Posted in: Opinion

‘Unstoppable’ Facebook Ban By Kirk Cameron Best Explained By An Atheist Conspiracy?

'Unstoppable' Facebook 'Ban' By Kirk Cameron Better Explained By An Atheist Conspiracy?

Unstoppable was banned by Facebook claims Kirk Cameron, but would a better explanation involve an atheist conspiracy?

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Kirk Cameron claimed the Unstoppable Facebook ban was purposeful:

“Facebook has officially “blocked” me and you (and everyone else) from posting any link to my new movie at UnstoppableTheMovieDOTcom, labeling the content as “abusive”, “unsafe”, and “spammy”! I can’t even write the real link here, or Facebook would block this post too!!”

Kirk Cameron even claimed Unstoppable was “officially shut down by Facebook and [they were] unable to get any response from them.” In response, some people have said Kirk Cameron lied about the whole thing. Others decry the supposed Unstoppable Facebook ban as corporate Christian persecution. But let’s apply Occam’s Razor here, which basically says that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Besides Kirk Cameron, other individuals on Facebook confirmed the “spammy” Unstoppable Facebook ban by trying it themselves, although for some people Unstoppable.com links worked at various times. How do we deal with this conflicting testimony?

Both Facebook and YouTube rely on a user-based reporting system for spam. The simplest explanation is that a large enough number of people were reporting Unstoppable.com as spam. In response, a large number of people reported the spam link clicks as being erroneous. Thus, we saw Facebook links to Unstoppable.com go from “spam” to “not spam” as the tide of user opinion swayed back and forth. Finally, Facebook employees stepped in to clear up the Unstoppable spam mess.

But you might ask, “Where does an atheist conspiracy for the Unstoppable Facebook ban come into play? Wouldn’t that violate Occam’s Razor by introducing additional assumptions?” Admittedly, that is correct. I don’t have any hard evidence of an atheist conspiracy for an Unstoppable Facebook ban, but my personal experience leads me to posit this hypothesis.

Books and movies that discuss serious questions pertinent to life’s mysteries tend to be extremely controversial. The entire goal of the Unstoppable move is to try to answer the question: “Where is God in the midst of tragedy and suffering?” For many atheists, the problem of evil was the beginnings of doubt and thus Unstoppable is a project that, well, they’d want to stop.

In my past, I’ve worked with various Christians by helping them with website development and programming (my background is in computer science). Along the way, I came to find out there is a background war being waged on the internet between Christians and atheists. Books on Amazon would find themselves targeted by negative review campaigns organized by atheist blogs and organizations. Often times, it was evident from the contents of the review that the reviewer had never read the book. Despite this fact, these negative reviews would have a serious impact on sales.

In response, Christian groups would attempt to even the balance by urging others to post positive reviews or down vote the negative reviews. Unfortunately, some of these well-intentioned positive reviews were also from people who never the books, although many admitted the reason for why they were posting in the first place was to balance out the problem. Richard Dawkins books also tended to be the target of Christians who never actually bothered to read them. From what I understand, these internet religious battles led Amazon to modify its review policies over time.

So, in my opinion, it’s not inconceivable that such organized efforts by atheist groups could occur again, although, obviously, it’s not the simplest explanation for the Unstoppable Facebook ban. It’s possible the whole thing was an emergent property of social media. But if this is indeed happening, I urge such atheist groups to abandon such tactics and instead focus on the evidence or arguments raised by Kirk Cameron’s Unstoppable movie.

Do you think an atheist conspiracy better explains the Unstoppable Facebook ban claimed by Kirk Cameron?

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

28 Responses to “‘Unstoppable’ Facebook Ban By Kirk Cameron Best Explained By An Atheist Conspiracy?”

  1. Tooxforu Xtremex

    Atheists need to quit attacking because they "don't like" something and present facts, not junk alchemy to support their opinions.

  2. Chad Perkins

    Completely ridiculous. Cameron is an idiot. Atheists didn't conspire to do anything to block anything he has produced. If we were really interested in spreading Atheism we would want as many people as possible to see anything he made.

