back to article Eye laser surgery campaigner burned by Facebook takedown

Imagine fighting a big UK company for years for the simple right to campaign fairly online against an under-regulated industry. You go on to win a dispute resolution case probed by Nominet to keep your perfectly legitimate gripe website alive. You also successfully defend yourself against the firm's strong-armed appeals. Then …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Rodoy or Sodoy?

    Your choice if you read the article. Where was the sub on this one? Sounds like they may have been at the Vulture Central lunch local.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Oi! Who's that using *my* alledgedly registered "Facebook" trademark?!?!?!

      FB: "When we receive a proper claim of intellectual property rights infringement, we promptly remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing content."

      Dear Facebook,

      Please take down Facebook, immediately, while my case winds its way through the courts.

      Thanks.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Rodoy or Sodoy?

      SODOY for sure !

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If a service is free...

    ....you are the product being sold.

    And if you are 'tainted goods' don't be surprised if you are taken off the shelves.

    1. Tom Maddox Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: If a service is free...

      Free . . . you mean like The Register?

      1. P. Lee Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: If a service is free...

        >Free . . . you mean like The Register?

        Precisely. What do you think all those banner ads are for?

        It isn't your Facebook page, it's Facebook's facebook page which you wrote for free for them.

        1. Psyx
          Happy

          Re: If a service is free...

          "What do you think all those banner ads are for?"

          I think that I speak for at least 25% of the users of this site when I say: What banner ads?

          1. Terry 6 Silver badge

            Re: If a service is free...

            Well, yes. But I do make a point of showing the ads and clicking on some of them from time to time,

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: If a service is free...

              "I do make a point of showing the ads and clicking on some of them from time to time,"

              Well yes. I used to consciously permit ads too, till some of the ads got so intrusive that blocking was the best way of restoring some usability to the site. My mouse skills leave a little to be desired, so when a mistaken click in a border area fills the screen with an unwanted fullscreen animated advert, what am I supposed to do?

              I'll turn the blocker off every now and again; if things have improved I might leave it off.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: If a service is free...

              We need a plugin that produces random clicks on the blocked ads :)

  3. Anonymous Blowhard

    Depends on perspective

    If you view FaceBook as a "social network", for the benefit of its users, then this type of action is hard to understand; but if you see FaceBook as an advertising platform, then it's easy to see why companies get preferred treatment over indiviuals.

    1. Lee D Silver badge

      Re: Depends on perspective

      I still have a rejected comment submission on my profile on here because it happened to diss a famous recruitment agency that was pushing sponsorship The Reg's way.

      I was most miffed at that. I thought The Reg was better than to censor comments in such a fashion.

      1. Eric Olson
        Coat

        Re: Depends on perspective @Lee D

        Clearly you've never tried to comment on any Andrew Orlowski articles.

        1. Psyx
          Pint

          Re: Depends on perspective @Lee D

          "Clearly you've never tried to comment on any Andrew Orlowski articles."

          Surely a well-reasoned argument should welcome debate, as it is a platform to convince others of the strength of argument?

          1. RegGuy1

            Surely a well-reasoned argument should welcome debate

            Ha ha ha!

            Look, the competition and skills that immigration brings to this country benefits all in the UK because...

            la la la... Not listening...

            Fuck off EU...

            Yeah right, a debate. (My arse.)

            1. Downside

              Damn that european competition

              @RegGuy1

              Euro competition? What, someone does your job better or cheaper than you? Shocking. Where is it okay for that competition to come from? A local student from down the road? She might be the next one to try and under-cut you. Or is it the prospect of competition full stop that you're against?

              Its just that in my humble experience, if you're decent, you can get a job. For sure maybe that easy-street job from ten years ago isn't so plentiful, but be patient - a time of plenty will soon be here again.

        2. Anomalous Cowturd
          Holmes

          Re: Depends on perspective @Eric Olsen

          I upset him once, and spent the next three months relegated to the "pre-moderated comments" naughty step.

          Don't give him no shit, Sherlock.

        3. This post has been deleted by a moderator

      2. BillG Silver badge
        Mushroom

        Re: Depends on perspective

        I still have a rejected comment submission on my profile on here because it happened to diss a famous recruitment agency that was pushing sponsorship The Reg's way.

        I was most miffed at that. I thought The Reg was better than to censor comments in such a fashion.

        Better at what? The Reg is here to make a profit, just like the websites I run myself. What, exactly, did you expect? Do you want The Reg to sacrifice their money so you can rant for free? If someone disses one of my advertisers, I'm going to take action, too. Anyone paying me is showing loyalty to my hard work. I want to reward that.

        I understand your position and your need for justice, but - at the end of the day in the real world, these websites - The Reg, Facebook, Twitter, etc. - are out there to make a profit. That keeps the lights on and feeds my family. You and your opinions are not more important than my family. For-profit businesses are not the outlet of social justice you're looking for. I know this doesn't sound "right", but it is the way it is.

        I say this gently - if you still want social justice, do it with your own money. Don't demand that others spend theirs to pay for your opinions.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Depends on perspective

          >> Do you want The Reg to sacrifice their money so you can rant for free?

          Any why would one person posting a comment cause the Reg to lose their money...

          Reg is known as an IT website with an certain style and to be non-conformist. Censoring comments because they offend some advertisers, word will get round. They lose their following, they go bust.

          Important point. Yes they are out there to make a profit, but they make that profit from us and as a result we are not powerless, we may be the product but piss off enough of us and we go. Then they are productless and let's see how long they last then.

          So if it happens and it's important, get the message across. Enough bad publicity and the tables will turn.

          >> if you still want social justice, do it with your own money

          Possibly the most stupid thing I've read today and I was on FSTDT earlier.

      3. Drewc (Written by Reg staff) Gold badge

        Re: Re: Depends on perspective

        I have looked at this rejected comment which dates back to August 2013. I am fairly sure the recruitment site was not a customer of ours at that time - although it had been previously for some years.

        Personally, I would have accepted your post - but our moderators are particularly vigilant when it comes to potential libel - and sometimes we err on the side of caution. This is understandable as we are responsible under UK law for everything that is published on our site and we do not have resources to check claims made in posts.

    2. JDX Gold badge

      Re: Depends on perspective

      If you post on someone else's site, they can take it down at their discretion. Internet forums and social networks are the "Wild West", if a grumpy moderator doesn't like you then tough.

      Of course if you are making part of your living through a page on FB it gets murky. Has nobody sued FB for this yet, and at least made it to court?

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Depends on perspective

        "if a grumpy moderator doesn't like you then tough."

        Under US law in particular, once a moderator gets involved the company is liable for what it misses (Cubby vs Compuserve, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. ) - although there's a safe harbour provision written into the 1996 CDA

        It's becoming _extremely_ common to have gripe pages taken down by making bogus "copyright infringement" claims. At some point there's going to be a reckoning - making a false DMCA complaint is a criminal offence but for some reason noone's ever been prosecuted for it.(*)

        (*) DMCA complaints are the way these are usually taken down, even if all parties involved are outside the USA. There's a legislated dispute procedure but Facebook and Google don't bother with them.

      2. The Dude
        Flame

        Re: Depends on perspective

        I disagree. If you open a bake shop and refuse to serve people with brown skin then you (rightly) get trouble from the authorities. Why should it be any different on the net when someone opens a social website that allows anyone to walk in? I can see taking down obvious unlawful or defamatory stuff, but that's not what is being discussed here.

        1. Psyx

          Re: Depends on perspective

          "If you open a bake shop and refuse to serve people with brown skin then you (rightly) get trouble from the authorities."

          Only if you specifically don't serve them because of colour, creed or sexual preference [and - cynically - are stupid enough to say so]. That's a prejudice issue, not retail law. Shop owners can refuse service to anyone they like and kick people freely out of their shop. Their shop: their rules. They are not obliged to serve us and a sale is a two-way voluntary contract. I have a friend who owns a shop who has said on numerous occasions that not one person who has said "I know my rights" ever really has. We have a very misplaced sense of entitlement as customers.

          "Why should it be any different on the net when someone opens a social website that allows anyone to walk in? "

          As fair-minded as I am, I don't believe that any site or shop should be forcefully obliged to serve anyone, or continue serving them if they don't want to. That said, in this case it looks like FB have indeed been unfair in their decision-making. I support their right to make that decision, but not their process.

      3. Archivist

        Re: Depends on perspective

        She is not "making a living", just raising awareness of the unregulated methods that are allowed in the UK. I have spoken with Sasha and it's clear that she is on a crusade to prevent others suffering as she has. Anyone who is considering laser eye surgery should be given an accurate evaluation of the chances of the procedure failing - which any procedure can. However the companies fudge over these numbers and require you to sign away your rights.

    3. Anomalous Cowshed

      Re: Depends on perspective

      It is free to use Facebook.

      Therefore, the users of Facebook aren't customers.

      If they are not customers, what are they?

      Bystanders? Not likely.

      Freeloaders? Doubtful, it wouldn't be tolerated for long.

      Partners? What a whimsical thought.

      The users of Facebook are, in fact, products. They are Facebook's product. As in: "What can we offer you? We can enable you to reach out to 1.2 billion consumers" or "We can offer you lists drawn from our database of 1.2 billion consumers, with extensive consumer / behaviour profiles and other data".

      It is the people who 'reach out' to these consumers who are the customers of Facebook.

      1. Les Matthew

        Re: Depends on perspective

        "If they are not customers, what are they?"

        The product.

        1. JDX Gold badge

          @Les Matthew

          Gee Les, what an original and witty remark.

          It doesn't actually make any sense but hey it's a nice pithy meme.

    4. Tom 35 Silver badge

      Re: Depends on perspective

      Hello, we would like to put a few ads on your service... Now if this one page had an accident...

  4. Mage Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    Another solution

    Boycott Google+, Pinterest, Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin etc.

    These corps are nothing more than privacy slurping, web parasites, arrogant and prepared to ignore morality and law in pursuit of profit.

    1. Lee D Silver badge

      Re: Another solution

      Certainly don't host your content on them.

      Host it somewhere else under your control and link it in, then you never lose anything but exposure.

      All the companies I know that do social networking post to one place that is sucked in via RSS to all their Facebook, Twitter, etc. and usually just links with shortlink to their "official" website.

      That way you can be "removed" but not silenced.

      1. JamesPond
        Unhappy

        Re: Another solution

        "That way you can be "removed" but not silenced."

        Given she has a web-site and I quote

        "comments posted on Rodoy's website opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk"

        I think she's already followed that path, it's just that fleecebook and twatter I guess have more prominence in the public's unconsciousness.

    2. JDX Gold badge

      Re: Another solution

      Oh for goodness' sake, stop holding the web up as some idealistic paradise. It only exists in its current form because massive companies and governments have ploughed untold billions into the infrastructure, in the belief they can make money from it in some sense.

      1. Joe Drunk

        Re: Another solution

        @JDX: Agree 100%

        Social networking sites give the false impression that everyone with an IP address is your trusted friend and have tricked humanity into thinking that sitting in front of a computer, unkempt and in your underwear is the same as going out and interacting with people face to face.

