Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Facebook to Tea Party: No more organizing
Daily Caller ^ | 6/2/11 | Kellen Giuda

Posted on 06/02/2011 10:28:59 AM PDT by ruralvoter

In February 2009, Alex Zablocki and I used Facebook to organize the New York City Tea Party, one of the first Tea Party protests in the country. Several thousand people joined our Facebook group, which we used to organize our first Tea Party protest. Hundreds of people showed up, we passed around a bullhorn, and we officially became “Tea Party organizers.” Without Facebook our rally would have most likely attracted about 20 people. Facebook was powerful and we knew it. Our next Tea Party rally, also organized through Facebook, brought 12,000 people to City Hall in Lower Manhattan. A social movement had begun. (snip)

Since then, this very important social organizing tool has changed.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: facebook; facebutt; faceleft; internet; leftards; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last
To: This Just In

Yeah but only if you tell them.

Why would you give them all that info? Because they asked for it?

I didn’t. Made something up. Worked fine but even then they insisted on constantly changing the disclosure rules so I just quit them.


81 posted on 06/02/2011 12:17:37 PM PDT by Adder (Say NO to the O in 2 oh 12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
Answer my question first.

If Facebook wants to be an arm of Obama, then it's their sword to fall on but they also held a town hall with Bush after he left office. An argument could be made that since Obama has used it as a platform (government policy) then it could potentially be up for potential legal action if it limited the free exercise of an opposite political view point but i'm not sure how that would turn out.

From a purely laymen's point of view, if Freerepublic let Palin hold a virtual town hall here, I have no qualms of not allowing his opponent speak here.

The size of the website shouldn't determine. Too big to run their site as they please. I would think it sucks but if you disallowed the other half from their point of view, you will find FB to lose a crap load of page views (which is a ton of money in ad sales). They don't want that.

82 posted on 06/02/2011 12:18:35 PM PDT by smith288 (Peace at all costs gives you tyranny free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ruralvoter

83 posted on 06/02/2011 12:19:32 PM PDT by wolficatZ (Somebody once wrote "Revenge is a dish that has to be eaten cold".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Minus_The_Bear
I didn't say anything close to that.

As far as *I* am concerned (as well as others in my field) we ARE the internet. And facebook isn't the only vehicle out there.

Now, don't get me wrong about Mrs. P. I think she's all that and a bag of chips. But we're all better off NOT to put all our hopes on one person.

1) depending on one person causes others not to get their arses off the couch and
2) We've seen what tyrants can and will do when strong willed women get too close to the seat of power.

I *know* Sarah can be the next president, she just has to survive until Inauguration Day. I firmly believe as things get closer, the latter will become more difficult.

Back to the matter at hand...

We cannot not always depend on facebook being there, just as much as we can't depend on even the INTERNET being here. I addressed this in a post awhile ago: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2666126/posts

84 posted on 06/02/2011 12:20:13 PM PDT by jimjohn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ruralvoter

If I wanted to use Facebook to organize a freakin’ revolution it is OK?


85 posted on 06/02/2011 12:20:56 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (Is there anyone that Obama won't toss under the bus?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smith288

his=her*


86 posted on 06/02/2011 12:21:55 PM PDT by smith288 (Peace at all costs gives you tyranny free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Let me guess: Lefties can use Facebook for political organization purposes, but not conservatives.

I wonder if the IRS made a phone call to the Facebook treasurer about certain content that would trigger worlds of hurt to their bottom line if they were not stopped.

87 posted on 06/02/2011 12:27:11 PM PDT by Gordon Pym (2+2=4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jimjohn
You still don't get it.

Free Republic isn't a social network.

The left are using tanks we have a wet noodle.

I don't like Facebook either. If you don't like like Facebook use Freedom Connector, twitter or something else. Free Republic is simply too small.
88 posted on 06/02/2011 12:27:26 PM PDT by Minus_The_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

“Facebook is a private company. They can establish their own rules for using the service.”

