Friday, July 26, 2013

Why are women being chloroformed on Facebook? ***Trigger Warning

Dear Mr Simon Milner / Lord Allan

Could you please explain why pages and personal profiles with images depicting women being chloroformed are present on the Facebook network?

Is it due to Facebook's interpretation of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and your belief that "people should be free to be pretty offensive online – there should be a broad range of offensive content that one can publish within the law" ?

I personally fail to see any valid purpose for such imagery and strongly believe that such imagery only serves to degrade women and encourage violent, abusive behaviour and rape.

I look forward to your response and justification of the hundreds of Facebook pages that exist for this particular 'niche'.


Alexandra Blue

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

'Persian Girls who likes Bondage'

Dear Mr Simon Milner

As both a woman and a mother I am utterly sickened by the continued presence of Facebook pages which display large galleries of images of women who are bound and gagged, and which proliferate across the Facebook network. Despite assurances from Facebook that they would "do more" and "be better" tackling such imagery, nothing has changed.


Let me present to you the Facebook page 'Persian Girls who likes Bondage'

This page features a gallery with over 100 images of women bound heavily with ropes around their ankles, legs, torsos, some spreadeagled on beds by having each limb restrained to each corner of the bed, nearly all are gagged, some are tied up and in the boots of cars, one has a funnel strapped to her mouth etc etc Over 8000 people have 'liked' this page and many of the photos have been shared hundreds of times.

Take a look at the screenshots attached. It turns my stomach to see women being treated in this way for the amusement and gratification of men, degraded and being physically restrained so that they can feel superior. What effect does it have on you Simon? Does it disgust you too or couldn't you give a damn? Is it just a bit of light-hearted titillation that doesn't cause any harm? Or maybe it's, as Facebook like to say, someone exercising their "freedom to reflect the world around them"?

I'll tell you what this is Simon. This is gender based hate and Facebook are doing NOTHING to rid the network of it.

What kind of signal does this send to children of 13 years old who see this kind of imagery? What does it say to young boys, that it is okay to treat women in this way for your pleasure and amusement? Just what kind of company does Facebook think it is that it can pollute the minds of our children and provide visual stimulus for sick perverts?

Today you aren't being presented with your advertisers brands alongside these images. You are being presented with YOU, Simon Milner, alongside. YOU. Your profile being recommended as a page to follow, appearing again and again alongside this content. Facebook is an absolute shambles and can't even manage to restrict the profile of its Director of Policy UK from appearing next to vile content, let alone all the poor companies who have naively entrusted you with their brands!

I want answers Simon. Answers as to why you didn't continue the phone conversation you scheduled for Monday 1st July. Answers as to why this kind of content still proliferates on Facebook. Answers as to why CSA content still proliferates on Facebook. Answers as to why Facebook is more interested in trying to protect advertisers than it is the children and women who suffer as a result of the content that you refuse to remove.

And I demand these answers today Simon.

Be under absolutely no illusion, myself and others will continue to show your advertisers, the media, childrens groups, womens groups and politicians exactly what kind of filth Facebook host and facilitate the sharing of until Facebook take responsibility for all this content, remove it and prevent more being added.

No more excuses. No more changes of policy to just protect advertisers. No more lies about children not being able to access this content.

Answers NOW!

Alexandra Blue

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Armchair Rapists

“It would be a mistake to think that rape is reducible to the physical act of a few men who are rapists. This ignores the existence of the countless armchair rapists who vicariously enjoy the act through reading pornography or news stories about it. It also overlooks the fact that all men have their power enhanced by rape, since this instills in women a need for protection.” ~Mary Daly

Monday, July 22, 2013

And so it continues....

Dear Mr Simon Milner

As Director of Policy for Facebook UK and Ireland, would you be so kind as to tell me why the following types of pages continue to be hosted on Facebook, a service that you claim to be suitable for children of 13 years old and upwards? As you are well aware, these represent only a tiny proportion of the huge issue of what Facebook like to refer to as 'inappropriate content' but serve to illustrate Facebook's indifference towards such content very well.

