Randy’s FB Hacked?

[Brian in Montana]

How does a FB account "get hacked" anyway. The Goofy stuff on Randy's account just seems to be automated, just one odd video after another. Does somebody actually gain anything by it? Is some overweight slob sitting in his mother's basement rubbing his Cheeto-stained hands together and laughing evilly because he gets a quarter ever time Randy's FB posts a weird video?

I went ahead and unfollowed. I'm mainly concerned I'll accidentally open one of the links and somehow get hacked too.

But anyway, I think FB has its uses. I don't really think of it as a first amendment platform, although I understand it is for many people. My "friends" list is not very long and is entirely comprised of people I know personally, family members, and old friends from high school and college I like to keep up with. And I follow a few sports teams, as well as Randy, Meateater, and Solo Hunter.

 

[BuckRut]

How does a FB account "get hacked" anyway. The Goofy stuff on Randy's account just seems to be automated, just one odd video after another. Does somebody actually gain anything by it? Is some overweight slob sitting in his mother's basement rubbing his Cheeto-stained hands together and laughing evilly because he gets a quarter ever time Randy's FB posts a weird video?

I went ahead and unfollowed. I'm mainly concerned I'll accidentally open one of the links and somehow get hacked too.

But anyway, I think FB has its uses. I don't really think of it as a first amendment platform, although I understand it is for many people. My "friends" list is not very long and is entirely comprised of people I know personally, family members, and old friends from high school and college I like to keep up with. And I follow a few sports teams, as well as Randy, Meateater, and Solo Hunter.

My experience has been that these people are looking for high traffic or older profiles and looking to sell them. Older profiles don't get flagged as fast as brand new ones when they start phishing with them.

 

[Big Fin]

How does a FB account "get hacked" anyway. The Goofy stuff on Randy's account just seems to be automated, just one odd video after another. Does somebody actually gain anything by it? Is some overweight slob sitting in his mother's basement rubbing his Cheeto-stained hands together and laughing evilly because he gets a quarter ever time Randy's FB posts a weird video?

I went ahead and unfollowed. I'm mainly concerned I'll accidentally open one of the links and somehow get hacked too.

But anyway, I think FB has its uses. I don't really think of it as a first amendment platform, although I understand it is for many people. My "friends" list is not very long and is entirely comprised of people I know personally, family members, and old friends from high school and college I like to keep up with. And I follow a few sports teams, as well as Randy, Meateater, and Solo Hunter.

Thanks for unfollowing. Business pages work way differently than an individual page.

A business page gets hacked when someone gets into the FB system and adds themselves as an administrator of the page. They change the multi-factor identification notices to their email/phone, so when they make changes to the page roles the page owner won't get notified. They proceed to move existing administrators to lower level permissions, such as analyst. A lower level person cannot remove an administrator, yet an administrator can moderate what an analyst can do.

They also changed my PW. I never got notified, as they had changed the email to which notifications were sent. I tried to log in to my personal page on Saturday and could not do it. Matthew contacted one of his MBA classmates who works at FB. Through that process I was able to get control over my personal FB page.

Right now, I might have a lead. RMEF had FB problems you may have read about when so much of what they did was moderated by FB due to their promotion of Hunting is Conservation. RMEF had to enlist the MT Congressional delegation. Things changed, thank to that effort. The person who is their liaison at FB just emailed me and told me a security expert will be in touch with us very soon. I hope that results in us regaining control.

They have added multiple new administrators. The person doing all the posting yesterday has been removed by FB. One of the other fake admins has now scheduled a bunch more posts. I can see these as a "Page Analyst," but I have no powers to do anything at the permission level.

Today's entertainment is brought to you by Kram Semaj Oirago from the Philippines. The prior entertainment was brought to you by Mr. DW Whor from Thailand, who was removed by FB and now replaced by someone else. All indicators are this is an FB security issue, not something we created.

As soon as FB removes one of them, another person shows up. I wish they would just take down the page. That is the where this is headed, so whether they take it down or we take it down, doesn't really matter at this point.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Thanks for confirming my early-on decision to avoid Farcebook.

 

[Otto Matic]

I avoid ALL social media.
I've got three or four blogsite I frequent.
I know too many people who have been stalked or otherwise "violated" by other socialmedia-ites.

 

[Duck-Slayer]

Looks like they took your FB page down as of right now.
Matt

 

[OntarioHunter]

... But anyway, I think FB has its uses. I don't really think of it as a first amendment platform, although I understand it is for many people.

