? Since you have the audacity to post here, why don’t you just go ahead and explain to us your intent in wanting to “help if we can…”
“Really? Help me makes some sense of that then. You wouldn’t have done what Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have done by releasing the material that Bradley Manning is accused of releasing.”
===========
Not really, we move information around rather than publish.. have been doing so since 2003.
In fact I donated £50 to Mannings defence fund. What really interests me is why is this fund required at all when Assange himself says Wikileaks has over $1 million sloshing around from donors.
How much has Wikileaks contributed towards Mannings defence..??
Read the legal update on this site ( http://bradleymanning.org/ar/10440/legal-update/ ) and it will answer your question about how much WikiLeaks is providing to the Bradley Manning defense fund.
My previous question: “Really? Help me makes some sense of that then. You wouldn’t have done what Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have done by releasing the material that Bradley Manning is accused of releasing.”
You answered with: “Not really, we move information around rather than publish.. have been doing so since 2003.”
Obviously I phrased the question in a manner such that I assume your PGPBoard and Cryptome operate as a team. It seems you ‘move’ *selected* sexy information from PGPBoard to Cryptome. I’m guessing however, as I implied in the question, you would NOT have released the Collateral Murder video footage, and would have instead forwarded it to the DoD or Cryptome or perhaps both (knowing of course, that Cryptome would NOT release material like that).
Do you monitor your Tor bridge with the help of the US DoD, or Interpol, or some other government agency as well?
Again, my original question, why would anyone trust you and your services?
I believe I speak for many when I say, if you really are Alan Taylor, you are suspect, and should not consider yourself worthy of helping Bradley Manning.
Regarding Wikileaks: They are not specifically mentioned in the update you refer to, however the overall position is clarified. Same question, how much did Wikileaks donate toward the Manning defence fund, when they alone should be providing the monies required. Keep in mind Assange for, legal reasons, denies any association with Manning. Could this support group be a front for Wikileaks..? Now that’s a thought.
All the information we (PGPBOARD) move is encrypted with the recipients’ public key. We have no access to the content, same M.O. since 2003. Take some time out read the operating protocols.
You indeed are guessing quite a lot, I recall that Cryptome was shut down in the late 90′s when it published a list of british counter-intelligence operatives in Northern Ireland.
Monitor the TOR bridge relay? You have a vivid imagination..
Re trust.. again don’t trust anyone on the Internet everyone has an agenda.
Remember in such exchanges as this, you only speak for yourself, don’t assume any further authority unless you have it and can demonstrate same.
Since you feel so outraged about my donation to Mannings defence fund could you please make a donation on my behalf to UNICEF for £50, this may ease your outrage..
You’re wrong, this article specifically mentions WikiLeaks: Julian Assange informed me a week ago that he has directed WikiLeaks‘ non-profit agent to begin the process of making a substantial contribution to the legal effort. Taking into account these pledges, we still need to raise approximately $20,000 of the estimated $100,000 legal bill.
No, I have no reason to read your ‘operating protocols’ at PGPBoard. Regardless of what they may say, the reality of what you do is questionable at best.
So, you don’t know what Cryptome is? Really? Try cryptome.org and I believe you’ll find information there that names you quite specifically, and not only that, but quotes you talking about Cryptome to serveral journalists.
No, monitoring your TOR bridge is most definitely possible (https://ssd.eff.org/tech/tor) and not ‘my vivid imagination.’
Yes, I speak with confidence when I say that you are not a well respected individual among people who are familiar with WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, and Bradley Manning. You are well aware of this. It requires no “authority.”
It is not my call as to whether the donation you made can or will be re-directed. I hope they keep the money. It’s not even close to what you owe Bradley Manning and the world.
2010-09-17 13:36
Johan Ekman
Oh almost forgot… Bless EVERYONE here =) You are doin something good for the whole planet!