'Girl bound and gagged
This page has images of young women heavily bound with ropes around their ankles, knees, wrists, thighs, torsos and often with their hands then bound behind them to their feet. In all cases they are gagged either with gaffer tape or with a rag tied around their head through their mouth. The intention is clearly to portray images of women who appear to have been kidnapped and are in a state of duress, for the gratification of the people who enjoy seeing women being restrained against their will and being forcibly controlled.

At the top of the page the admin has written "If you want to look at some of video of Kidnapping and gagging girl check out my Daily-Motion account". This gives visitors to this page an easy opportunity to view further content of this type. However the page itself actually carries one such video showing over 9 minutes of footage young women being bound, gagged and tormented by older women.

In all cases the content on this page has been 'liked' and shared numerous times.

I ask you Mr Milner, why is such content on the Facebook network and why are Facebook allowing children unfettered access to it?

'Mr Christian xx (Full name/Link not listed for privacy reasons - original letter can be forwarded to you upon request)

This 'man', for want of a better word, looks to be around 40 years old and states that "i am looking for a boys feet i can suck on all day long" and that "thinks junior sexy".

Amongst his list of 172 'liked' Facebook pages are 'Cute boys we love', 'Hey dude your only 12yo, its not that big', 'I'm cute and I know it', 'I love kids', 'Gay teens 13-18', '13-15. gay boys', 'Cosquillas A Jovenes De 13 A 18 Anos De Guatemala', 'Adolescentes gay and bisex', 'Boys wearing flip flops' and 'Cute boyz', as well as numerous foot fetish Facebook pages.

In addition, Mr Hendricks has 47 friends, many of whom having profile pictures of boys ranging in age from around 8 to 12 years old.

I know for a fact that individuals and groups who are concerned by the presence of people such as this man, have been mass reporting this profile for months and yet it still remains. I reported the profile myself on 13th June and received the response back that it does not violate Facebook community standards and has not been removed.

Again I ask, why is a man who clearly has a sexual attraction towards children, allowed to continue using the Facebook network to indulge his interests and have easy access to communication with children?

Video (Link not listed for privacy reasons - original letter can be forwarded upon request)

This video depicts a Malaysian mother who clearly has mental health issues, beating, slapping and kicking her 8 month old son for the entire 4 minutes 19 seconds that the video runs. The video is filmed by another female who is heard to speak on occasion, a child of around 18 months stands on the bed next to the baby and another female stands in a doorway to the left of the shot.

The mother begins by repeatedly beating the baby, who is on all fours trying to crawl, with a cushion, each time knocking him flat to his stomach on the bed. Each time the child tries to raise himself up only to be beaten back down again. The mother then progresses to slapping the child across the face and legs before then moving on to repeatedly kicking the child in the side of his body. Regardless, the child tries to crawl towards her for comfort but she again slaps each time that he tries to touch her.

This video first appeared on the internet in May 2011 and the mother was later sentenced to 18 months in prison. When my partner and I spoke to you on 28th June with our concerns over the horrific content available on Facebook, we drew your attention to this video in particular. You justified the existence of this video on the Facebook network by saying that it is there "for the community to condemn". When challenged as to how long this video will continue to be hosted for this purpose, you had no answer. So again, I ask you, how long do Facebook intend to host this brutal video of a child being repeatedly assaulted and why are 13 year old children able to view it? When this child is 16 years old will this video still be on Facebook? When he is 30, 50? When?

The presence of this video serves absolutely no purpose other than as pure voyeurism for people looking for shocking content. It should be removed and yet Facebook refuse to under the guise of 'freedom of speech and expression'. The video is also hosted on YouTube in several different forms with a cumulative viewing audience of around 5 million people. Do you think they are all condemning it too Mr Milner? Are you that naive?

Facebook need to get control of this type of content immediately. David Cameron has again failed to hold Facebook to account but rest assured, the public will continue to do so until this and the rest of the vile content on the Facebook network is removed and children are no longer being put at risk due to the continued negligence of Facebook.


Anthony Hemsley

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Dear Mr Simon Milner - WTF?

