by OUTLAW 447 Replies latest watchtower scandals
There was no "very quick nip" in any bud on this subject. Because of that we are agonizingly still talking about it today.
This is one place I didn't think I would have to worry about things being made right, given our common ground. I'm beyond annoyed.
Therein lies the risk of launching something with much fanfare on a discussion board. This is probably why the site owners have been wary of people posting links and advertising new sites here in the past. People who have been outed or are otherwise irritated have every right to vent on this forum. No one is asking for an 'off with their heads', but perhaps a better response to a cardinal rule being broken in ex-JW-land - privacy and confidentiality. The group should have been shut down immediately, rather than the haphazard response of 'well, sorry, if you want off then remove yourself please'. I've read some vague references to people inside and outside of AAWA being at fault. A statement or even better, a posting from the guilty party here would be useful so people can adequately express their feelings and the fallout from these actions. Asking who exactly did this is not altogether an unreasonable request. No real names or addresses are needed. No lynchings are scheduled.
So was this done by a member of AAWA or not?
Juan stated:
1. "Yes, there were some referrals by * our own advisors and volunteers , but there were only about 50 in that category",
and
2. I spoke to the *one (other not affiliated with AAWA) person who has a rather large group of followers on his own website and Facebook pages who clearly got overly excited and began auto referring all of the members on his site to ours.
Also, beware:
FB recently added a new ticker news feed on all pages. It's a little ticker box to the right of your screen that only the FB page owner can see, however, eveyone has this new feature. Anytime you or anyone of your freinds on FB "likes", "comments", or "accepts", everyone can see your activities.
FYI. One thing I'm not sure of is once a FB Fan Pade (or any page for that matter) is deleted, does the notice of acceptence also disappear on your front page....???
*AAWA has to be beware of stating they are representives of EX-Jw's or the EX-JW community. Period.
HeadIsSpinning said: The issue with people being OUTED has nothing to do with the main AAWA group. That has been explained ad nauseum.
The ONLY issue with the main AAWA group is that some people were INVITED without their knowledge. The ONLY issue that causes is a minor inconvenience because that group is set to SECRET.
It was the RIP-OFF group that is responsible for adding people to an OPEN page and thereby revealing their identities.
What is unclear about that?
Nope, read again. The whole thread. Turns out that's a shameless little bit of spin-doctoring at best, which Juan Viejo (a board member) actually went to great lengths to explain and correct, while Cedars (the president) sat back and perpetuated Outlaw's initial sensationalistic (and inaccurate) post. Juan Viejo, at least you're being more forthcoming and seem to have more than a modicum of sense. As a board member, you might want to put forth a motion about getting some kind of business insurance...you're sure gonna need it if AAWA keeps compromising people's privacy.
As Juan stated and Mind Blown hilighted above, people were only force-added to the official AAWA page. The discrepancy in dispute seems to be how many were referred by an AAWA representative (he says "only" 50, as though that wouldn't be a big deal on its own, which it is) and how many were referred by an overenthusiastic AAWA group member who was not an AAWA representative (he says hundreds more, but only on 4/7...even though the AAWA coordinator herself admitted prior to that that AAWA had force-added around 1,000 people. Also, it shouldn't matter if an overenthusiastic group member did it...they shouldn't be able to wield that kind of power. Facebook has a setting where group admins can choose to vet/approve every person who joins before they are added (I know that because my own human rights group FB page uses that option). They didn't have to allow just any random member the power to auto-refer.)
So was this done by a member of AAWA or not?
Yes. In fact, she was confronted by several angry people on the group page and was really defensive about it and implied that AAWA had force-added closer to 1,000 people...she justified it as being "too much work" to invite everybody properly via PM. At that point, Rebel8 and others had already complained about being added/outed. So yes, AAWA's representative was very openly sanctioning the force-add approach.
That was before 4/7, when Juan Viejo claims the "main culprit" from this supposed "ripoff page" allegedly got enthusiastic and force-added what they're saying is the majority of the people. At the time the AAWA coordinator was confronted, they already had 1300+ members on their page, which I know because Bo Juel Jensen was excitedly posting, "Hey, we have over 1300 members!!!"...they currently say they have around 1325, so yeah, the dates and numbers don't match up; they're trying to cover their asses with this "stolen identity" story. I think Juan is trying to be forthcoming and transparent, unlike certain other board members, and does admit he doesn't know a ton about social media, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he is misinformed on this point rather than intentionally misrepresenting.
Dagney was force-added to the official page too and saw the confrontation (I believe she may have participated, actually, though if I'm wrong I know she'll correct me).
The numbers match up, too. 1,000 people their coordinator implied were force-added to the group (before any alleged shadowy ripoff group on 4/7), a total of 1,300 members...meanwhile, the Facebook "page" that you can like/unlike (different from the group) only has around 257 likes...makes sense that those are roughly the people who actually did join of their own free will.
My reaction is that the consequences of mere sloppiness with personal identities are so dire that there should be consequences. How have other groups coped with the same problem?
I agree with Ann O'Malleys point in " why not just shut the whole site down " and start from scratch ? I mean it would have the immediate effect of getting the 1,000 or so people who were " force joined " AWAA Facebook information taken off of their personal Facebook accounts, wouldn't it ?? I mean by NOT doing this aren't the AWAA owners opening themselves up to even more liability from members who did NOT want to become members ?
Again- This is one reason that I am VERY damned careful about posting pictures on this site from the Tahoefests that some of us attend each year. I ask the same question EVERY year to people who attend - Do you want your picture posted on the private section on JWN , or not ? If they do NOT , we don't and will NOT post the pictures out of respect for their privacy, so they won't be outed . Their pictures are ONLY posted if they've given me their permission verbally in person or over the phone verbally.
Th fallout from being outed is much greater as someone stated earlier than " just running a business. " As someone said, " people are not just a business ". These are people's lives we are dealing with here and THAT is a much more serious agenda than keeping an anti-WT organization up and running in a dysfunctional capacity while throwing caution to the wind. With ex-JW's if they get outed it can cost them possible inheritances, broken marriages, losing family members permanently be it child , parents, or grandparents.
So I ask the AAWA owners : At what price fame ? At what cost organization first, people's lives and privacy second ? Only you the owners of this site can and will answer that or control the outcome and have to live and deal with the consequences. As will anybody who gets outed by lack of inaction with this situation. O.K. Just my 2 cents this morning
Why hasn't the group been deleted?
Blaming the people who were outed is incredibly stupid, and understandably infuriating for those affected.
I am glad I add neither Witnesses nor former Witnesses to my facebook account. But people who do shouldn't need to put up with this, especially from an organisation that's supposed to be on their side.
Turns out that's a shameless little bit of spin-doctoring at best, which Juan Viejo (a board member) actually
went to great lengths to explain and correct, while Cedars (the president) sat back and perpetuated Outlaw's
initial sensationalistic (and inaccurate) post.......Fizzywiglet
I made an effort to find out what happened..
I sometimes do that when there are problems here..
I put the information I "had",in this thread..
Juan Viejo was good enough to clarify what happened..
I`m not part of the AWAA..
JWN is where I hang my hat..This is Home..
I didn`t "Shameless Spin Doctor" anything..
Your accusations are false..
And..
Your doing "Bugger All" to make the situation any better..
........................
...OUTLAW
