Politics

Okay, I’ll Admit it…I’m Facebook Illiterate—But This Was Weird

My wife sent me a text about an offensive anti-cop post on a neighboring community’s Facebook page. So, I went to see for myself.

Seems some lowlife posted a photograph of a federal law enforcement vehicle he spotted at a local gas station. He wrote, “Ice sighting at the chevron off of Ballinger way. Don’t open your doors to these thugs! Stay safe everyone.”

I should note that this charming guy’s photo was not of an ICE vehicle but one of Customs and Border Protection’s cruisers. I’m sure CBP is just as evil to him as ICE, so…

I felt compelled to respond to his crass comment. However, I couldn’t comment. There were 107 comments on the thread, but I found this message: “An admin turned off commenting for this post.” But they left the post up.

Admin posted, “Trying to remain neutral is super hard. Anything I say or do will cause some people to think one thing or another. I view this original post as a community member warning other community members. Since its turning political and angry…I’m shutting it down [emphasis mine].” But they left the post up.

Actually, I completely understand the Admin shutting down such a politically controversial uproar on a Facebook community page. This page is supposed to be a place where people can share non-offensive community banter and information.

However, though the Admin closed the comments, she left up the original post allowing a member to warn other members about law enforcement officers doing their jobs. Anyway, by leaving the post up but not allowing comments, this anti-cop sleaze (with impunity) gets to offend cops and people who support law enforcement. It’s like getting sucker-punched and then the assailant gets to just…run away.

I commented. My post: Maybe it’s just me, and I’m pretty FB illiterate, but I’m curious why the admin would turn off “comments” for a politically controversial post on this page but leave up the original post. Isn’t leaving the controversial post up with no comments allowed taking sides?

Most people replied that the thread had just gotten too “nasty” and “personal.” Imagine that. However, one person was a bit more specific: “The original post was within group guidelines, but people were getting personal.” This person was referring to the Admin’s comment about her determination, which she held conformed to guidelines, that one member was merely “warning” other members—you know, about a “thug” law enforcement officer at a gas station.

But, were the comments from the anti-cop dolt above truly within the group’s guidelines?

These are the posted guidelines:

“Rules of sharing and caring:
1. Be kind
2. Be generous
3. Share often
4. Be civil in all your interactions.”

Okay, I’ll agree calling a federal law enforcement officer a “thug” could be seen as sharing—I guess. And warning the community (illegal aliens) about a federal agent is generous (in its own way). But it is neither kind nor civil. How did that get past the Admin, if she isn’t biased? How could she make the initial determination that referring to a federal law enforcement agent as a “thug” is the least bit kind or civil?

Then, a very nice gal posted this warning for me: “I might be careful lol looks like the admin banned somebody in that thread about this.” Then she sent me a screenshot of that conversation between the member and the Admin (which I can no longer find, but that could be me). To be fair, it appeared the Admin didn’t exactly boot the person out (maybe she has since) but instead told him this page might not be a good fit for him. Because she disagreed with his opinions.

Now, if referring to cops as “thugs” and warning illigal immigrants about ICE on a Facebook community page won’t get you banned, or at least your post removed, wondering what might get me banned got the best of me. So, I gave it a shot: Thanks, Jen. So, if I, hypothetically, of course, were to “warn” members about the “thugs” at… oh, I don’t know… the local Planned Parenthood, would that get me banned? I mean, if you can call ICE and CBP agents “thugs,” why not PP employees? I’m not saying I believe that. I’m just asking. I want to stay within the guidelines.

And, this next comment is so smart, it warranted inclusion. I suspect the poster may be in law enforcement. He posted:

“I wonder if anybody sees the irony about a post about following the rules in a closed group when the original post was about specifically helping people not follow rules of a closed group.”

Finally, not sure how this will end. No one has kicked me off…yet. So, I’ll keep you posted (pun intended).

The opinions expressed here by contributors are their own and are not the view of OpsLens which seeks to provide a platform for experience-driven commentary on today's trending headlines in the U.S. and around the world. Have a different opinion or something more to add on this topic? Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own experience-driven commentary.
Steve Pomper

Steve Pomper is an OpsLens contributor, a retired Seattle police officer, and the author of four non-fiction books, including De-Policing America: A Street Cop’s View of the Anti-Police State. You can read a review of this new book in Front Page Magazine and listen to an interview with Steve on the Joe Pags Show. Steve was a field-training officer, on the East Precinct Community Police Team, and served his entire career on the streets. He has a BA in English Language and Literature. He enjoys spending time with his kids and grand-kids. He loves to ride his Harley, hike, and cycle with his wife, Jody, a retired firefighter. You can find out more about Steve and send him comments and questions at www.stevepomper.com.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Watch The Drew Berquist Show

Everywhere, at home or on the go.

WATCH NOW