Dear Mr Simon Milner ,

Could you please explain the continued existence of pages on the Facebook network that display images of females bound and gagged, with accompanying sickening comments from users? This type of content has absolutely no place whatsoever on a social network, particularly one that is aimed at those of 13 years and upwards. Such imagery is clearly hugely disrespectful and detrimental to the perception of women in society and their role within it, and only seeks to glorify many mens desire to physically control women and trivialises the issue of this type of abuse. That Facebook are allowing minors unfettered access to this is particularly troubling and could potentially lead to a very skewed view of what is acceptable behaviour. Furthermore, that such content has not been removed during Facebook's process of 'manually reviewing' all pages, a process which Facebook stated would begin on the 1st July, is really quite staggering.

Could you also tell me if there a valid reason why, alongside such content, users are being invited to rate books, films, music, apps and places as well as having other pages recommended to them? As you will see from the attached screenshots, this has today resulted in Disney Hollywood Studios, Paultons Park, Peppa Pig World and The Sun, Mirror and Guardian apps appearing for user-rating alongside horrible images of females bound and gagged. Clicking on the icons for each takes the user through to the relevant Facebook page.

In addition, page recommendations for Domino's UK, Boots, Barbie, Mickey Mouse and Nivea also appeared, today, alongside images of females bound and gagged and again, clicking on each of these takes the user through to the relevant Facebook page.

One of these images is of a female sitting in an open refrigerator with her hands tied behind her back, legs bound at the knees and ankles and a gag across her mouth. 119 people have liked this image and 27 have shared it. User Lee Gramm comments that she is "a cold bitch".

Another is of a female laying on her back on a sofa with her hands tied behind her back and a length of material tied around her head through her mouth. 114 people have liked this and 19 have shared it. User Bill Sommers comments "I wanna jerk off on her face".

Another image shows a female laying face down on a table, head raised up, with her knees and ankles and hands bound with rope and duct tape across her mouth. 98 people have liked this and 20 have shared it. User Don West comments "Served up and ready for??? Very good!"

In yet another, a female lays on her side bound heavily with rope at the ankles, above the knee, below the knee and the thighs. She is also bound with ropes around her upper torso around her upper arms and her wrists are bound behind her back. She has duct tape across her mouth. 68 people like this image and 3 have shared it. User Fab Ligotage comments "Love those tight ropes!".

It is utterly farcical how Facebook are seemingly unable to get a grip on this situation. On Friday 28th June it was announced that Facebook would take steps to ensure that brands would no longer be subjected to being exposed to 'inappropriate content' on the Facebook network and that all pages would be manually checked for compliance, and brands exposure limited to a 'core 10,000 gold standard pages'. And yet here we are three weeks later and brands are still being unwittingly exposed by Facebook to content that they clearly will have no desire to be associated with. I cannot begin to think that these companies will regard this as anything other than completely unacceptable.

I put it to you that Facebook have totally failed in their attempts to stop brands reputations being sullied by association with such content and that Facebook have absolutely no option other than to accept that vile, offensive and often illegal content is being hosted on Facebook servers, and start to remove it. This should have been Facebook's initial response rather than trying to appease the companies who advertise with you whilst allowing this kind of content to remain.

Facebook is not a safe or suitable place for children and Facebook simply cannot be entrusted with the safety of companies brands.


Anthony Hemsley

(Note: pictures here are just a random sampling of over 100 that were sent to me this am and do not represent the text.)

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Facebook Protest July 15th - NEW UPDATE

July 15 at 5:00pm until July 16 at 5:00pm in UTC+02

Women/men on Facebook close down your account for 24 hours in protest to Facebook´s lack of action when it comes to removing rape pages, images and rape- and violence jokes against women.

Facebook is sending out the message that it is OK to rape and, degrade girls and women, but the female body and breastfeeding is offensive and needs to be censored.

We are saying NO to this and closing our account for 24 hours.

Join the Protest -
Oh wait, you can't!

The Facebook Event page went mysteriously missing!  Last I looked, more than 3,000 people were protesting.  

You can still join in and deactivate today. Perhaps it will re-appear later.  We should still keep track of how many of us logged off.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Red Hood Project, bereaved parents Todd & Canning dismiss new Facebook ad policy

Parents of Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons join the Red Hood Project in dismissing Facebook’s new policy of removing ads from so-called “controversial” content. A growing list of major advertisers have suspended Facebook advertising over disturbing content, including sexual exploitation of children.