  3. Simon Zapata

    I agree with Chad Perkins, most atheist agree that the best arguments against religious fundamentalist are their own silly and erroneous books and arguments. The best way to make an atheist is to read the Bible. A lot Religious groups in U.S. are the ones who ban social groups, music, movies, art, business, toys, etc. creating a religious bubble around themselves and their kids for protection.

  4. Brooks Dean

    Why does it have to be a conspiracy or nothing? Cameron generated a lot of hostility with that legendary Piers Morgan interview, and the complaints that briefly blocked his link are probably a more or less spontaneous reaction to that. Facebook wouldn't have any policy against a movie link, this is just something that happens every now and then when things are blocked reflexively according to user complaints. This isn't the first (or last) time it's happened, and it's usually cleared up pretty quickly, as it was here.

  5. Graham Collins

    Priceless! Meanwhile you believe a guy (born from a virgin, no less) was tortured and executed by Roman soldiers, CAME BACK TO LIFE three days later, and flew up/ to Never-Never land on a rainbow to be with his dad, who is actually himself, or something…

  6. Mark Calladus

    Whenever I see ANY religious advertisement pop up on my Facebook feed, I label it as "spam" and it goes away.

    Maybe there are a lot of atheists doing that? If enough people call something "spam", then the computer algorithm will weight it as likely spam and will stop showing it.

    Maybe the problem isn't a conspiracy… maybe the problem is that everyone hates Kirk Cameron.

    You know, if all the people around you act like an asshole… maybe the problem is with you?

  7. Paula Payne

    Kirk Cameron is a has (and never really was) been trying to gain as much publicity possible for his stupidity. Facebook doesn't block anything Christian as evidenced by the hundreds of bullshit click for Jesus memes on my newsfeed.

  8. Paula Payne

    FYI.. Atheists don't give enough of a shit for a conspiracy… especially for someone as mundane as Kirk Cameron. The idea of a conspiracy is just a Christian conspiracy.

  9. Eric Nevling

    We attack you because you attempt to legislate your stupid fucking beliefs on everyone else.

  10. Eric Ryan Blevins

    we are all made from star dust in the end we will look back on this as the awakening. this is a modern dark age we are crawling out of. people are to smart to believe in imaginary rapist anymore.

  11. Craige Jacobsen

    I think the simplest explanation is that Cameron is trying to generate a false controversy in order to get some free publicity for his otherwise boring movie.

  12. Matt McDowall

    Kirk shoots himself with his stupid antics and logical fallacies all the time. Atheists don't need to do anything…we should encourage free speech!

    C'mon this is a guy who thinks the world is 6000 years old, man had pet dinosaurs and Noah ark was real…it says it all there really doesn't it?

  13. Matt McDowall

    Here is a fact for you…there as been no evidence ever of a magical sky daddy that has been interdependently verified, confirmed, observed and or tested. Zero. Zilch, Nothing.

    How is that for a fact for you?

    And you ask to believe this nonsense…

  14. Kevin Lynch

    Matt McDowall that is a very closed view, although I agree there is no "magical sky daddy". There is nothing that can closer describe a loving God than " Heavenly Father", we can't even comprehend His love towards us. No one is forcing you to believe in Him, so I don't understand the fierce opposition. The only proof I need is my very real relationship with a Loving Creator, who makes Himself completely evident to me daily. I would ask you only to be open to the idea of a loving God, trust in Him, and He will make Himself evident to you as well. Peace ><>

  15. Kevin Lynch

    Graham Collins , actually it is priceless. You almost have a grasp on the gospel of Christ. There is a reason why He was beaten and died, it was the price for our failures, that we should have paid ourselves. Thank God that His mercy is so great that He took our punishment and gave us Grace in its place… Priceless. Give Him an open heart and mind and He will make Himself known to you as well. You won't regret it. Peace ><>

  16. Tooxforu Xtremex

    Eric Nevling – Legislation by religious leaders is a sad fact that I have fought against all my life. Talk about attacking without knowledge! You proved my point by admitting you attack because you dislike something, not based upon the facts and in your case for a reason that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

  17. Tooxforu Xtremex

    Kevin Lynch – Quit being an idiot and use apologetics. The existence of God can be proven, DO IT.

