by Teresa Yanaros

Has anyone else been straight up BANNED from sharing articles on Facebook lately?

Facebook is in the throes of making strict moves toward restricting users who regularly share posts across the social media web site. But WHY?!

CNN reported today that this push is an attempt by Facebook to discourage, and therefore prevent users who post “engagement bait.”

Related CNN: Facebook Spam Posts

Related Tech Crunch: Facebook Clamping Down on Posts

But the reality is: many of those affected are simply running online businesses, while completely respecting rules and regulations across the site. Each group on Facebook has a set of rules that they can enforce about how you are allowed to share within their groups. Why in the world does Facebook need to come along and regulate what is already being handled by administrators across the social media site?

I myself am an owner of a social media business, and today I was banned by Facebook from posting my material to groups on the site. The crazy thing is, I am 100 percent respectful of following the rules of posting, and I do not spam my content to groups ever.

Plus, I was banned after sharing a post to MY OWN GROUP of which I am the sole admin. The other group to which I shared a post I also have admin status, and then I shared to two other groups which I share to all of the time and the managers are close associates of mine. So there were not complaints issued for sure, and two of the groups I manage.

It’s also interesting that I have been successfully sharing my articles and media across Facebook groups for about a year now, and have amassed a following of over 2,500 people on my media page. There should be no reason at all that Facebook should suddenly define my posts advertisements or engagement bait, when I am actually providing quality information and disseminating news to the public.

Now, there’s a deeper issue at hand.

I had this sudden insight today:

Is this an underhanded way of moving certain practices into place due to the DEATH of net neutrality?

Related Next Stop, Congress! FCC Kills Net Neutrality

I wonder if the vote opened up some plans of action with respect to larger online companies in preparation for the regulations to come in and replace the current systems.

Could this mean that companies like Facebook are trying to limit the amount of data processing on their servers in preparation for the information they have to send to internet service providers? Maybe they are preparing for some kind of net audit where they have to show certain kinds of data so ISPs can make some decisions. They want to maybe be in a certain bracket in order to retain some kind of control over their businesses as net neutrality ceases to exist.

Are we beginning to see the implications of the death of net neutrality?

I spoke to my source who is an expert in online security, and computer science. His first response was to assure me that Facebook actually supports net neutrality, which is a very important thing to consider at first.

My source said,

“An initial thing that comes up is the fact that Facebook is on the internet Association (an organization fighting FOR net neutrality)

They may be casting a net too wide for moderating “click bait”-like articles. And you may have been caught in it. Maybe change up how you title your posts and see if that makes a difference, just a thought.”

Related Amazon, Facebook, Google and other tech giants are rallying to defend near-dead U.S. net neutrality rules

My follow up was,

“Maybe they are fighting FOR net neutrality, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t preparing as a business for the END of net neutrality. See what I mean? Yes, I hear what you’re saying, I was just looking for a deeper underlying meaning and trying to make a deeper connection. Thanks for your feedback!”

The more we considered what was happening, we began to unravel a potentiality. Firstly, looking for deeper connections is great, so we started to break down what could be happening. We surmised that restricting the amount of data loaded per user solicited request would probably the kind of action on Facebook’s end that we would see.

Potential Implications:

  • Less data to be loaded, less data to be paid for. The idea would be to be able to handle the lowest threshold imposed by an ISP (or set of ISPs) so all users could browse without an issue.
  • This could really complicate things for Facebook, unless they could come up with a deal to take a hit for the consumer.
  • If the responsibility to pay for bandwidth to a site was handed off to a consumer smaller businesses that provided larger amounts of data (high def pictures or videos) would be in trouble financially. It would be a lot harder for an individual to justify visiting a site for the first time not knowing anything about it other than that it will use up a whole lot of their limited data for the month.

What do y’all think? Is there a deeper level underneath the surface regarding the recent crack-down of Facebook on users? Are web sites taking action to prepare for the collapse of net neutrality?

We must remain vigilant as the saga unfolds. This is a developing story.

Join the conversation on Facebook.

Teresa Yanaros