chanel
Silver Member
Given the ease with which one can locate such profiles and groups on Facebook, it begs the question of whether they remain in place due to Facebooks inability to deal with them or to Facebooks lack of will. Every page on Facebook has a link to report offensive content, or anything that violates Facebooks terms of service. But repeated or multiple reports often do not result in the contents prompt removal.
The fact that both the Baltimore and Alexandria jihadists were identified as dangerous because of comments they had posted at Facebook raises a simple question. Is it better to remove such profiles and groups, or monitor them for their intelligence value? Within the counter-jihad community, this is the subject of ongoing debate. But it seems reasonable to assume that such a large number of targets presents a manpower problem for those who monitor them. Better to reduce their number to something more manageable, with the added benefit of concentrating and funneling jihadists to locations under surveillance.
Recently, Time magazine announced Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, as their Person of the Year. At Facebooks inception, not even Zuckerberg could have imagined how influential his site would quickly become. This influence now has direct national security implications. It is time for Facebook to take a more proactive approach to dealing with the abuse of its network by the global jihad movement. Meanwhile, it is incumbent upon Facebooks users, advertisers, and the media to hold this company accountable for the widespread and systematic abuse of its services.
Pajamas Media The Darker Side of Facebook: Online Jihad
Good question for discussion: Is it better to remove such profiles and groups, or monitor them for their intelligence value?