廣州麥當勞取消廣東話外賣服務 網民籲抵制

一封沒發送的 「致朱克伯格的公開電郵」 周融G報自爆「周式英文」│皇甫清

2015-5-12 17:40
字體: A A A

網媒《HKG報》行政總裁兼保普選反暴力大聯盟發言人周融,今日在《HKG報》張貼一封名為「致朱克伯格(fb創辦人兼行政總裁)的公開電郵」,兼有中英文版本。公開信內容大意基本上指,《HKG報》在fb開設了專頁的首日,fb就刪掉了他們第一篇帖,首24小時上載的18篇帖就有4篇被刪,佔總數達22%,甚至連「後台的操作紀錄也被刪除。」

周融之後就簡介該4篇被刪貼文的內容,質疑為何fb要刪走這4篇帖文,並引述一些人指,fb是有既定的政治立場,或「一些在Facebook工作的人在滿足自己的政治立場」,但他強調「但願不是如此。」又指「在這個文明時代,被告在受罰前應被告知他所犯何事」,反問fb的團隊在「行刑」刪帖前有否看過證據。

周融稱寫此公開信是希望朱克伯格能夠得悉此事,「只希望謙卑地請求你和Facebook,做一些你們認為正確的事(這是引用你說過的話)」,又希望《HKG報》「專頁不會被Facebook內某些人封殺。」

先簡介一下fb的規矩:當有足夠數目的舉報,fb就會自動刪走被舉報的帖文。今年4月初,《破折號》專頁就因為「有心人士」濫用fb的投訴功能,使fb把《破折號》列為「不受歡迎網站」,該網的所有網頁連結都不能轉載到fb,而專頁上近八成的帖文都「被消失」,但fb沒有交代「封殺」的原因。

有關情況也見諸於去年6月,政治漫畫家Cuson Lo的fb帳戶被封,疑與當時上載了一張諷刺一國兩制白皮書的漫畫有關。當時已有人撰文指出fb的投訴機制其實極不透明,隨時會被有心人用作滅聲工具。因此周融稱fb團隊在「行刑」前沒有看證據的批評或許屬實,但卻未必是針對《HKG報》而來。

另外,《HKG報》在其fb專頁分享了這篇公開電郵的中文譯本,不過既然寫明給朱克伯格,何以發帖時不提及他的專頁?試問他如何能收到周融的「謙卑請求」?再者,既然網站有公開電郵的英文譯本,何以fb又不一併分享?再者,雖說朱克伯格會說普通話,其愛妻又是華人,但他未必能看懂所有繁體中文字。

說到最後,周融在上世紀80年代曾任《英文虎報》的總經理及總編輯,其語文造詣無容置疑,現轉載公開電郵的英文版,以供大家「長知識」之用!

Dear Mark,

You don’t know me. My name is Robert Yung CHOW, a very small Facebook user from Hong Kong, and I would like to share with you our Facebook experience. We opened a Media/News/Publishing fan page called HKG Pao this month, and immediately strange things began to happen.

On the first day we opened our Page, Facebook deleted our first post after seven hours. Within the next two hours, two more posts were deleted, making it three on the first day. The following morning, the fourth post was deleted. We put up a total of 18 posts during the first 24 hours and four were deleted, a ratio of 22%. The deletions happened both in our front end (Timeline) and our backend (Insight).

Now one would think we must have done some pretty offensive stuff, like insults to religion, pornography or worst. I would like to give you a brief rundown of what were in the posts:

The first post deleted was a piece authored by me explaining why I decided to start the web media called HKG Pao. The 800 word article had already been published in a newspaper, and was posted in my own fan page, as well as shared by a few sites the day before. No problem there. The picture we used was one featuring my not too attractive face, and which was approved by Facebook for use as an ad, and it is still being run on Facebook.

The second post deleted was a financial analysis on a listed company which just announced a profit warning. The picture used consisted of images of the major shareholder (an important political figure) and the CEO. Nothing offensive there except it may not please the company and its management, but what financial analysis on a profit-warned company ever did.

The third post deleted was an announcement for a voting to select the most popular faces of a political movement. The accompanying picture contained images of about 13 people, just head and shoulder shots. Nothing indecent there.

The fourth post deleted was a published newspaper article and we poked fun at a student leader who became the nominal head of 90,000 college students in Hong Kong by getting just 37 votes. What democracy, we asked. The image used was the student’s head and shoulder shot at a press conference.

We reposted the four and are waiting to see if they will be deleted again.

I am first to admit that Hong Kong is deep in the throes of a political turmoil (we just survived 79 days of Occupy Central/Umbrella revolution). We belong to one camp fighting for universal suffrage to be introduced in 2017. The opposition feels that the current political package proposal is not good enough and wants it rejected. That’s the gist of our differences.

Well, Hong Kong must be a tiny dot in your worldwide operation, and our insignificant fan page is no more than a speck in the Facebook universe, but since you and Facebook are all for communication, I have therefore decided to directly communicate with you.

People are suggesting that four Facebook deletions of non-offensive material (our claim) in just 30 hours of a fan page’s existence must be something of a record. A few have even questioned if Facebook is taking a political stand in Hong Kong or someone working in Facebook was trying to satisfy a private political agenda. I cannot for the life of me believe the former is true. As for the latter, I can offer no evidence except to say: heaven forbid.

That’s why I am bringing this to your attention. If we break any rules, and are punished for it, that’s fine and I’d accept it. But I imagine in this civilized age, the accused should be informed of his crimes before he is punished. If we incurred a lot of complaints, politically-inspired or otherwise, I suppose someone at Facebook would look at the evidence before applying the capital punishment, right? Well, did someone look?

Dear Mark, this is no request to go back to change the past. I am just humbly requesting you and Facebook to do what you think is the right thing going forward (that’s quoting you). I am not demanding anything, apology or whatever. Whether you will let me know what your finding is, I leave it to you and your team to decide. But getting an answer will be nice.

Like you said: I have calmed down, breathed and then typed you this e-mail. I do hope I will get a”We hear you. ”

By the way, I cannot close without telling you Facebook is a great product and we intend to communicate through you a lot. I just hope we won’t be shut down by someone in Facebook next, and wondering why. Thank you, Mark, for hearing me out.

All the best,

Robert Yung CHOW

Chief Executive Officer

HKGpao.com Ltd

12th May,2015

(撰文:皇甫清)(圖片來源:有線新聞截圖)

請支持我們持續發展,透過PayPal或其他方法贊助我們!
金額:
分類:|發表於2015年5月12日 下午5:40

發表評論

讀取中…
蔡耀昌助單身漢 司法覆核公屋上樓計分制