The Red Hood Project calls Facebook’s policy change a ploy to protect revenues amid mounting pressure from advertisers to exercise better control of its site.

“Rape, child sexual abuse and exploitation images in social media are not  “controversial” and they’re not a joke,” says Glen Canning, father of Rehtaeh Parsons. “They devastate victims and destroy families.  It is no answer to my daughter’s memory that Facebook thinks it’s good enough to take the ads off these pages. The pages themselves should be removed.”

“Facebook is in full-on damage control,” says Sandy Garossino, co-founder of the Red Hood Project. “ Lives are at stake here, and their focus is on protecting the bottom line, when it should be effective site management and protecting children and youth.”

Carol Todd, mother of Amanda, adds, “Removing the ads does not provide the solution about the inappropriate images that have been posted on Facebook. The pages mocking my daughter continue to re-victimize her after her death.  No person (living or not) should have to experience this.

It is time to establish a policy of zero tolerance of images that depict rape, sexual exploitation, gore and exploitation of the disabled. It is time that our loved ones can be remembered as they should be - with dignity and respect.”  

The Red Hood Project will continue to escalate pressure on advertisers to withdraw from Facebook until it can exercise responsible and effective site management.

The following are pages approved by Facebook monitors as not violating its community standards, as of today’s date (‘Todding’ refers to teen suicide’). They are mild in comparison with graphic images that Red Hood will not release:

The Red Hood Project is a movement for responsible industry conduct in social media. 

Media Contact:

Sandy Garossino  email:
Text to arrange interviews: 778-231-5230

Feminist Admins: Some things to consider

Are you prepared in case of a mass exodus of women from Facebook? Do your fans know where to find you?

Your message is important.  Please take stock of where you are with your social media.

You don't have to do everything, but if you are only on Facebook, you may regret it later. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.  Building a platform anywhere takes time.

Start promoting your other social media on Facebook. If you are on Twitter, let people know - loudly!

Most important, let's support each other.  

Those who are strong on Twitter can re-tweet from those who are not.

We can share each other's blogs and articles.

We can share pins.

We can recommend each other on LinkedIn.

There are so many ways we can support each other.  Leave your ideas below.

If we share our networks, we will be stronger collectively and our world will change sooner.


This is actually a hysterical video that some trolls made about how horrible Rapebook was. What it really does is show just how bad Rapebook was needed.

Hats off to Admin MF for her outstanding work!

It was deleted from Youtube so I can't upload it as a video - but here's the link!

Welcome to Crazy Land!

Facebook's Woman Problem

Since Bra-Busters was taken down, one of the administrators created a new site, BONER Busters, where, as Fitna tells me, 'Many trolls are bragging that they are reporting our page for porn.' Facebook has recently shut down other sites as well: Amazing Women had their site shut down for posting about the #FBrape campaign; Equality for Women repeatedly had posts removed ; and Femen has had its major accounts on Facebook suspended.

Women in Action Media (WAM) has employed various campaigns to encourage Facebook to change its attitude but in the absence of any real change, WAM began working with advertisers encouraging them to pull their ads from Facebook.

The egregious targeting of feminist sites by Facebook is incontrovertible as is Facebook's sexist approach to its female users. In recent months Facebook has removed photos of breast-feeding women, a woman's mammogram image and various sites for social and political empowerment, dialogue and organisation such as Bra-Busters while allowing for images of women who are beaten, raped, tortured as well as images of teens and children.

Some of the women on Bra-Busters have suggested that all women make a mass exodus from Facebook in the absence of Facebook taking a more pro-active stand towards women's and human rights. Others, such as Rapebook are attempting to tackle misogyny from within Facebook stating: 'We simply ask that FB follow its own rules on hate speech. Nothing more.'

In the absence of radical action by Facebook, we must all seriously question if our keeping in touch with friends and family (and loads of baby animal photos) is worth our passive support of this company's participation in the exploitation of women and children.

by Julian Vigo

Read entire article here: