Problems with the "Bogus AWAA Fan Page".. (page 5)

Juan Viejo2

Mind blown - your items 2 and 3 are actually the same non-AAWA website. But there were two distinct incidents involving that site that I am referring to in my earlier message:

1. The unapproved adding of unaware FB to our site without our knowledge, or theirs (Thursday 4/4)

2. The hijacking of our header image and logo and continued referral of non-JW oriented persons to our website (Sunday 4/7)

There was no "bogus" website set up by AAWA members. The "bogus" was actually the same website involved in #1 and #2 above who was acting as if they were an agent of AAWA - which they were most definitely not.

We only had just a few complaints from those added by our own members. As far as I know those have all been resolved amicably. As I said, we have had no recent complaints, but rather a very positive and rather large rush of volunteers and supporters.

JV

Juan Viejo2

Ignat - No I can't. I am not a heavy user of FB and not a great fan of it or Twitter. I've set up three Facebook pages in my day and except for AAWA all were just open to anyone and not that controversial.

So maybe you should direct your question to others here on the board that are more competent and heavier users of FB.

Sorry...

JV

Dismissing servant

You can be added to a group without accepting.

But, if it's a closed (secret) group the group activities shown on your own timeline cannot be seen by people outside the group.

Dismissing servant

But, those closed groups should be moderated/administered in that way that there is no possible way for individual members for adding new people. This eliminates the risk that a nuthead will add 100's of people to the group.

Each new suggested member has to be accepted by a moderator/administrator.

fizzywiglet

Rebel8 was outed. It did show up on her timeline.

To answer your question, Jgnat, a group name shows up on your timeline under "recent activity" or in your newsfeed when you join or are added. It does not show up on your timeline/newsfeed when you leave a group (there is no "so-and-so has left such-and-such group" notification on the newsfeed). Also, I believe there is a distinction between a "closed" group (name still shows up on newsfeed but nobody can see the contents) and a "secret" group (security is allegedly a little tighter though who knows, with Facebook settings, which change and glitch out all the time).

Also, I did not receive any email notification when I was added. Neither did Dagney. I didn't know for a couple of days, until I logged in (and then it was just buried in my notifications drop-down).

Now that the group has been made "open to all", there is even more potential for outing people who haven't yet realized they've been added. It's not as though you've removed all of the force-added people (some of whom you admit were added by your own volunteers and members) and then PM-d them to invite them properly. You've made the group open and increased the likelihood of outing, and you're just saying, "well, they can still leave or complain if they want to", even though many still may not realize they've been added.

How many people have yet left (after realizing they were added) or how many they've been replaced by is an irrelevant, moot point. I think you're at least trying to be honest and do something about it, Juan, in contrast with some other board members, but "only a FEW people have complained about being outed or potentially outed" isn't exactly any comfort to them. I mean, your argument is, "Hey, we only messed up or potentially messed up a FEW people's lives, only compromised a FEW people's privacy. That we know of. So far."

jgnat

I can see my activity log and it logs all my visits to a secret group. I checked a friend's profile page and I was not able to view her activity log. I'm fairly certain then that your activity log is only visible to you. My "likes" are visible to all.

Might some of it have to do with privacy settings?

There's a setting called: "Limit the audience for posts you've shared with friends of friends or public?

If you use this tool, content on your timeline you've shared with friends of friends or Public will change to Friends. Remember: people who are tagged and their friends may see those posts as well. You also have the option to individually change the audience of your posts. Just go to the post you want to change and choose a different audience."

A friend advised me for ultimate privacy, if that is a concern, is to set up a second account.

Me, I limit my Facebook to flesh-and-blood family and friends. I did not get the spam invite. I am not on many grouplists I guess.

fizzywiglet

Rebel8 was outed. Friends of mine who were not part of the group could see the group name on my timeline, though they could not see the group itself.

Also, kind of a moot point, now that they've made the group "open to all", as Juan says.

The point isn't retroactively teaching people how to set their Facebook settings. It's not force-adding them to begin with, and doing your utmost to limit and undo the damage that has already been done.

They should remove everybody who was force-added and then PM them and invite them properly. Or at the very least PM everybody and let them know that they may have been added to the group without their knowledge, AAWA is very sorry, and they wanted to notify them and give them the opportunity to choose whether to stay or go. Because FB doesn't necessarily notify you when you've been force-added unless you have your settings set to let you know. And just making a "Hey, you can leave if you want to post" on the AAWA page and hoping force-added people see it doesn't work, both because not everybody logs in and looks at their entire timeline every day, and also because Facebook doesn't show your entire group all of your postings on their timeline...it's only something like 25% of users see it, and you have to pay for "sponsored" posts for it to show up for higher percentages of your group.

And yeah, I still find it disturbing that their argument is "well, screw those people who left and their complaining complainyness about being added without permission or potentially outed, just because we don't know very much about social media and privacy. They were quickly replaced by new members and we still totally have 1300 people".

Yes, that's absolutely the issue here. Not that people's privacy was compromised, but how many members came in to replace the "few" who have realized it so far and complained about it. Nice.

Dismissing servant

"Friends of mine who were not part of the group could see the group name on my timeline, though they could not see the group itself."

Are you sure? In that case the group settings are not set to the highest level of security. I had a talk with Bo, and according to him it should be at top security level. But I don't understand why on earth they changed the settings (according to Juan Viejo) to an open group. That's like giving 1300 names to the WTS. How do they think??

fizzywiglet

I had friends who were not added check before I left the group.

But yeah, I agree with you, opening it up to everyone without first PM-ing the entire group and letting them know they may have been added without permission and giving them the opportunity to leave is just playing with fire.

soontobe

EP, I can't imagine what the AAWA leadership team could have done to prepare other than "all hands on deck" on launch day.

If you are going to launch something like this new org, that means you prepare before the launch. This includes securing your identity, which these days means at least creating a placeholder on Facebook, Twitter, etc. The President's PAC, for example, didn't even bother to purchase their domain name when they announced a major relaunch. Someone bought them up on the announcement.

http://organizingforaction.org/

http://organizingforaction.com/

http://organizingforaction.net

Embarassing and amateurish. I'm sure AAWA has learned from the experience.

Problems with the "Bogus AWAA Fan Page"..

Share this