There is a huge gap between what Assange says, and what he (Wikileaks) actually does. However, you avoid the principal question. And that is, why is not Wikileaks itself supporting Manning by taking care of his attorney fees?? (RSVP)
Assange himself said that Wikileaks has over $1 million dollars of donor funding.. Is Wikileaks profiting from Mannings situation? It would be nice to see Assange handing over the cheque to attorney Coombs. (RSVP)
If you have no reason to read the operating protocols at PGPBOARD, then you comments concerning same are somewhat unsound.
We fully understand that TOR exit server traffic can be snooped upon by a rouge operator. Evidently this is how Assange and Wikileaks started up. We (PGPBOARD) would never follow Wikileaks example in this matter.
I don’t recall denying knowledge of Cryptome..?? Millions of people are aware of Cryptome. And yes, we have contributed to many news organisations concerning Assange and Wikileaks, and we intend to continue doing so.
When you supposedly speak for others you do require authority. Otherwise it’s just an individual opinion. (This is why we have “Power of Attorney” in legal matters)
However, I do agree with your assertion that PGPBOARD, I myself, and others you mention are not exactly flavours of the month with the boys and girls down a Wikileaks, this is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that someone shines a light into the murky waters that is Wikileaks and see what’s floating around.
The main stream media are beginning to examine Assange, Wikileaks and its financial structure. This is excellent; transparency and clarity is good for all organisations. Wikileaks should appreciate this more than most.
“There is a huge gap between what Assange says, and what he (Wikileaks) actually does. However, you avoid the principal question. And that is, why is not Wikileaks itself supporting Manning by taking care of his attorney fees?? (RSVP)”
There is no gap. Assange said WikiLeaks was donating money and they have.
“Assange himself said that Wikileaks has over $1 million dollars of donor funding.. Is Wikileaks profiting from Mannings situation? It would be nice to see Assange handing over the cheque to attorney Coombs. (RSVP)”
Your personal vendetta against WikiLeaks and Assange becomes quite obvious here. Thank you for validating all my previous claims as to your lack of sincerity.
“We fully understand that TOR exit server traffic can be snooped upon by a rouge operator. Evidently this is how Assange and Wikileaks started up. We (PGPBOARD) would never follow Wikileaks example in this matter.”
So, first you claim my statement of TOR vulnerability is “vivid imagination.” Then you come back and admit you fully understand it can be snooped, but you’d like us to believe you would be no such rogue operator?
“I don’t recall denying knowledge of Cryptome..?? Millions of people are aware of Cryptome. And yes, we have contributed to many news organisations concerning Assange and Wikileaks, and we intend to continue doing so.”
Look about two comments up and you might remember denying the Cryptome of which you are now readily speaking.
Your credibility is lost at this point and I won’t even bother addressing the rest of your rant. You are a typical Internet troll who happens to run a TOR server and message forwarding service.
I hope all readers have taken note of all the references here and will steer clear of this man, his associates, and his services.
[...] No dia 15 deste mês, a página de Manning no Facebook , que contava com mais de 13 mil assinantes, foi removida, por ter “violado os termos de conduta”. Em seu site, a rede de apoio a Manning mantém material informando que não violou termo algum. No dia seguinte a página voltou, mas com restrições às operações de administração. Saiba mais aqui. [...]
“There is a huge gap between what Assange says, and what he (Wikileaks) actually does. However, you avoid the principal question. “And that is, why is not Wikileaks itself supporting Manning by taking care of his attorney fees?? (RSVP)”
There is no gap. Assange said WikiLeaks was donating money and they have.
“Assange himself said that Wikileaks has over $1 million dollars of donor funding.. Is Wikileaks profiting from Mannings situation? It would be nice to see Assange handing over the cheque to attorney Coombs. (RSVP)”
Your personal vendetta against WikiLeaks and Assange becomes quite obvious here. Thank you for validating all my previous claims as to your lack of sincerity.”
=====================
Will you answer the above question and points, without going off on a tangent. Please show us your evidence concerning Wikileaks donation to BM’s defence fund.. Disbursement receipts from the Wau Holland Foundation would be acceptable. I would be happy to post on PGPBOARD as evidence of Wikileaks intent to support Manning with hard cash, and not just worthless media sound bites.