  18. Nichelle Wrenn

    Mr. Cameron's site was blocked by Facebook's AUTOMATIC spam blocking software. The traffic volume through Facebook means that if they wish to keep server traffic volume down they must employ automatic software. However, Mr. Cameron may not have even known about the spam on his website. Spammers will attach extra code or malicious links to popular websites without the owner knowing. I don't know if that was the case here but it is a possibility. All this being said, I don't believe a word about him being a former atheist, not for one second. But I know how the internet works and I'm not willing to be unfair to someone just because I disagree with them.

  19. Jo No

    Atheist conspiracy, maybe. Probably more likely a left-wing Atheist conspiracy. I can't imagine conservative Atheists reporting something like this as conservatives tend to be more rational, generally speaking, and thus are not as inclined to see a point in doing such inane things as reporting something on the sole basis that they don't agree with it's message.

    According to Fox News, Kirk Cameron agrees that this was the result of people simply clicking the report link.

    Personally, conspiracy, not as likely a concerted conspiracy as several individuals simply clicking the report link on their own accord when they happened to come across the videos.

    What's fascinating about this though, is now, no matter how many click the link to report, this video is going to become immune to being blocked due to reporting from here on out now that the video has been identified by the moderators and owners of the respective websites, and this might have the effect of even making it immune to being blocked on any other sites as well since now so many will have seen the headlines and know that there is no fair reason to block it or it's links from their sites either.

    I know that many will consider this unfair, for no reason, because they will irrationally feel like Cameron's video is getting this special privilege of immunity from being blocked.

  20. Jo No

    Then why did it get blocked, because the Atheists moderating youtube and Facebook decided to remove it?

    It actually did happen, you do realize this right?

    So, rationally speaking, like you Atheists love to pretend you do, it was either people clicking the report link in order to get it banned or it was the websites themselves that decided to ban it.

    Furthermore, nobody said it was an Atheist conspiracy. Patrick Frye, the author of this article suggested that, and he didn't actually say that it was, but only presented it as a provocative suggestion in order to draw in readers.

    I didn't even read but the first line of this article, and I could reason that much about it.

  21. Jo No

    Facebook has already banned a few. It made headlines a while back. That's why it is not unfeasible to think that Facebook was directly responsible.

    However, Cameron said that he believes it was simply people clicking report. Enough people report anything on Facebook or youtube, and it will get banned.

  22. Jo No

    Graham Collins

    LOL, if you didn't add all of that never-land rainbow nonsense, I'd say that for Him to truly be God, it could be no other way.

    First of all, IF nobody throughout mankind was worthy to suffer the penalty of our sins yet be blameless themselves so that Hell . . . utter separation from God . . . had no power over them to hold them, then God is the only one who could be that sacrifice. How else could it possible work? God is pure perfection, the basis behind existence, the first and the last, God is what there is when nothing is. How else can God abide disobedience, another to be their own or any kind of god, how can The God abide that? Imagine, what is the true justice for one being their own god who does not, in complete truth deserve to be? It would be to allow them to be their own god, and to separate them from The God, at least as I see it. Well, what does that mean to be your own god utterly separated from God, the fundamental purpose of existence? I can't imagine the emptiness of that existence, having absolutely no power, no ability, nothing, just simple existence for eternity, a consciousness void of anything.

    Thus God spoke, and His Word became flesh and lived as we did, suffered as we did, and died as we did, only in a far more horrific way. This was the only way it could happen since no other was found to be worthy to take on this responsibility. All others would fail honest judgement, and thus any who put their faith in them would go with them to Hell . . . utter separation from God. How can you say that Hell is not actually a mercy? Can you say that utter separation from the fundamental purpose behind existence is not a torture of emptiness from which none would ever want to suffer? Maybe Hellfire actually gives that purpose, maybe it's actually preferable to the reality of what true separation from God actually means.

    As for why do we believe, for very much the same reason you do not. You look at all see and know around us and you interpret it to mean that there can't be a god. We interpret it to mean that there can't possibly not be a god.