Facebook tightens its gun policy under pressure from gun control groups

Himanshu Arora

Posts: 902   +7

Facebook on Wednesday announced major policy changes related to the use of its website (and popular photo sharing app Instagram) for marketing illegal firearm sales amid pressure from gun control groups. "We will not permit people to post offers to sell regulated items that indicate a willingness to evade or help others evade the law," Monika Bickert, Facebook's head of global policy management, said in a press release.

The change in policy means that Facebook will not permit private sellers of firearms in the US to sell guns without background checks or across state lines. Posts about the sale of a regulated item will be limited to people over 18 years of age, and if an Instagram user searches for sales or promotions of firearms, the company would display messages about gun laws.

Facebook said it would rely on users to report anything that violates the company's policies, including offers to illegally sell guns, adding that the company will remove reported content, and notify law enforcement when necessary. The policy changes will be implemented and enforced within a few weeks.

The ease with which children could potentially buy guns through Facebook has increased over the last few months. Last week, VentureBeat reported that buying a gun on Facebook takes merely 15 minutes.

It's a small but auspicious victory for gun control groups like Moms Demand Action (formed after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre), who have been demanding tighter restrictions on the marketing of guns through social media. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who had been in talks with Facebook over its gun policies, said that it is "probably the strongest step ever taken to end" illegal gun sales on social media.

Permalink to story.

 
I'm all for following the law but there have been illegal gun sales and purchases since guns were around. I don't really have a problem with this policy (although I don't use FB anyway) but if anyone thinks it is going to help reduce crimes committed with a firearm, they are sorely mistaken.
 
I use to think that if I had a time machine I should kill Hitler, Stalin or similar.

After reading THIS article, I know I should go back in time and kick Zuckerberg's dad so hard in the testicles that little Mark never makes insemination grade sperm.

What a travesty Mark Zuckerberg has wrecked upon the earth. I think he is indeed the Antichrist.
 
Facebook is bowing to the pressure of ignorant political nutjobs. They just shot themselves in the foot and took a side in this debate, well played.

Now whatever may be construed as 'selling weapons without background checks or across state lines' is in the hands of Facebook. It's not their right, not their job to determine this. They just created a whole lot of unnecessary work for themselves.
 
What they're unwittingly suggesting is that it's much better for illegal gun dealers and their customers to not leave an electronic paper trail on their service. Because feel safe.

Now whatever may be construed as 'selling weapons without background checks or across state lines' is in the hands of Facebook. It's not their right, not their job to determine this. They just created a whole lot of unnecessary work for themselves.

They have every right in the world to say you can't do this or that on Facebook. Similarly, their users have every right to dump FB for G+, or to dump social media altogether.
 
So does this mean that they may also clamp down on illicit drug dealing and murder for hire scams? Spoilsports. XP
 
Private gun sales between private citizens minus any other illegal activity is perfectly legal. We don't need gun control we need ***** control.
 
Private gun sales between private citizens minus any other illegal activity is perfectly legal. We don't need gun control we need ***** control.

If by id10t control you mean better mental health facilities and treatment then I agree completely. You're right, gun control doesn't solve anything, but this isn't gun control. Gun control is about making new laws to prevent ownership, this is just a private company saying they're not going to help people break the law.
I'd say in the public eye, it's a better position to say you're not giving people tools to break the law than it is to say you're knowingly allowing illegal activity on your site. It's not like anyone buying or selling guns illegally on FB is a paying customer.
 
Damn I should of bought a gun while I had the chance....
Dude, this was a big thing about a week ago. You should, "have", bought a gun while you had the chance.

Besides, you can't get a license for a hand gun if you don't know when to use a verb instead of a preposition, ("of"). The danger to others is considerable. Irresponsibility with English leads to irresponsibility in other areas of one's life.

To the upside, you no longer have to write an essay on the SAT's. So, no one will notice the grammar issue, if or when, you have to take them!(y)
 
ON the upside, surely... :p
Well, most likely not. Methinks, "to", indicates moving toward the "upside".

Were you to not have to take the SAT's at all, then you would have indeed "arrived" at the upside, and in fact, be "on", (*), it..:p:p (Back at ya).

(*) "The upside", has also been referred to from time to time as, "the catbird seat". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catbird_seat

Gun control sponsored by
a: fascists
b: communists
c: feminists
You forgot knife wielding lesbians....:D
 
Well, most likely not. Methinks, "to", indicates moving toward the "upside".
Oh! I see what's happened; I read your post in English, whereas you wrote it in Americanglish. We'll call that a draw, then. :D
Were you to not have to take the SAT's at all, then you would have indeed "arrived" at the upside, and in fact, be "on", (*), it..:p:p (Back at ya).
Were I not to have to take the SAT's what? I took nothing that belongs to the SAT...

*BOOM*, etc. ...
;)
 
Were I not to have to take the SAT's what? I took nothing that belongs to the SAT...

*BOOM*, etc. ...
;)
Oh, I see! (How about if I throw in an oxymoron to liven this discussion up a bit)?

In any event, you're apparently not "indigenous", to the "United States of Formerly England, France, and Spain, so you wouldn't have to deal with our, "SAT".

Don't take that to mean you don't have to know lots of s*** though.....;) England's not exactly, "3rd world"........, (at least not yet).
 
Back