You are trying to weave a web of conspiracy where there is none to be had. Nice try… I look forward to receiving your documentary evidence of Wikileaks donations to attorney Coombs.
You steadfastly refuse to respond to the questions concerning Wikileaks donations to BM’s defence fund an the evidence thereof.
The only conclusion one can draw from this exchange is that you know absolutely nothing about the subject, and are not capable of responding to specific questions.
Pity, you gave the impression that you were a “player” unfortunately you appear to nothing of the kind..
The idea of using Facebook for political organizing seems ludicrous to begin with. Facebook is nothing but a honeypot, set up to commodify its customers fo rthe benefit of its corporate owners. It is run by 100% corporate loyalists who, demonstrably, won’t think twice about pulling the plug on something that doesn’t meet with corporate American approval. Corporate America is making a lot of money from serial American aggression and can only be expected to crush anyone, especially someone like Bradley Manning, who goes up against them.
2010-09-17 21:50
Mike Gogulski
@Alan:
I can shed some light here on one concrete issue.
“Julian Assange informed me a week ago that he has directed WikiLeaks’ non-profit agent to begin the process of making a substantial contribution to the legal effort.” — Jeff Paterson, in http://bradleymanning.org/ar/10440/legal-update/
As of this moment, the Wau Holland Foundation has not yet made a disbursement, as this request is still being processed. When it does occur, I expect that we’ll receive word from Manning’s attorney, David Coombs, that the funds have been credited to his client trust account for Manning’s benefit.
@CertainQuirk
“If you believe the public should tell the business what to do, that’s called Communism.” Thoughtfull remark!
2010-12-12 12:08
Sam Liddicott
I said over 10 year ago that capitalism is the new communism – outsourced to private companies; and it’s sadly true.
You need to convert your facebook members to bradleymanning.org mailing list members so that you have control over your communication when facebook pull the plug, which they WILL DO again.
2010-12-13 03:15
Truewit
I have just written to Nancy Pelosi at AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov to protest, and suggested on the page of the Uk Independent that others do the same: it was automatically referred for ‘moderation’.
2010-12-18 19:35
Thecube
The mailing list is a good alternative, and twitter is more open than facebook, screw facebook. Just ditch them altogether
2010-12-20 08:57
Marcello Cristiani
Not one lawyer in this country that will take on Bradley’s case pro bono? 100′s of thousands of dollars to defend an innocent person?
Come ON Vincent Bugliosi!!! Take this on!!!!
Our free forum supports all heroes who risking their lives and freedom protect and defend our freedom of free speech and press. We support Bradley Manning, we demand his immediate release, and we denounce US criminal government.
2010-12-20 17:01
Rick Kay
I use my power as a consumer such as, when ever I find a company operates in a way that I think is against democracy and my freedoms, I immediately stop using their services or products and let them know. If we all do that, we can force change. If thousands of people deleted their facebook acounts and told them why, you can be sure they would do something about our concerns. I have deleted my facebook, visa, mastercard and paypal accounts because of their actions.
شبكة دعم برادلي مانينج - كافة المواد الموجودة على هذا الموقع قد تم نشرها على نطاق عام ما لم تتم الإشارة إلى غير ذلك. نقدر الدعم والمساهمة - برادلي مانينج حر.
Americans should really be worried about democracy and freedom in their country.
Not a week goes by without another worrysome development.
I bet this is not a mistake!
@Abbe: My sentiments exactly. Actually, hardly a few hours go by without another attack on our freedom. We are living under a tyranny and not many people are even aware of it. It’s scary.
This has nothing to do with freedom or democracy. Facebook is a private company, and can do whatever they want with their site. It sucks, but isn’t deserving of the rhetoric the first two commenters are spewing.
Criminal.
I can’t believe facebook did this. Have they published any official reason that it was ‘abusive’? What is their definition of ‘abusive’ – I really hope someone savvy with confronting corporations on their policies follows this up and publicizes this.