    3. Psyx

      Re: Another solution

      "These corps are nothing more than privacy slurping, web parasites, arrogant and prepared to ignore morality and law in pursuit of profit."

      As opposed to those 'good corps.' who aren't greedy immoral b4stards like big pharma, BAe, Boeing, Walmart, Microsoft, Google and Apple?

  5. Whitter
    FAIL

    Nice catch 22

    Q: I ask again that you provide details of my alleged IP infringement and name of complainant...

    A: ... you may want to contact the complaining party to discuss this matter further...

    You may indeed but can't until FB fesses up to who it was! FB seems to have rather deliberately missed the point there.

    1. James 139

      Re: Nice catch 22

      I liked the bit where Facebook said they are "not in a position to resolve a dispute", they know most people cant, or wont, bother getting legal on them, so its a clever fob off.

      Perhaps Facebook are under the impression that as part of any take down, the claimant also tells the other party that they have made the request.

      1. Brenda McViking
        Mushroom

        Re: Nice catch 22

        Pah - maybe she should submit a takedown request of the real "Optical express" alleging copyright infringement.

        Then I could get the popcorn out.

  6. David Knapman

    Given Sasha's track record

    Should we expect a website critical of facebooks handling of these sorts of cases to appear shortly?

    1. VinceH Silver badge

      Re: Given Sasha's track record

      I wonder how long a Facebook page on the subject would last?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Given Sasha's track record

      Got them all stacked up ready for sure

  7. Joe Drunk

    Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

    You hopefully have a doctor who has your best interests at heart (very rare these days) and will advise on all the risks and whether you are a good candidate for this surgery.

    That said, my uncle who lives here in the US has been wearing contacts/glasses since he was a teen. He went for an evaluation and was given the green light. 24 months later he complains of constant discomfort in both eyes and has to use eye drops on a regular basis for his dry eye conditions. He tells me he has close to 20/20 vision but not as good as he had when he wore glasses. He went from being dependent on eyeglasses to being dependent on eye drops. Furthermore, this is considered elective surgery so no insurance here in the US will cover this. He regrets the decision but as it is irreversible he will have to deal with it or have more corrective surgery. He declines of course. He considers himself fortunate after reading some of the other eye surgery disasters.

    At one point I too was considering this surgery but I think I will stick to my contacts/eyeglasses. My vanity will have to suck it.

    1. JamesPond

      Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

      "You hopefully have a doctor who has your best interests at heart"

      Where there is money involved, and it's elective, where is the incentive for the doctor to have your interests at heart above his/her own interests, namely bank balance?

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

        Q. How many senior ophthalmic surgeons have had this procedure?

        Q. How many even wear contact lenses ?

        1. fajensen Silver badge

          Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

          Egg-Aactly! I had some minor procedure done on my eyes some 10 years ago and the surgeon suggested that I could get my vision corrected with a LASIK procedure.

          Of course I laughed, the guy asked why, I point to his glasses - and he goes "Oh, yes, but ...".

          I still checked the brochure, but then I found in the "terms & conditions" that they would not guarantee that I would get rid of my glasses after the operation. Dodgy - do not want!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

        "Where there is money involved, and it's elective, where is the incentive for the doctor to have your interests at heart above his/her own interests, namely bank balance?"

        Exactly why private medicine should be illegal in any civilized country. Medial staff should be paid a salary with absolutely no options for bonuses. It should be a good salary, mind you.

    2. Marcus Aurelius
      Happy

      Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

      I used to use some eye drops for a period of about 12 months afterwards after which it was no longer needed (the eye drops are similar to/the same as contact lens solution anyway, so its not much of a hardship). Because my correction was about the maximum of which they were capable of at the time (-9.75, -10.50) I expected some issues, but the advantages of not having to wear two substantial lumps of glass on my nose are substantial, and the cost of the operation has repaid itself many times over in the saved cost of glasses/contact lenses.

      Eye surgery does not work out for everyone, but personally I think the small chance of something going wrong is worth taking for the benefit of 15-20 years without need for glasses.

      1. Psyx

        Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

        "Eye surgery does not work out for everyone, but personally I think the small chance of something going wrong is worth taking for the benefit of 15-20 years without need for glasses."

        I only know two opticians.

        Both wear glasses.

        Neither are planning on getting laser surgery until it 'gets better'.

        That rather makes my mind up on the matter.

        1. Yugguy

          Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

          Opticians supporting eye surgery is like turkeys voting for christmas.

          1. Psyx

            Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

            "Opticians supporting eye surgery is like turkeys voting for christmas."

            That makes no sense if taken in the context of self-care rather than customer advice, though.

        2. Joe Drunk

          Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

          I only know two opticians.

          Both wear glasses.

          Neither are planning on getting laser surgery until it 'gets better'.

          My optician wears glasses too. Odd?

          I'm very happy for those of you who've had this surgery and experienced both an improvement in your sight and quality of life. I'm also not too proud to admit that I am envious. My problem is this procedure is irreversible. You have to admit you did roll the dice by having this surgery and the odds were clearly in your favor. I gamble with my money, not my health. Glasses/contacts are a pain sometimes but not enough for me to make a decision I may regret for the rest of my life. As technology evolves maybe some day there will be a procedure that will offer a permanent solution with minimal risk. I suspect by that time I will be too old to care.

          Anyway if there is one silver lining to my myopia it would be dispensing with reading glasses. I can see up close with razor sharpness simply by removing by glasses/contacts.

          1. Yugguy

            Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

            This is why I waited til the age of 40, as my prescription had been stable for a few years.

            I had similar concerns but it helped that the 3 other people, my dad included, that I knew personally who had had it done had all been successful.

            I weighed up the risks against the benefits and looked at the independent stats for my prescription range - over 90% going better than 20/20.

            I prepared fully, and did what I could during the surgery to maximise the chances of success.

            I can still read fine print in books without issue. Very, very tiny script, such as tiny markings on a cpu, can be a little difficult without a magnifying glass.

            The procedure was quiet scary - especially when you are temporarly blind.

            But I am very glad I did it.

          2. JDX Gold badge

            Re: I gamble with my money, not my health

            That's a crock. You gamble with your health every time you eat barbecued food or go outside on a sunny day... a rogue particle could knock a free radical loose. You gamble every time you eat food you haven't prepared or use crockery someone else has 'washed'.

            You gamble every time you play sport - a knock could detach your retina or any number of other things.

            Having dental treatment has risks too. You gamble that saving your tooth or reducing your toothache is worth the tiny chance of something seriously wrong happening.

            As you get older and get a cataract, you gamble that improving your eyesight is worth the small risk of making it even worse.

            Heck, even contact lenses have risks.

        3. JDX Gold badge

          Re: I only know two opticians.

          They say doctors make the worst patients.

          The statistics are available to doctors and patients alike... maybe the former are just more conservative.

          I'm fairly sure the guy who did my consult had had the treatment.

    3. Yugguy

      Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

      I had laser surgery at the age of 40.

      Best thing ever. I had a relatively mild prescription, -2.5, some astigmatism.

      Now I have MUCH sharper vision, twice as good as 20/20 - I forget the nomenclature. I have increased night vision. The only downside is I cannot focus on close things as near as I could before, by a few inches. But this would have been inevitable with age anyway. Long distance sight is pin-sharp, amazing really.

      I had dry eyes for about 6 months, now I can hardly remember I wore glasses/contacts at all.

      I do agree there needs to be regulation.

    4. MrXavia

      Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

      Everyone is different, and its true you should have a doctor who would refuse your treatment if you were not suitable, I myself had laser eye surgery, I chose the company carefully and only after a recommendation from a friend (not optical express)

      Sure its not for everyone, but I am very happy with my results, I know my eyes will still likely deteriorate, but this gives me many many years until I need glasses daily again (or another surgery of some kind)

      I am crossing my fingers they will be able to grow new lenses/corneas by the time it gets too bad so I can get my eyes fully fixed (I dread the years where I'll need reading glasses because my lens hardens...)

      1. JDX Gold badge

        Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

        I also now need eye drops but then I spend all day staring at a screen which is about the worst thing for that.

        Still worth it just to be abel to go outside in the rain or walk into a hot room in the winter and still see.

      2. Gannettt

        Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

        There are artificial lenses. I had one implanted recently after having the natural lenses taken out as a kid 40+ years ago because of cataracts. In my case there were complications, and I'm not entirely happy with them, but there are hundreds of thousands of these implants done every year and it has changed many people's lives for the better. So when you're older, you can have your cataract removed and a new lens implanted. Just don't start googling about age-related eye conditions, such as retinal tears and macular holes, you'll just worry yourself into your old age!

    5. OrsonX
      Boffin

      Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

      For some people it's a dream, for others it's a nightmare.

      What kind of nightmare is it? It's one that you see every waking second through your laser damaged eyes.

      I know.

      I have to wear glasses so that I don't see it.

      Recovering from this (self induced) poke in the eye takes a very long time.

    6. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

      I had it done a couple of years ago. I now have better than 20/20 vision. I do sometimes get dry eyes when tired, but that gets sorted out by one of those spray things maybe a couple of times a month. I've also lost some of my previously excellent close-range vision but not to the extent that I need reading glasses.

      Do I regret having it done? Not a bit. The drawbacks now are less than the drawbacks of glasses or contacts.

      Are there people who end up with ruined eyesight? Yes there are. But you have to balance those against the millions of people who have had successful treatments. I also wonder how many of those with subsequent problems didn't take their eyedrops properly in the weeks after their treatment.

    7. Spleen

      Re: Eye laser surgery is not for everyone.

      I had laser eye surgery. It was a disaster. I can't fire even a single laser beam from my eyes. Total crock.

  8. Jim 59

    Campaigning websites

    Feel a bit sorry for Rodoy, and I will think twice before having laser surgery now, even without seeing her Facebook page.

    The public has been kidded over the years about the nature of "free" internet services. We all thought it was great in the mid 90s when Hotmail gave us free email, and it was. The megacorps rolled out more and more free stuff. We (the techies) got very excited and encouraged everyone to gorge themselves on this wonderful free lunch. We didn't notice the chef subtly changing the ingredients. The public misapprehension about what they are eating is now so massive that even clever people like Rodoy can wander onto Facebook and actually think ...the service offered a "trusted, safe storage medium".. NO. Nobody wants to offer you a "trusted, safe storage medium" for free. Sorry if we (the industry) ever gave the wrong impression.

    No. Here is a definition of all free internet sites: they are somebody else's computer. And should be treated as such. That is all you need to know to stay safe. Perhaps Freebook is okay for sharing a few photos you don't care about , with people you don't care about. But I wouldn't even do that.

    Campaigners should acquire their own server and self-host it too. I have a server. On a shelf in my bedroom. It depends only on BT and EON electric, and I pay them. However you choose to do it, if you are dissing a megacorp, don't expect free help from other megacorps.

    1. Haku

      "We didn't notice the chef subtly changing the ingredients."

      Yeah you take your eye off the ball for a few moments and suddenly you're Soylent Green!

  9. Version 1.0 Silver badge

    Advert own goal

    And right in the middle of this article Google serves up an advert for Lasik eye surgery!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Advert own goal

      "Google serves up an advert for Lasik eye surgery!"

      That's the value of targeted advertising.

      And if you click on it for a laugh or whatever, it'll follow you round the Interweb for days,.

      That's the value of targeted advertising.

      (Apparently if you say something often enough it has to be true).

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    i don't want to sound unfeeling, but..

    i was allways told, from being very young, never to look directly into the SUN as it will damage your eyes. In my late middle age i now require glasses to see things close up. Why anyone would have a focused beam of light aimed directly at their eyeballs is beyond my understanding....i'll stick with my glasses thank you very much.

    1. Gordon 10 Silver badge

      Re: i don't want to sound unfeeling, but..

      I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or not but its never touted as shining a laser in your eyes.

      Its touted as a corrective medical procedure.

      Your description is analogous to describing surgery as having your body cut open by a man with a knife, accurate but wilfully unhelpful for the case in hand.

    2. Yugguy

      Re: i don't want to sound unfeeling, but..

      Such a daft comment - there is NO correlation between the two light sources.

      1. Kernel

        Re: i don't want to sound unfeeling, but..

        I agree - it's hardly a coherent argument against laser surgery.

        1. Steven Raith
          Joke

          Re: i don't want to sound unfeeling, but..

          I agree Kernel - they don't strike me as a lumenary on these matters.

          Steven "I see what you did there" R.

        2. Andy Taylor

          Re: i don't want to sound unfeeling, but..

          Coherent. Very good, not everyone will get that :)

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: i don't want to sound unfeeling, but..

      I don't see why this attracted so many downvotes. It is an interesting question and something I would want properly explained to me before hand as well.

      Yes it is physics and needs proper engineering including safety mechanics.

      Anon because i program software for laser eye surgery devices.

  11. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
    Holmes

    Quell surprise

    "That said, why would they care? After all, the US-based data slurpers operate in a similar way to pub landlords: "My platform, my rules", they will say."

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sadly, within reason, it's Facebook's rules on their site. So if they decide to remove your content, too bad as there's probably something in the agreement you blindly ignored when you signed up for it, which says they can do whatever they like with whatever you post to their site.

    I use it as a useful tool to promote my work and my business but never be fooled, they are not interested in giving me a platform to promote even though I pay to advertise, they're more interested in strapping us all down and force feeding us everyone else's content.

    Always remember that nothing comes from free in online social networking, "If one dances with the devil, then one must pay the piper."!

  13. Velv Silver badge
    Boffin

    Since the campaign is allegedly about regulation for laser eye surgery in the UK I would expect the campaigner to have websites and social media pages that do not name any particular supplier of the service. Or is that not the point...

    I guess that wouldn't garner as many column inches in the press if there was no "big business stopped me complaining".

    (Safety glasses on)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      UK Facebook Page LADIK DANGER

      In answer to Velv

      ...........There is and it's a Facebook page calked LASIK Danger - see for yourselves

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      so true Velv 'LASIK Danger' on GP facebook gives exchange of info without the slagging off

  14. ukgnome Silver badge
    FAIL

    Sooooo........

    Right wing hate mongers that openly mock facebook are OK - yes you Britain First.

    but

    Left wing campaigner who warns people of what can go wrong with corrective surgery isn't.

    One has link bait and traffic generating to it's pages and another has an occasional visitor. Seems like a marketing decision to me.

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: Sooooo........

      I think if you see this as a Left Wing / Right Wing thing, you might be the one who needs your eyes tested.

      (Or you live in America where everything is politicised).

      1. Spleen

        Re: Sooooo........

        I don't think the OP is saying that Facebook is acting out of political motivations, simply that the Heil Hitler brigade get lots of clicks and therefore make money for Facebook, whereas Optical Express Ruined My Life doesn't get many clicks so they are disposable.

        If it was the Optical Express campaign getting all the clicks and the brownshirts getting hardly any - and if the brownshirts were making embarrassing claims against Facebook advertisers - I've no doubt the jackboot would be on the other foot.

    2. Asylum Sam

      Re: Sooooo........

      stunned that any right thinking person voted this post down. Ignore it, perhaps, but downvote it? Shocked.

  15. sjaddy

    I had it done and dont regret it

    I had corrective surgery about 12 years ago. The first company told me they couldn't do the surgery I required (so some do have your interests at heart).

    the second company used the new (at the time!) waveform technique and it has, touch wood, been fine over the last 12 years.

    The missus who was watching said the worst part was the smell of them burning my eyeball with the laser.

    Afterwards I started hearing horror stories of others - would I have it done again. NO

    am i glad I had it done and it worked out great. YES

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    and yet many Right Wing facist skinhead pages are still there

    see EDLnews.co.uk for a humerous run down with highlights and naming and shaming of the worst offending knuckle draggers.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      and yet many Right Wing facist skinhead pages are still there

      I presume facists are right wing skinheads who, as an additional offence against society, use Facebook.

      For those who hadn't noticed, Facebook is located in a country which is veering to the Right at a speed which Putin and his oligarchs can only wonder at. Unfortunately perhaps the only alternative the Left can offer is the Guardian dating website - though this at least might result in a few more left wing kids.

  17. handle

    Even worse

    "If the reporting party withdraws their complaint or you obtain a determination of your legal rights, we would be happy to follow up about possibly restoring the removed material." (My emphasis.)

    Why on earth would they not restore the material if the original complaint went away or was proved to be groundless?

  18. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    'Rodoy said she thought the service offered a "trusted, safe storage medium"'

    Did the fact that it was someone else's computer not register?

    Still, she's getting some benefit of the Streisand effect.

    Personally, I'd not think twice about laser eye surgery; I'd think an infinite number of times. No surgery, no contact lenses. You only get one pair of eyes & it's not worth risking damage when specs are so much safer.

    1. Zack Mollusc

      It was safety concerns that prompted me to get my eyes lasered. Hurtling along on a motorbike and being rendered suddenly blind by contacts sticking to eyelid or specs misting up was getting a bit too risky. Yes, I could have swapped the motorbike for a milk float or a harley (hahaha) but that would have been no fun over the mountain.

    2. JDX Gold badge

      Better not have that MMR either. I mean, you can't be too careful.

      I wonder how many people get eye injuries due to their glasses every year (actually serious question, considering how many people injure themselves getting out of bed every day).

      1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

        @JDX

        Or how many who are saved from eye damage by plastic lenses taking some of the blow?

        1. Oninoshiko

          Re: @JDX

          well, my sunglasses are rated safety lenses/frames. so I think it's decreasing the likelihood of damage.

  19. Dan Paul

    SUE FARCEBOOK!

    In the USA you have a constitutional right to know the complaintant.

    Sue Farcebook for everything you can and I hope you win. It's the only thing that will ever "get their attention".

    HOWEVER, you are not a US Citizen, and you should really create your own regular website and never use Farcebook or other social media for anything critical. If you were in the USA you could use small claims court for about $30 you can sue anyone (almost) for up to $3,000 but you have to prove damages.

    Unfortunately, NOBODY has Zuckerberg type money floating around or their lawyers.

  20. Darryl

    Unanswered question

    Does Optical Express advertise on Facebook? If so, there's no way she's ever going to have her page restored.

  21. The Dude

    This is far too common with these big companies on the net. One of my sites is listed in Symantec's dnsblock "hate site" flagger. I've sent them numerous emails asking them to please tell me what the offending page(s) is and why it gets classified as "hate" of anything, but they will not say.

    It seems that most of these outfits simply respond in a rather blunt way to any complaints, which leaves them (and us) wide open to gaming by anyone who takes exception to any legitimate criticism.

    Frankly, I would be happy to see the end of these big outfits on the net. They are a waste of bandwidth and becoming ever more insipid and boring anyhow. What happened to the promise of 'democratization' of the net, where everyone can self-publish freely?

  22. JustNiz

    This just underllines how obviously stupid it to run any campaign off a facebook page instead of your own website. I guess common sense isn't one of her skills.

    1. Terry 6 Silver badge

      To be fair, she is running it on her own site, but that won't get the coverage that F**book gets.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Skills?

      Google 'Optical Express Ruined My Life' dummy!

      Pot kettle?!

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Again?

    This is one of El Reg's recurrent stories I see.

    What makes me rather unsympathetic to this person's activity is that:

    a) She (or he¹) was not actually a customer of the company being slagged off, but rather a less well-known competitor.

    b) The purpose of this person's site / campaign / whatever you want to call it, is purely to portray certain companies in a negative light (clue is in the name). It is perfectly within anyone's rights to do so, but I would prefer more of an informational effort with contrasting opinions and analyses, since personally I do not like slagging anyone off in public--even companies--much less using opinions (aka "testimonials") as opposed to hard facts.

    c) Eye surgery is one of those medical / aesthetic procedures that seem to cause a lot of anxiety amongst the general public, and this very much appears to me as an effort to capitalise on that for whatever odd reason. I really do find the site in question rather unhelpful for people considering eye surgery, and really not something that could be considered "in the public interest", as an impartial, balanced site could be.

    ¹ Incidentally, is the editor here sure that Rodoy is a female? Sasha is a common Slavic affectionate diminutive for Alexey, Alexander, and Alexandra, only the last of which is female. Just mentioning in passing.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Again?

      Looking at her Youtube effort, if she wasn't born female then her gender reassignment surgeon is a genius.

      Eye surgery is something which has such catastrophic potential downsides that unless it really is needed it surely shouldn't be considered. Clearly quite a lot of people need to be told this. Problems with a boob job are one thing, loss of sight is very much another.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Again?

        Eye surgery is something which has such catastrophic potential downsides that unless it really is needed it surely shouldn't be considered. Clearly quite a lot of people need to be told this.

        I was probably one of the first buyers of soft lenses when they came out, and was also approved for RK when it was invented, but I know about materials and cutting soft flexible tissue to a depth of 90% is likely to have consequences so despite the test I said thank you.

        When laser eye surgery came out I researched it, because I needed a -5 correction (that translates as not being able to find my lasses without my glasses) and I did not want glasses. I ended up with a London company that had a good process and decent, fully qualified medical staff supervising the process (they're still around, by the way). It is now more than 25 years ago that this was done, and I have loved every minute of that - I still have far sight for driving, just for near sight I need reading glasses.

        I would be the first to agree that regulation is needed, but this outfit did it right pretty much from day one - they rigorously filtered out the people that had eye issues so that they could concentrate on the majority that has no problems.

    2. Andrew Taylor 1

      Re: Again?

      I call troll, she was the recipient of poor eye surgery who by an inept surgeon who was told "tough" when she complained. This matter has been the subject of several investigations, including one that was televised, all of which confirmed her claims which is why she won her court case. Putting false information on this site on behalf of your employer only makes you look small.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Again?

        > I call troll,

        You can call whatever you like.

        > Putting false information on this site on behalf of your employer only makes you look small.

        And jumping to "conclusions" like that makes you look pretty fucking stupid, Andy.