I also don't think it is a 1st Amendment issue. In the old days if a person sent a letter to the newspaper editor and it didn't get published, he couldn't cry unconstitutional. Same with Facebook and Twitter. It is their company and they reserve the right to decide what they don't want on their site.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Seems crazy that you can't restrict logins by area, we set our filters at work so that you can't login from an IP that's from out of state let alone country.

 

[Otto Matic]

I also don't think it is a 1st Amendment issue. In the old days if a person sent a letter to the newspaper editor and it didn't get published, he couldn't cry unconstitutional. Same with Facebook and Twitter. It is their company and they reserve the right to decide what they don't want on their site.

I think the difference there, OntarioHunter, is that nobody has any great expectation that a "letter to the editor" would ever be published, whether you agree with them, politically or otherwise, or not.
On FB or Twitter, the statement expressing ones views, thoughts and ideas are plastered across a public venue, only to be removed by the likes of Jack Dorsey or Mark Zuckerberg, "KNOWING" the reason for the "censure" is political in nature.
Dorsey and Zuckerberg both, have censured thousands of people merely because they agreed with Trump while allowing the Ayatollah to continue posting "Death to America! Death to Israel!"

JMO!

Honestly, whether you agree with Trump or not, Jack Dorsey killing his Twitter feed was politically motivated.

 

[mtmiller]

On FB or Twitter, the statement expressing ones views, thoughts and ideas are plastered across a public venue, only to be removed by the likes of Jack Dorsey or Mark Zuckerberg, "KNOWING" the reason for the "censure" is political in nature.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I think the difference there, OntarioHunter, is that nobody has any great expectation that a "letter to the editor" would ever be published, whether you agree with them, politically or otherwise, or not.
On FB or Twitter, the statement expressing ones views, thoughts and ideas are plastered across a public venue, only to be removed by the likes of Jack Dorsey or Mark Zuckerberg, "KNOWING" the reason for the "censure" is political in nature.
Dorsey and Zuckerberg both, have censured thousands of people merely because they agreed with Trump while allowing the Ayatollah to continue posting "Death to America! Death to Israel!"

JMO!

Honestly, whether you agree with Trump or not, Jack Dorsey killing his Twitter feed was politically motivated.

Can you give me a link to Ayatolla's Twitter address? Haven't seen any of his tweets in the news on a daily basis like Trump.

 

[Otto Matic]

Can you give me a link to Ayatolla's Twitter address? Haven't seen any of his tweets in the news on a daily basis like Trump.

No, I don't do Twitter.
....and you haven't seen a Trump Tweet since Jack Dorsey pulled his account.

 

[tjones]

I avoid ALL social media.

Ohh the irony.

 

[WyoDoug]

You get the level of security you pay for when using "free" services. Like they say, "YOU are the product, NOT the customer".

You might think you don't pay anything but in the long run you do. FB relies on more than a billion a year in advertising that for the most part is ineffective and interacts with a small percentage of users who click the ads. You pay a lot in terms of exposure to sometimes intrusive advertising.

 

[WyoDoug]

No, I don't do Twitter.
....and you haven't seen a Trump Tweet since Jack Dorsey pulled his account.

I quit doing Twitter when they started blocking not just Trump but several other conservatives and never once locked a liberal's account.

 

[MTGomer]

I also don't think it is a 1st Amendment issue. In the old days if a person sent a letter to the newspaper editor and it didn't get published, he couldn't cry unconstitutional. Same with Facebook and Twitter. It is their company and they reserve the right to decide what they don't want on their site.

From my understanding- which is probably not all that great, but this is how it was explained to me- the words “publisher “ and ”public forum”
have meanings under Section 230.

A newspaper is a publisher. They get to choose what they print because they are liable for the content they produce (think CNN writing big check to the red hatted catholic kid)

A public forum is not liable for what’s on it (if you slander me on Facebook, I can’t sue Zuck).

Currently, the social media companies are riding both sides of the fence, enjoying immunity from lawsuits that public forums have, while exercising the ability to censor and remove content, like a publisher does.

 

[Hem]

Wondering if Wyodoug and Otto are related?

 

[WyoDoug]

Wondering if Wyodoug and Otto are related?

Nope. Thinkin Otto is purtier than me.

 

[Otto Matic]

Nope. Thinkin Otto is purtier than me.

Thanx Wydo, but my wife says my hammer toe is pretty difficult to look at.

 

[Elkhunter24]

I haven’t had facebook in years and don’t miss it at all. These are the reasons why. Not a fan of these big tech companies at all.