It is quite possible that some other fb users who consider themselves to be “real patriots” reported the page as abusive. IOW, it may not have been a decision by fb, per se, to block the page.
Onward & upward~
[...] Manning Support Network: “What Happened to Our Facebook Page with 10,000+ Supporters?“ Facebook freezes Bradley Manning Support page Sep 15 [...]
I suggest you forget about Facebook and use Google buzz in place of it to get your message out. Lot’s of people using buzz (not to be confused with Yahoo Buzz) as a social site.
One will need a Gmail account to initially set it up. Please do so.
– Stephen Allen
Toronto
The URL format of your old page, facebook.com/savebradley, appears to be the format used for personal pages. If you did set up a personal page for your campaign then you did indeed violate Facebook’s terms of service.
@hobson – We did not set up a personal page.
A lawyer consulted with the Bradley Manning Support Network, reviewed the stated terms of service, reviewed our page, listened to a description of our actions, and was unable to identify anything that would constitute a violation.
Facebook has not told us what we did to ‘violate’ the terms of service. We waited several days and, when we still didn’t get any reply, we published this in hopes of encouraging a response. It’s possible this was an automated hold on our account because numerous people flagged us in hopes of taking us down. If so, we need a way to alert Facebook to what happened so they can remove the restrictions.
This has *everything* to do with democracy. Corporations (and the people in them) are part of the society, part of the democracy. The attitude that ‘companies can do what they like’ is what helps apathy win time after time. Shame on anyone really thinking that’s an answer – you’re not part of the same human race as the rest of us, especially when you attack people who think otherwise.
@Olaf: Mike is correct. FaceBook can do whatever they want, but not at the behest of the US gov (doesn’t take tight tin-foil to make the leap that the gov is probably behind it somehow). Nothing anyone can do unless that were to be proven.
Mike should take note however, my original comment (one of the first two) says nothing about making FB do anything. Mike might have checked my link that goes to a freedom / freemarket oriented web site — just click on my name — before criticizing my “rhetoric.”
Democracy has nothing to do with private business. Private business is private, period. If a private business harms you and you can prove it, then you take them to court or arbitration and work it out. That’s called justice.
If you believe the public should tell the business what to do, that’s called Communism. I’ll pass.
I find it sad that you voluntarily use, and thereby, legitimize a company whose stance on freedom and privacy is as bad, if not worse, than the government you seek to protest against. Rather than shit bricks about about how “Facebook did this to you”, why not simply refrain from using such a site as the means by which you try to effect the change you desire?
You only strengthen Facebook with your patronage of them, and by so doing, give them the power to control the success of your efforts.
@AM: That would be because Facebook is currently the 800-pound gorilla of social publishing. We wouldn’t be connected with 10k+ people through a different channel in 2010 over the space of 3 months.
@AM – facebook agrees to a contract of usage as well and has set its own standards to abide by. A contract is a contract.
@Mike I agree with @AM to some extent. I deleted my Facebook account long ago when it became clear that they are an unethical company. What happened to the save Bradley page is only the latest example. I also agree with you when you say that fb is the only way you could have connected with so many so fast. That said, in my experience connections made on fb are extremely tenuous. I think the level of effort your fb “supporters” are willing to put forth may be limited to clicking a link or two. Certainly very few would be willing to risk ridicule, teargas, or arrest to support your cause.
“A contract is a contract.” Says who? Where does this “unalienable” right come from?
A contract isn’t worth the paper its printed on (or in this case not printed on), if it can’t be enforced in a court. Given that Facebook is the 800-lb gorilla as someone put forth in another post, your ability to enforce your “contract” against Facebook is essentially zero. So where does that leave you and your efforts?
The point I’m making is that the “convenience” that makes it so easy for you to amass an armada of “10,000 strong” with the few clicks of a button is also the key to revealing just how weak this coalition is. As J. Hopkins mentioned in his post, much of your “supporters” have supported to the extent they’ve been able to click a button. That isn’t real support – there are larger facebook groups complaining about farmville.
The key to effecting real social change is much, much harder. Your in-person rallies and protests are a start. Get to college campuses activist committees. Notify local journalists of the impending news story they are about to witness. Spread the word among people who care enough to make it a part of their lives, and they will be the ones who will turn out at and actually DO something.
This is why I gave money and am switching to Diaspora as soon as it is up and running. As social networks like FB and Twitter get bigger and bigger they become a much more important part of our democracy. If you control the media you control the message. We have to take back control of our own content and Diaspora is an important step in doing that.
Happy to help if we can…
Until you get yourself sorted, you are all welcome to post your
messages of support for Bradley here:
http://www.pgpboard@pgpboard.com
we have a secure ssl tunnel to the site here..
https://eta.securesslhost.net/~pgpboar/
Regards
Alan Taylor
@Alan Taylor: Why do you suppose anyone would trust you and your services? You are one of the Chihuahuas running around the internet snipping at the WikiLeaks and Bradley Mannings work-horses of the world. You, Wired, Adrian Lamo, you belong in a special land of notoriety. Your type of ‘support’ is not needed around here.
@AM: The fact that you cannot personally afford a successful court battle against an 800lb.gorilla company highlights this: The US Judicial System is anything but judicial, and the fact that you cannot exercise your rights has nothing to do with FB and everything to do with your gov. Strike the root of the problem.
You contradict yourself:
“Your in-person rallies and protests are a start.” A start at what? Meeting people who might be interested in furthering your cause.
“Get to college campuses activist committees” College activists are not on FB? What year is it where you live?
“Notify local journalists of the impending news story they are about to witness.” Oh, you mean like the letters I’ve written to newspapers after learning about what’s going on through FB?
“Spread the word among people who care enough to make it a part of their lives, and they will be the ones who will turn out at and actually DO something.” Well, you got that part right. When the issues are presented on FB, specifically by promoters of a cause and not detractors, the hearts and minds of people can be swayed. When the idea spreads and takes root, you have yourself a movement.
It amazes me that a support group gets taken down, and pages such as this page against bradley, which foster and promote grossly inhumane comments are allowed to stand.
Building on what CertainQuirk has said; it does no good to argue to those that are already supporters (and that can take no major action). So what? You must build a base by reaching those who don’t know or by arguing so as to sway supporters to your side, and reaching to the higher powers involved. Simply having 10k electronically generated supporters on a web site with a private agenda is not enough.
FB works as a meeting place for the like-minded. When thousands of people with the same sentiments can come together in the same place they can forge a movement with a common message. Witness what has happened here with Bradley Manning. (I personally became aware of this movement through FB). Bradley Manning now has a coalition of supporters who have funded his legal representation (over $50K) in a matter of a few weeks. What more proof does anyone need?
What were the terms that were violated? It seems strange that Facebook would just say you violated terms when you didn’t. I mean, somehow attention was drawn to your group, maybe someone complained to Facebook and they had to take away your admin rights until they could look into it.
What did you guys expect? It’s Facebook.
“Alan Taylor: Why do you suppose anyone would trust you and your services? You are one of the Chihuahuas running around the internet snipping at the WikiLeaks and Bradley Mannings work-horses of the world. You, Wired, Adrian Lamo, you belong in a special land of notoriety. Your type of ‘support’ is not needed around here.”
Guilty as charged about sniping at principally Assange… Bradley Manning and whistleblowers like him… not at all.
Alan Taylor
@Alan: “Guilty as charged about sniping at principally Assange… Bradley Manning and whistleblowers like him… not at all.”
Really? Help me makes some sense of that then. You wouldn’t have done what Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have done by releasing the material that Bradley Manning is accused of releasing.
So, if you don’t support that, then what is it about Bradley Manning that you’re supporting? You’re just sitting around wishing he had sent the material to you so you could have forwarded it directly to the Pentagon and perhaps spared him a few years in jail? Since you have the audacity to post here, why don’t you just go ahead and explain to us your intent in wanting to “help if we can…”
uphold freedom! In every incarnation! For all!