Really?

Ask eHarmony about that....


89 posted on 06/02/2011 12:28:42 PM PDT by Adder (Say NO to the O in 2 oh 12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: This Just In
Basically, you’re building your own personal profile for the government and other fed. agencies and entities. You’re basically working for Big Brother, with one except; you’re doing all the work.

Precisely why I don't "Facebook".

90 posted on 06/02/2011 12:28:54 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: smith288

“An argument could be made that since Obama has used it as a platform (government policy) then it could potentially be up for potential legal action if it limited the free exercise of an opposite political view point but i’m not sure how that would turn out.”

Yeah, that, plus FB’s work as a government contractor (and who knows what specific ties, email exchanges etc. with Obama officials) could arguably make this more of a public sphere issue depending upon the depth of involvement than purely a corporate property rights one. I’ll grant that I got a little ahead of myself with my initial statement, and it could be a stretch perhaps- but that’s essentially what I’m driving at.

Worth a try perhaps if there’s enough co-ordinated involvement here- who knows?

Ultimately, people should just ditch FB if it keeps playing games, I guess.


91 posted on 06/02/2011 12:29:44 PM PDT by Qbert ("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

http://freedomtorch.com/
92 posted on 06/02/2011 12:33:13 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: ruralvoter

Is anyone really surprised over this development?


93 posted on 06/02/2011 12:34:06 PM PDT by Darnright (There can never be a complete confidence in a power which is excessive. - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Adder
“Facebook is a private company. They can establish their own rules for using the service.”

They could probably say "No more organizing" but it would have to be a blanket prohibition that extended to all users with respect to any activity.
94 posted on 06/02/2011 12:44:36 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Basically, you’re building your own personal profile for the government and other fed. agencies and entities. You’re basically working for Big Brother, with one except; you’re doing all the work.

don't public school records and income tax records do much the same

95 posted on 06/02/2011 1:23:33 PM PDT by Gordon Pym (2+2=4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
“OK, so it’s clear that you don’t have a problem with Facebook being part of Obama’s Executive branch.”

I agree with the SCOTUS Citizens United decision in that corporate donations should not be limited.

Do you agree with the Citizens United decision?

96 posted on 06/02/2011 1:44:13 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

“Let me guess: Lefties can use Facebook for political organization purposes, but not conservatives.”

But of course! It really shows how frightened they are about 2012.


97 posted on 06/02/2011 1:47:23 PM PDT by nolongerademocrat ("Before you ask G-d for something, first thank G-d for what you already have." B'rachot 30b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
“OK, so it’s clear that you don’t have a problem with Facebook being part of Obama’s Executive branch.”

I agree with the SCOTUS Citizens United decision in that corporate donations should not be limited.

Do you agree with the Citizens United decision?

98 posted on 06/02/2011 2:07:23 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

The Citizens United decision has NOTHING to do with you not having a problem with Facebook being part of Obama’s Executive branch.


99 posted on 06/02/2011 2:48:23 PM PDT by kiryandil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Pym
don't public school records and income tax records do much the same

While there are many databases out there with a surprising amount of information about people, I find it foolish to willingly stuff a single file anywhere with a wealth of information.

Let them work for it it they want it, it's the American Way.

BTW, I didn't buy into the whole 'self disclosure' thingy in the '80s either.

If I don't see where any of that is anyone else's business, there is no need to just hand it out willy nilly.

The more detail you openly provide about yourself, the more easily that information can be used against you, by fraudsters, thieves, or others.

In a Governmental environment of rapidly changing rules not constrained by Constitutional authority except to pay scant lip-service to it, the words one types today are fair game to be used against you in the future.

There is no guarantee that what you own, eat, or do--or for that matter, say today will be legal tomorrow, and the ex post facto prohibition has already been breached.

So I don't Facebook.

100 posted on 06/02/2011 3:09:42 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson