Spam, What Is It, Really?

This past week, I signed up for a video service and upgraded, for just one month, to one of their higher-paying plans, which offers a "Call-to-Action Button" to embed clickable, living links to be embedded in videos to make for much easier promotion of a cause or a business or a website. With great enthusiasm and dedication, I made homemade images and composed a summary of my story and my daughter's in different colors of print; I know that attaching personal stories to causes can pull people in like no amount of research and arguments can. I wanted to add the "Call-to-Action Button" at the end of my video for easier exposure for my petition. As I was brand-new to making videos and this was my first chance, I had issues from the start and continually contacted the customer online "Help Desk" for answers to my questions. Finally, that evening, after taking some complaints from Facebook users which I knew to be legitimate, I forwarded thse to the Customer "Help Desk" and I was able to revise my video and to resolve those issues easily.

Something totally unexpected happened, though! This past Tuesday evening, on the day that I had created the video, I found that I was no longer able to share it on Facebook. I tried to share it from the video service's host site, and when I did, I was aghast to get a message that read like this: "This video cannot be shared because it contains a link that is deemed to be spammy or unsafe." And they gave my embedded link: http:tiny.cc/mrsahw, which is the shortened link to my Change.org petition. What?! How could a link to a petition be spam?! Had someone reported the petition or the link? I know that, just days ago, I found that a Facebook user had blocked me after I sent her a link to my petition (along with an early birthday wish, as I try to always do for those in my social networks). Could this user be behind this?

Wednesday morning, when I logged into Facebook to circulate my petition and my video, I was dismayed to discover that posts of my video had been removed from my Facebook pages and I got a Facebook notice about a complaint that was posted as a comment about the video. And when I visited the group page, I saw that that my video had been indeed been pulled by Facebook, as my video's link was gone and it said, "Attachment Unavailable." As Wednesday and Thursday progressed, I felt really depressed and even felt that life may not be worth living and especially, that Facebook was not to be trusted. I tried to post my video to Facebook by means of theit URL link and I got the same warning about its embedded link being deemed "unsafe or spammy." This same thing happened whenever I attempted to share this video to Facebook. Facebook users surmised that Facebook was pulling my video because they thought I may be violating copyright by using a song, which the video-making services requires to make videos through them. They state that music that they offer for production is paid for by them and is commercially licensed for use. Plus, I have been a paying customer. However, I want to make clear that the Facebook warnings that I have been getting about the video have always pertained to my embedded link being allegedly "spammy or unsafe" and mentioned NOTHING about violating copyrights.

I have spent much time submitting dispute notices to Facebook and screenshots hoping to provide evidence as to why my link was neither spammy or unsafe. I did this twice and I have not heard back from Facebook. So I have revised the video once again and I removed the shortened link and replaced it with the longer, original Change.org link. And, this time, it seems that I can now share this video on Facebook! But this begs the question: How and why did a video that is intended to use the video-maker's personal story annd embedded link to gain a petition exposure, get marked as spam in the first place and get pulled so that it could not be shared? Anh how any why did even a shortned link get marked as spam?

I may never know the answers to thse questions, especially if Facebook never gets back with me. But I know that this is by no means the first time that I have been accused of spamming others users in my Facebook social network and I'm sure that it won't be my last. I know that I have been removed from people's Facebook friends list and even blocked, and it was often because, as they accused me right before these actions, that I had been "spamming" them with unwanted Causes requests. To be fair, in the case of those who are inactive online and don't post much and where my Causes invites over the months have no doubt been piling up, that seemed to thse users like spam. Now, I don't get nearly as much involved in posting Causes invites on people's pages as I have gotten involved in other things that I deem to be mre enjoyable. But does anything that is unwanted and annoying actually deserve to be called "spam"?

What is the technical defintion of "spam"? According to Wikipedia, "Spam is the use of electronic messaging to send unsolicited bulk messages, especially advertising, indiscriminately." And Webopedia says: "Spam is most often considered to be electronic junkmail or junk news postings." Later in the paragraph, it wraps up what really is spam in the technical sense: "Real spam is generally email advertising for some product sent to a mailing list or newsgroup."

So why does virtually everything online that is deemed annoying or simply unwanted by users end up being called "spam" even if it is perfectly helpful or merely harmless? I cannot count the times that I have received unfriendly inbox messages by Facebook users who accused me of spamming them, simply by sending them invites to a cause or causes that they personally did not care about (though they will never admit that but just wiggle out of it by calling me a spammer). This used to upset me until I saw that these were usually people who had unsolved personal problems of their own that had nothing to do with me. And Facebook does not help matters by making its "Report" feature so easy to use by anyone who is willing to abuse this feature or who just doesn't know how social networks function. I can understand that social networks take spam seriously because an "attack" of unwanted material can eat up bandwidth and cause serious problems with computers. And I can attest to the fact that, like everyone else, I constantly receive, especially through email or through Facebook, unwanted messages and requests which I simply ignore as I do not have time to act on every request that is made of me. Like anyone reading this, we all have to learn how and when to say "no" but not to say "no" to everything so as to seem unfriendly or negative.

And yes, I know that there always will be people who are not interested in causes, not even in my petition campaign and that no amount of awareness or attempts on my part are going to get them on board as supporters, unless some kind of crisis enters their lives that relates to my petition (and I don't wish that on anyone!). And I know that anyone who advocates for anything worthy can tell stories about being detracted or meeting with ignorance, oppoaition or simple apathy. But just because a message, or a cause invitation or an even an effort to sell a product (many in my networks have written books that they are trying to sell), is unwanted by certain people does not make it spam. Spam, according to technical defintions, is when we send impersonal, unsolicited, automated, mass messages to large numbers of people and often to get them to buy a product or donate to a cause. I always send PERSONAL emails to people, never mass messages to large numbers of people except to small groups of people who are networked in the same group or nonprofit's board, and I seldom do that. But all of us, including me, have "Spam" folders in our email inboxes and get MANY spammy messages, true spam. However, I think it is a mistake to call everything that is unwanted or unsolicited as spam. In that case, nothing can get done!

Probably the most unsolicited (and often very unwanted) act of all time was when God, in the Person of His Son, gave His life for us on a wooden cross, if you are a person of faith and believe the Christian Scriptures, as I do and countless others do. But we can all point to many things both online and in-person, that we did not solicit (ask for) or even want at the time, but which turned out to be blessings, particularly when precious children come to us as "unplannned pregnancies." Yes, I know that spam refers only to online things but I think this illustrates the point that just because things are unwanted does not make them offensive.

Getting back to my link which Facebook has deemed as "spammy," I ask you to visit that very link and decide for yourself if Facebook has made a correct or fair judgement:

Here is is allegedly spammy link: http://tiny.cc/mrsahw

Social Networking: the Bad and the Good

     We are always, it seems, focusing on the dark side of the Internet and on social networks and there are extremely valid reasons for doing so. I have often posted about many negative experiences that I have witnessed or experienced. And, if we listen even casually to the news, we have hear too often about Internet crimes, including those committed by the "Craigslist Killer," the sometimes tragic outcomes known to befall especially younger people who meet others online and especially for romantic purposes and the suicides motived by online bullying. The use of Internet pornography has ruined or at least soured countless marriages. And this is not to mention that social networks, especially Facebook, have ruined many relationships, including marriages (aside from pornography). And then social networks have given predaors many more tools to work with, making for many more avenues for human trafficking and child pornography.
     The media and the leaders of the Church (the community of people of faith) also often warn us about the dangers of the use of the Internet and especially social networks. The concern is especially something called "Internet addiction." Heavy use of the Internet can be very addicting as there is virtually NO limit to what a user can do online, the more computer-savvy one is. This heavy use of the Internet can blind a person to everything else, even to those things one normally cares about and enjoys. This is why Church leaders advise people, especially during Lent, to take "Facebook breaks," "social networking breaks" or "Internet breaks." Even at this time, family members have expressed concern and frustration that my absorption in my petition campaign and my associated activities that are going with it, including Internet marketing, awareness and  my fairly new website (as yet under construction) and that is not to mention the commitment of this blogspot, maintaining it so that I post here twice a week. All this can be time-consuming, especially if there are bugs, glitches or issues, including interpersonal ones. And yes, we should be on our guard against overuse of the Internet or the use of social networks as a substitute for a social life in the "real world." And this is much tougher for those of us who are not socially inclined or simply shy but who enjoy connecting with people online. It is a temptation for me!
     And then there is the serious issue of the widespread atmoshere is lies, deception and fake users as the Internet makes it easy to hide behind one's computer screen. Privacy settings are wonderful but they make it easy for fakes, crooks, scammers, predators and other bad guys or gals, to hide behind their computer screens. And it is quite difficult to tell the the bad guys or gals apart from good, honest, trustworthy users. So many users can claim to be something they are not or, even if real, falsify or embellish their claims or experiences for reasons known only to them. In this atmosphere of suspicion, other users are often not likely to give one the benefit of the doubt if there are suspicions or concerns. After all, it is "just social networking," right?
     As for as connecting to nonprofits whose presence is mainly online and whom I learned about only through social networks, the experience almost always has been negative when I have tried to connect with them on a deeper level other than as a distant supporter. I know that this may say as much about me as much about thse nonprofits, for in each case, I may have "overshared" about my challenges and medical conditions in the name of openness and honesty. Instead of commending me for these qualities, these nonprofits apparently were scared off by my revelations. These dismissals have only triggered my memories of the past when both adults, with emotional abuse and peers, with their bullying, suggested that I was not "good enough." But getting back to encounters, including nonprofits, being only online, it seems that such encounters cause the parties involved to lose credibility more easily. This is because we don't have access to many nonverbal cues that can help us get to know people. It is also because we don't have a shared history with people we have met just online and so it is easier to dismiss them than people whom we "know personally."
     And there is the frequent observation and yes, experience, that social networking can, as we see others post self-serving material about their accomplishments and their advantages, cause us to assume that the "grass is greener on the other side of the fence." And there are the insensitive and even unkind posts that can cause pain or break hearts. For example, if you're grieving the loss of a baby by any means, will you want to see posts or photos showing off cute little babies? And if you are unable to conceive, are you going to want to see pregnancy jokes status updates or photos of pregnant women or newborns? And if you have a brain injury, will you appreciate a slur calling a criminal "brain-damaged" to express disgust for that person? And if your child or loved one has an intellectual disability, will you appreciate the word "retard" being used even as a harmless joke? While it is great that social networks give people almost total control over who they can add, how much the other user can interact with them, who they can remove from their contacts, block or report, these features can hurt many feelings and cause ill will and even make enemies who "go off the deep end" and "snap" at the offending user.
     Yet, in spite of all this, there are good things and priceless things that the Internet and social networks have brought. While the Internet has given predators and sex offenders more tools to work with and seem to have spawned more missing people, rapes, human trafficking and even murder, much of this may actually be that there is more awareness of thse evils that have been going on for a long time but which have been surrounded by ignorance and codes of silence. If the information age and the Internet have never come about, we may still be ignorant about thse evils and to our own peril. While the Internet has given bullies and abusers more tools to work with, much of what seems to be much worsened bullying may just be more awareness about what was once called a "rite of passage" and "just a part of being a kid." And even more, with the coming of the Internet and this information age, there is much more awareness and talking about disabilities, especially invisible ones like autism, that once were shrouded in ignorance and almost total silence. Many say that children and teens today have it worse than children and teens of my generation did. As far as Internet crimes and the increase of many temptations go, I certainly agree. Our bullies did not have the Internet to work with so online bullying was not an issue, and we did not have access to many of the things that create much more peer pressures for young peope today. On the other hand, because of the ignorance and codes of silence that surrounded so many of the things that we now know much more about and talk about today, we often suffered in silence, blamed ourselves and felt alone in certain life situations. Sexual offenses were not considered crimes unless they involved violence and so if you were sexually abused or assaulted, too bad. If you were extensively bullied, it was a "rite of passage" and if it got out of hand, it was the bully victim that tended to get the blame. And if you had invisible disabilities that did not have proper diagnoses tools or interventions, you had to endure much misunderstanding, abuse, stigma, even trauma and may have been robbed of a childhood or an education. Thus, it cannot really be said that the young today have it better or worse than any other generation had it. Every generation has its own struggles and challenges and every generation has its own advantages.
     Above all, the Internet has allowed many of us to find sources of support such as so many of us have never known, as we are able to find users who share our passions and concerns. I have seen how families who face the trauma of missing people find so much support, caring and resources because of social networks and the Internet. I have seen it over and over again and I see it every time I get online and see families interact. The "world of the missing," according to "authorities" on missing persons awareness, consist of the families themselves, victims of crime (epecially if they themselves were once missing) and trained advocates such as those who hold ties with nonprofits. Related to this is how so many who call themselves survivors of crime or various forms of abuse, have often found encouragement and forums to share survival stories that were long kept secret because, in the past, people "do not talk about those things." This community is extremely close-knit and, in a way, it is sad that it takes the tragedy of a missing loved one or a common passion for them to bind people together. But what did families with missing loved ones and many victims of crime do before the Internet?
     In the same way, the Internet has been invaluable for so many people with disabilities, in awareness, support and resources.  Before this time of information, awareness and talking about issues, many disabilities, especially invisible ones, were surrounded by so much ignorance and codes of silence and much stigma. This has been especially the case for the autism community, where the proliferation of groups has enabled people to connect with each other in cyberspace. And the numerous forums and encouragement to share "disability stories" has done so much so undo stigma and increase awareness as people share stories of things that once were hushed up because "we don't talk about things like that." I have been using social networks for not much longer than two years and it has been an education; above all, it is the main reason I have, over time, been slowly finding the courage to share parts of my story that lend themselves to awareness for my petition or enhance posts for this blogspot or any of my other materials. The Internet is a priceless tool for self-expression, spreading awareness about causes we care about, sharing one's faith if you are a person of faith, and a great way to connect with people whom we cannot otherwise connect with.
     It is all in how we use the Internet and social networks; will we use them for good or for evil?