“Really? Help me makes some sense of that then. You wouldn’t have done what Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have done by releasing the material that Bradley Manning is accused of releasing.”
===========
Not really, we move information around rather than publish.. have been doing so since 2003.
In fact I donated £50 to Mannings defence fund. What really interests me is why is this fund required at all when Assange himself says Wikileaks has over $1 million sloshing around from donors.
How much has Wikileaks contributed towards Mannings defence..??
Maybe attorney Coombs can answer that one..
Alan Taylor
@Alan Taylor
Read the legal update on this site ( http://bradleymanning.org/ar/10440/legal-update/ ) and it will answer your question about how much WikiLeaks is providing to the Bradley Manning defense fund.
My previous question: “Really? Help me makes some sense of that then. You wouldn’t have done what Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have done by releasing the material that Bradley Manning is accused of releasing.”
You answered with: “Not really, we move information around rather than publish.. have been doing so since 2003.”
Obviously I phrased the question in a manner such that I assume your PGPBoard and Cryptome operate as a team. It seems you ‘move’ *selected* sexy information from PGPBoard to Cryptome. I’m guessing however, as I implied in the question, you would NOT have released the Collateral Murder video footage, and would have instead forwarded it to the DoD or Cryptome or perhaps both (knowing of course, that Cryptome would NOT release material like that).
Do you monitor your Tor bridge with the help of the US DoD, or Interpol, or some other government agency as well?
Again, my original question, why would anyone trust you and your services?
I believe I speak for many when I say, if you really are Alan Taylor, you are suspect, and should not consider yourself worthy of helping Bradley Manning.
Shawn Fair aka CertainQuirk
Why trust anyone on the Internet??
Regarding Wikileaks: They are not specifically mentioned in the update you refer to, however the overall position is clarified. Same question, how much did Wikileaks donate toward the Manning defence fund, when they alone should be providing the monies required. Keep in mind Assange for, legal reasons, denies any association with Manning. Could this support group be a front for Wikileaks..? Now that’s a thought.
All the information we (PGPBOARD) move is encrypted with the recipients’ public key. We have no access to the content, same M.O. since 2003. Take some time out read the operating protocols.
You indeed are guessing quite a lot, I recall that Cryptome was shut down in the late 90′s when it published a list of british counter-intelligence operatives in Northern Ireland.
Monitor the TOR bridge relay? You have a vivid imagination..
Re trust.. again don’t trust anyone on the Internet everyone has an agenda.
Remember in such exchanges as this, you only speak for yourself, don’t assume any further authority unless you have it and can demonstrate same.
Since you feel so outraged about my donation to Mannings defence fund could you please make a donation on my behalf to UNICEF for £50, this may ease your outrage..
AT
@Alan Taylor:
You’re wrong, this article specifically mentions WikiLeaks: Julian Assange informed me a week ago that he has directed WikiLeaks‘ non-profit agent to begin the process of making a substantial contribution to the legal effort. Taking into account these pledges, we still need to raise approximately $20,000 of the estimated $100,000 legal bill.
No, I have no reason to read your ‘operating protocols’ at PGPBoard. Regardless of what they may say, the reality of what you do is questionable at best.
So, you don’t know what Cryptome is? Really? Try cryptome.org and I believe you’ll find information there that names you quite specifically, and not only that, but quotes you talking about Cryptome to serveral journalists.
No, monitoring your TOR bridge is most definitely possible (https://ssd.eff.org/tech/tor) and not ‘my vivid imagination.’
Yes, I speak with confidence when I say that you are not a well respected individual among people who are familiar with WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, and Bradley Manning. You are well aware of this. It requires no “authority.”
It is not my call as to whether the donation you made can or will be re-directed. I hope they keep the money. It’s not even close to what you owe Bradley Manning and the world.
Oh almost forgot… Bless EVERYONE here =) You are doin something good for the whole planet!
There is a huge gap between what Assange says, and what he (Wikileaks) actually does. However, you avoid the principal question. And that is, why is not Wikileaks itself supporting Manning by taking care of his attorney fees?? (RSVP)
Assange himself said that Wikileaks has over $1 million dollars of donor funding.. Is Wikileaks profiting from Mannings situation? It would be nice to see Assange handing over the cheque to attorney Coombs. (RSVP)
If you have no reason to read the operating protocols at PGPBOARD, then you comments concerning same are somewhat unsound.
We fully understand that TOR exit server traffic can be snooped upon by a rouge operator. Evidently this is how Assange and Wikileaks started up. We (PGPBOARD) would never follow Wikileaks example in this matter.
I don’t recall denying knowledge of Cryptome..?? Millions of people are aware of Cryptome. And yes, we have contributed to many news organisations concerning Assange and Wikileaks, and we intend to continue doing so.
When you supposedly speak for others you do require authority. Otherwise it’s just an individual opinion. (This is why we have “Power of Attorney” in legal matters)
However, I do agree with your assertion that PGPBOARD, I myself, and others you mention are not exactly flavours of the month with the boys and girls down a Wikileaks, this is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that someone shines a light into the murky waters that is Wikileaks and see what’s floating around.
The main stream media are beginning to examine Assange, Wikileaks and its financial structure. This is excellent; transparency and clarity is good for all organisations. Wikileaks should appreciate this more than most.
AT
“There is a huge gap between what Assange says, and what he (Wikileaks) actually does. However, you avoid the principal question. And that is, why is not Wikileaks itself supporting Manning by taking care of his attorney fees?? (RSVP)”
There is no gap. Assange said WikiLeaks was donating money and they have.
“Assange himself said that Wikileaks has over $1 million dollars of donor funding.. Is Wikileaks profiting from Mannings situation? It would be nice to see Assange handing over the cheque to attorney Coombs. (RSVP)”
Your personal vendetta against WikiLeaks and Assange becomes quite obvious here. Thank you for validating all my previous claims as to your lack of sincerity.
“We fully understand that TOR exit server traffic can be snooped upon by a rouge operator. Evidently this is how Assange and Wikileaks started up. We (PGPBOARD) would never follow Wikileaks example in this matter.”
So, first you claim my statement of TOR vulnerability is “vivid imagination.” Then you come back and admit you fully understand it can be snooped, but you’d like us to believe you would be no such rogue operator?
“I don’t recall denying knowledge of Cryptome..?? Millions of people are aware of Cryptome. And yes, we have contributed to many news organisations concerning Assange and Wikileaks, and we intend to continue doing so.”
Look about two comments up and you might remember denying the Cryptome of which you are now readily speaking.
Your credibility is lost at this point and I won’t even bother addressing the rest of your rant. You are a typical Internet troll who happens to run a TOR server and message forwarding service.
I hope all readers have taken note of all the references here and will steer clear of this man, his associates, and his services.
[...] No dia 15 deste mês, a página de Manning no Facebook , que contava com mais de 13 mil assinantes, foi removida, por ter “violado os termos de conduta”. Em seu site, a rede de apoio a Manning mantém material informando que não violou termo algum. No dia seguinte a página voltou, mas com restrições às operações de administração. Saiba mais aqui. [...]
“There is a huge gap between what Assange says, and what he (Wikileaks) actually does. However, you avoid the principal question. “And that is, why is not Wikileaks itself supporting Manning by taking care of his attorney fees?? (RSVP)”
There is no gap. Assange said WikiLeaks was donating money and they have.
“Assange himself said that Wikileaks has over $1 million dollars of donor funding.. Is Wikileaks profiting from Mannings situation? It would be nice to see Assange handing over the cheque to attorney Coombs. (RSVP)”
Your personal vendetta against WikiLeaks and Assange becomes quite obvious here. Thank you for validating all my previous claims as to your lack of sincerity.”
