Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?

by wha happened? 159 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  fizzywiglet

  Here's the latest on this matter from AAWA

  http://jwactivists.org/blog/an-eventful-journey-summing-up-aawas-launch/

  Hilariously, they're deleting/spamming comments who point out where they've lied, manipulated the truth, withheld/omitted relevant information, or refused to address the elephant in the room, which is that they are continuing to put people at risk...they say "we haven't received any complaints or negative feedback via our website", but then they are disingenuously not only refusing to respond to the many very valid complaints, but also deleting comments. How very "information control". How very Watchtower.

  No matter. I anticipated this and screenshotted my comment, in case anyone would like me to post it as further proof that they're trying to bury any questioning. If anyone else attempts to comment on this self-serving farce on their website, I'd advise doing the same.

  I can't imagine how one could do that and contacting each person who was in the group by a PM to let them know. It seems like an overwhelming task, but, this is when some of the the posters who were upset then became angry. Some of those added people are still in the group, and the potential for serious problems for some are still there.

  At least 1,000 people were force-added without knowledge, and AAWA knew about it and was openly defending it as "too much work to do it any other way" several days before they tried to pin it on some random schmuck (which then blew up in their face when people who witnessed the original exchange called them out on it). For perspective, that's 77% of their current "membership" of 1,300 who did not choose to be there. Juan Viejo himself confirmed the force-add number at 1,000.

  Interestingly, it SEEMS like it would be an overwhelming task to remove/contact everybody (which is irrelevant; they admit to screwing up, so they should do whatever it takes, for however long it takes, to fix it immediately), but that's not even actually not the case...it would take about 5 minutes. Facebook allows you to mass-PM your entire group. And group administrators can easily see who were force-added by other members, as Juan Viejo already admitted.

  The concern is specifically for those people who were added without knowledge. People who might not use facebook often and were friends with people who added them without thier knowledge. That is a serious, serious matter. Facebook is horrible about privacy, but some may have never would have joined an obvious Antiwatchtower group, or posted anything to suggest they would support AWAA (even if they did) because their real identity was used on facebook. Some of those added may be people who would turn in others, some may be faders, some have no interest at all, etc. It is that concern over those people who were added without consent, and may still not even know what is going on, that is so bothersome.

  Bingo. I asked Cedars directly to address this, and he refused and went off in a snit.
• 

  rip van winkle

  I am sorry that Barbara Anderson resigned her position as Vice President of AAWA.
• 

  bigmac

  i bet the governing body are laughing themselves silly at all this dissention in the world wide web of apostates.

  when are you lot gonna learn to sing out of the same hymn book?
• 

  venetian

  Yes im sorry to hear about barb anderson too. I wonder what the reason was?

  Bigmac i agree
• 

  tim hooper

  So is this the Popular People's Front or the People's Popular Front or the Frontular Populist People?
• 

  Listener

  It was stated that AWAA became incorporated and Cedar used a bogus name for himself when registering and this is breaking the law. If this is true, it is a wonder that there are any board members left.
• 

  144001

  "It was stated that AWAA became incorporated and Cedar used a bogus name for himself when registering and this is breaking the law. "

  Those who made the claims about Cedars are not lawyers, are not judges, and are not juries. Their statements on the subject include unreliable hearsay and a large helping of animosity towards Cedars. Their opinions have about as much value to me as the turds I flush down the toilet.
• 

  Tylinbrando

  Barbara is still actively involved with AAWA. Please use your deductive powers of reason and logic. No laws have been broken. Speculation and assumption are prejorative to slander, gossip and defamation.
• 

  okage

  Since I am a huge proponent of activism in event to bring down the Watchtower, I feel the need to comment:

  Best Buy was outed some time ago for selling people's personal information to spammers. Because of this I do not go to Best Buy anymore. Sony was hacked and people's PSN accounts were hacked. Because of this, I buy nothing online from Sony.

  Security is important. For whatever reason someone wants to keep their information to themselves, it is their right to be the one to release that information when they are ready.

  @Venetian: You are pissing on the people by telling them to ignore a violation of this right and to focus on the potential good of a group that has no actual track record as an incorporated group. The individuals running it may have their own records, but the AAWA has done nothing. Again, so it can be reposted in highlighter later, you are pissing on the people by telling them to ignore a violation of their right to release information at their own leisure.

  If the AAWA wants to do REAL good in the world, pissing on their market is a bad way to start. They appeal to exiting Witnesses and the faders. So when a security breach occurs and these exiters and faders are outed, there becomes little need to trust the group. A website that outs gay people is deemed offensive by most in the gay community. So a group that outs exiters and faders should be viewed as such.

  You're not getting this when the vox populi is telling you exactly what is wrong. You're brushing them off, saying "fine, we don't need you anyway." You kinda do. I mean, if you go around claiming "all the good" the AAWA can do, then have something like the POINT OF THIS THREAD accessible on the internet, it becomes "counter productive."

  Class? All together: Counter. Productive.

  I am starting to see that the AAWA doesn't have a good Public Relations person on their staff, which is sad, but hey: I don't charge alot.
• 

  Simon

  I agree with some of the sentiments: they are taking criticism as lack of support when the reality is people are trying to help sort out a mess and want to see things resolved.

  I know Cedars is pissed for me 'allowing' things to be discussed here but people need to comment and voice their feelings and express themselves. If they are trying to 'control the conversation' by both refusing to take part AND deleting critical comments on their blog then, well, it's sad and isn't going to work - this kind of thing just doesn't fly on the internet.

  Isn't the quickest, simplest and safest solution to close the group immediately, then start a new one and only allow controlled membership with CLEAR description of what the implications of joining it are? IMO it appears people have become too obsessed with the body-count of members, that's the only thing I can imagine as a reason not to get this fixed ASAP.

  That said, the issue of using a facebook and publicising it when you cannot control who joins will always exist (as in, their identities and intentions).