        However if I have said anything that is demonstrably, or at least arguably, false, feel free to correct me.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Again?

          >> However if I have said anything that is demonstrably, or at least arguably, false, feel free to correct me.

          He did.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Again?

      Here's a little tip, Optical Express employee.

      The Reg is like fly paper for shills. You've tried to get this past a community of the finest stooge-detectors I can think of.

      I would say 'good effort', but it really, really wasn't.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Again?

        The Reg is like fly paper for shills. You've tried to get this past a community of the finest stooge-detectors I can think of.

        True, but one of the annoying side effects for fly paper to work is that it has to attract the flies first.

        We need a repellant of sorts :)

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Again?

        > Here's a little tip, Optical Express employee.

        OMG! I've been unmasked! :-b

        Now, assume for a moment that the AC comments above had been posted by someone under direction of one of the actors in this little story (they have not, both are mine, and I always post AC for reasons explained elsewhere). Could you please tell me on what points (if any) you disagree, and how? Many thanks.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Again?

          The employee doth protest too much, methinks

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Again?

            > The employee doth protest too much, methinks

            By the same token, you are this Sasha person. :-/ Many thanks for your perfectly reasoned and illuminating defence of your web page.

  24. Martin-73 Silver badge
    Pirate

    Surprised nobody's mentioned

    the fact that facebook is clearly saying that she's an IP thief. Now, I KNOW that it's not actually theft under UK law, BUT, surely given our very wide ranging and litigant friendly defamation laws, she could legitimately claim ZuckCo is tarring her with a very bad brush

    1. the spectacularly refined chap

      Re: Surprised nobody's mentioned

      the fact that facebook is clearly saying that she's an IP thief. Now, I KNOW that it's not actually theft under UK law, BUT, surely given our very wide ranging and litigant friendly defamation laws, she could legitimately claim ZuckCo is tarring her with a very bad brush

      Probably not. Even under our laws on defamation you need to show reputational damage. If I say to you "You are a murderer" you can't sue me. It is only when I tell someone else "Martin-73 is a murderer" you have any claim. Presumably her notification was sent to her personally rather than the world at large. If she then tells the world about it herself she is responsible for that damage rather than Facebook.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Surprised nobody's mentioned

        > If I say to you "You are a murderer" you can't sue me.

        If you say it loudly in a public space or in front of a number of witnesses, then you can be sued.

  25. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Facebooks notification doesn't follow DMCA

    Facebook's response does not follow the DMCA. Facebook doesn't have to be too involved. But, Facebook doesn't have no involvement whatsoever. From the Digital Medial Law Project's "Responding to a DMCA Takedown Notice Targeting Your Content":

    "If your hosting service or other online service provider receives a DMCA takedown notice regarding your content, it ordinarily will respond by removing the complained-of material, and it will do this automatically without making any judgment about whether your content actually is infringing. However, the DMCA notice-and-takedown procedures provide you with protection from a wrongful claim of copyright infringement. The DMCA requires your service provider to notify you promptly when it removes any of your content because of a takedown notice, and you have the right to submit a counter-notice asking that the material be put back up. There is no specific time limit for submitting a counter-notice, but you should not delay unreasonably in doing so. If you send a counter-notice, your online service provider is required to replace the disputed content unless the complaining party sues you within fourteen business days of your sending the counter-notice. (Your service provider may replace the disputed material after ten business days if the complaining party has not filed a lawsuit, but it is required to replace it within fourteen business days.) "

  26. Tom Samplonius

    Since https://www.facebook.com/OpticalExpressRuinedMyLife is reachable right now, this take down really didn't last. Or, was it ever actually taken down?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Not available to view from UK!! What's your browser?

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      "Since https://www.facebook.com/OpticalExpressRuinedMyLife is reachable right now"

      It's not from my facebook login - and a search on the name says "no such page"

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Further proof social media is all about getting loads of money from businesses. You're the product.

  28. Conundrum1885

    Re. takedown

    Seems that there is indeed a conspiracy of silence going on with FB, such as removing breastfeeding pictures and links to cancer survivor sites as well (in Daily Mail a few weeks back)

    What is going on when even comments criticizing FB get taken down?

    I get the impression that the FB moderators need to re-read 1984 before making such sweeping changes without any recourse or even ability to reverse a blatantly silly decision.

    As for the recent changes in the law in the UK which have resulted in numerous complaints and IMHO quite rightly so from human rights groups that "the changes are Orwellian".

    Such as outlawing purchasing of some chemicals online which aren't even on the precursor list and for that matter used to be available over the counter as recently as 1997.

    Adding innocent people to the watch list is also unacceptable as there aren't enough checks and balances to ensure that mistakes aren't made.

    I know we have to balance this against preventing terrorism but come on Cameron, think before you legislate lest the UK become a laughing stock on the world stage.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Re. takedown

      I get the impression that the FB moderators need to re-read 1984

      I think they did read it, made manuals from it, and they are on to the works of Joseph Goebbels now.

  29. Sasha Rodoy aka OERML

    I will fight Facebook

    I am Sasha Rodoy, owner and author of Optical Express Ruined My Life (OERML) website and associated FB page currently under dispute.

    Currently camping here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/My-Beautiful-Eyes/646365588794480

    To be more accurate, OERML FB page would be under dispute if the complainant's identity and details of my alleged defamation were provided to me.

    I am posting in the hope that there may be people reading this able to help me... surely someone else must have previously challenged Facebook legally?

    I have sent countless emails to FB and received delayed and repetitive messages, presumably from robots as they don't seem to understand what I'm asking.

    I have no access to a real person, FB legal representative, or phone number. Instead I am contacted by 'Julius' from Community Operations - who either has short term memory loss or is actually 50 different people!

    Before all the Trolls fall into a feeding frenzy, I won't be reading responses, and this is likely to be my only post, directed at anyone who thinks they can possibly help me.

    I'm not big on politics (ask me about eyes and that's a different matter) but I understand democracy, and the fundamental human right to a fair trial.

    I believe Facebook is in breach of my human rights.

    I won’t give up without doing everything I possibly can to fight this! If you think you can help, please email: info(at)opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk

    This is my most recent email to FB:

    On 6 Nov 2014, at 11:18, OERML <info(at)opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk> wrote:

    Re Optical Express Ruined My Life (OERML):

    A message I received from Facebook yesterday included this: "Note that we regularly provide your contact information, including your name and email address, the name of your organization or client who owns the right in question, and/or the contents of your report to the person who posted the content you are reporting.”

    You have neglected to provide any of these details, without which I am unable to ask the complainant to withdraw their complaint, or take legal action against them for false allegations causing harm to my legitimate campaign.

    Re "We received a legal notice from a business in the United Kingdom that content on the reported Page was defamatory, and on that basis we made the content unavailable in the United Kingdom.”

    “Defamation: the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business…"

    I legally and undisputably own the OERML domain name and have provided Facebook with proof of this fact.

    My OERML website contains similar content to my OERML FB page, none is false, and both sites have been active for 2.5 years.

    I therefore question the validity of the complainant’s claim of defamatory content, because were this true then ‘the business’ would pursue a defamation claim against me via the UK legal system. They have not.

    It is unfair and unacceptable to excuse the removal of an influential campaign page by simply saying a business made a complaint of defamation.

    I intend to pursue legal action against the complainant for a malicious and false claim of defamation.

    It is my right to be provided with details of the complainant and if this is not actioned then I have no option but to pursue legal action against Facebook in order to obtain this information.

    It should also be considered that Facebook has stolen 2.5yrs of content that I do not have backed up.

    Please escalate my complaint to someone at a higher level as a matter of urgency.

    FYI: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/05/laser_eye_surgery_campaigner_burned_by_facebook_takedown/

    Sincerely,

    Sasha Rodoy

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I will fight Facebook

      "I'm not big on politics (ask me about eyes and that's a different matter) but I understand democracy, and the fundamental human right to a fair trial."

      You've come to the wrong place. When xkcd posted:

      http://xkcd.com/1357/

      most of the crowd here thought it HIlarious and insightful. Basically, FB and Twitter are saying you're an asshole they don't want around and no one can do anything about it because, like, the Internet or something.

      1. Vindicated Troll

        fundamental right to a fair trial NEVER

        I ( yes little me! ) was blamed for taking down the FB page so don't mention fair trial or innocent till proven guilty to me !

        It was hate mail, more hate mail and cyber bullying. afraid I can't sympathise

        1. Vindicated Troll

          Pot Kettle Kettle Black

          .....OERML Facebook was removed for IPR issues from what I can see.

          I was banned from FB for 3 days. Have a guess why? -for infringing Rodoy's Intellectual Property Rights. No advertising or multi million pound corporations involved here!! Rodoy complained about me, someone with some clout complained about Rodoy. We both got banned...Simples !

          The irony -it seems I was infringing Rodoy's IPR by posting (and therefore publicising) a protest photo on My iPad of a group of willing participants including Rodoy. So Pot, Kettle, Kettle, Black springs to mind - the world's gone crazy but you cannot expect there to be one rule for you and another for everyone else!

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Then don't use Facebook

    I was a Facebook user since the very beginning. Years later I found Facebook to be depressing so I deleted (not deactivated) the damn thing from my life and my quality of life improved.

    If you don't like their rules then don't use it. You are the product of Mark Aspergerburg and he's raking in billions of dollars of you and he is incapable of caring about your feelings. He can do whatever he damn well pleases and so can you.

  31. Stretch

    just don't use facebook or twitter. its easy

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Not the most constructive comment! Whether you like it or not, Facebook is possibly the fastest and far reaching network to promote a cause or campaign. Sasha Rodoy had discovered that and was using it to publicise major problems within a medical industry, not to post pictures of what she ate for lunch! In my opinion, for Facebook to pull years of work off their network, without warning or explanation, is criminal to say the least! I hope she does manage to take legal action against them, because it's fine and dandy that Facebook make money from their advertisers, but at the same time they owe some respect and loyalty to the people who make this possible.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        In my opinion, for Facebook to pull years of work off their network, without warning or explanation,

        Backup Much!?

        I always say to wifey: "You need to worry about what you control!". FaceBook, LinkedIn and Twitter can all go screw themselves and their lawyers - NOTHING I put there is irreplaceable; there is a backup and my pages look like shit too because I left the defaults.

        I do not control what they do with the "content" and I don't want to worry about my "investment".

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Maybe we need an alternative

    No censors, no admins, just total anarchy.

    BUT every few days, the really nasty schitt gets deleted to keep the hungry hungry laywers at bay.

    1. Adrian 4 Silver badge

      Re: Maybe we need an alternative

      4chan, much ?

  33. MatsSvensson

    A page on Facebook, is never "your website".

    Here ends the lesson.

  34. James Pickett

    Anyone who wants their cornea 're-profiled' by a laser is welcome to take the risk. I'll stick with my glasses, which I can have fine-tuned to suit my current prescription, or variation thereof (for close work, driving, etc). The last ones I bought (on line), with photochromic lenses, cost £30.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019