=====================
Will you answer the above question and points, without going off on a tangent. Please show us your evidence concerning Wikileaks donation to BM’s defence fund.. Disbursement receipts from the Wau Holland Foundation would be acceptable. I would be happy to post on PGPBOARD as evidence of Wikileaks intent to support Manning with hard cash, and not just worthless media sound bites.
You are trying to weave a web of conspiracy where there is none to be had. Nice try… I look forward to receiving your documentary evidence of Wikileaks donations to attorney Coombs.
Regards
Alan Taylor
https://eta.securesslhost.net/~pgpboar/
Alan Taylor, You are a troll and your links are not to be trusted.
Anyone just tuning in may see this is documented above.
You steadfastly refuse to respond to the questions concerning Wikileaks donations to BM’s defence fund an the evidence thereof.
The only conclusion one can draw from this exchange is that you know absolutely nothing about the subject, and are not capable of responding to specific questions.
Pity, you gave the impression that you were a “player” unfortunately you appear to nothing of the kind..
Alan Taylor
https://eta.securesslhost.net/~pgpboar/viewtopic.html?f=2&t=91&sid=f3b85d9dd447b0afa538b63a13b57278
Anyone just tuning in may see from comments above, Alan Taylor is a troll and his links are not to be trusted.
The idea of using Facebook for political organizing seems ludicrous to begin with. Facebook is nothing but a honeypot, set up to commodify its customers fo rthe benefit of its corporate owners. It is run by 100% corporate loyalists who, demonstrably, won’t think twice about pulling the plug on something that doesn’t meet with corporate American approval. Corporate America is making a lot of money from serial American aggression and can only be expected to crush anyone, especially someone like Bradley Manning, who goes up against them.
@Alan:
I can shed some light here on one concrete issue.
“Julian Assange informed me a week ago that he has directed WikiLeaks’ non-profit agent to begin the process of making a substantial contribution to the legal effort.” — Jeff Paterson, in http://bradleymanning.org/ar/10440/legal-update/
As of this moment, the Wau Holland Foundation has not yet made a disbursement, as this request is still being processed. When it does occur, I expect that we’ll receive word from Manning’s attorney, David Coombs, that the funds have been credited to his client trust account for Manning’s benefit.
Most of the rest of this discussion is off topic, so I’m replying to two of your other points in the “off topic” section of our forum: http://bradleymanning.org/ar/forum/viewtopic.html?f=5&t=55
Looks like Facebook is playing games with other grassroots organizations as well. “It slices the vocal cords,” –> very good way of phrasing it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42364.html
Just posted a link on Facebook to http://bradleymanning.org/ar/. Posted ok.
Feel free to friend me http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.html?id=100001571417612
Jon
@CertainQuirk
“If you believe the public should tell the business what to do, that’s called Communism.” Thoughtfull remark!
I said over 10 year ago that capitalism is the new communism – outsourced to private companies; and it’s sadly true.
You need to convert your facebook members to bradleymanning.org mailing list members so that you have control over your communication when facebook pull the plug, which they WILL DO again.
I have just written to Nancy Pelosi at AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov to protest, and suggested on the page of the Uk Independent that others do the same: it was automatically referred for ‘moderation’.
The mailing list is a good alternative, and twitter is more open than facebook, screw facebook. Just ditch them altogether
Not one lawyer in this country that will take on Bradley’s case pro bono? 100′s of thousands of dollars to defend an innocent person?
Come ON Vincent Bugliosi!!! Take this on!!!!
Our free forum supports all heroes who risking their lives and freedom protect and defend our freedom of free speech and press. We support Bradley Manning, we demand his immediate release, and we denounce US criminal government.
I use my power as a consumer such as, when ever I find a company operates in a way that I think is against democracy and my freedoms, I immediately stop using their services or products and let them know. If we all do that, we can force change. If thousands of people deleted their facebook acounts and told them why, you can be sure they would do something about our concerns. I have deleted my facebook, visa, mastercard and paypal accounts because of their actions.