Warning, JW.ORG on Facebook

[sis little]

Gotcha Dismal Bliss keep me on my p's n q's ha!ha!

[JudyO]

I agree with Dismal_Blis. In fact to me social media sites are covered in 1 Cor 15:33. They ARE bad associations. 

May be good intentions now. But no guarantees for the future.

neil

Gah!!! You caught me! The main reason i keep my fb acct is.......i am hooked on panda jam game.!!!!! I might need an intervention.

[Guest Guest]

If you are worried about getting confused by any of these sites, just think about it like this.  The Faithful Slave will never use anything ran by a Worldly person or organization as a means of communication.  We have a Website (JW.org) with a media release section.  Therefore, the Society or Organization will never use Facebook, Twitter or YouTube to dispense any information to the public.  Never.

 

.............................................

 

I'd be surprised if the Organization ever used Facebook or Twitter since you can't control the content of viewers comments.  But I have to say I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually established an official JW.ORG YouTube channel.  ("Advertise!  Advertise!  Advertise!")

 

1. It's free

2. You can turn the "comments" feature off, so no worries about apostates posting comments

3. It's an effective way to share Bible truths with the tens of millions of people who use the site every day

4. It can drive traffic to JW.ORG

5. Other churches have an "official channel" presence there as a means to preach their message.  

 

I guess the biggest potential pitfall I can see is that YouTube's algorithms may end up "recommending" additional content that turns out to be apostate.

[Qapla]

The organization used to have radio stations ... they even did some "network hookups" in a day when it was a novel idea.

 

However, when religion became "common" on radio and stations started selling their time to any who wanted to buy it ... we no longer had radio being used as a way to preach.

 

YouTube is like that. Since anyone can post a video about most anything, it is not really the best way to share videos that you want to keep total control of.

 

If they planned on using an outlet like YouTube they would not have spent the time and resources establishing their own "streaming" so that videos can be viewed directly from jw.org. I do NOT look to see them establish a YouTube Channel .... rather, I see them stepping up the advertising of jw.org and keeping the videos there.

[Shawnster]

Exactly.  We used to have radio programming, but we had our own radio station.  In years past (like the days of Russell), we ran articles in newspapers, but those days are long past.  You don't see us as an Organization using other magazines to publish our articles, nor do you see us using other book publishers to publish our literature.  We're of the mindset today that we do it ourselves, not farming it out to some other organization.

[timpin]

Moderators!   ...  Staff!   .....   what are all these  "unregisted visitor"   ...   "guest"  comments all about lately???    Many don't sound so straight up   ...   underlining innuendos perhaps. ...hidden agendas?   Please look into, thank you.

[Brother_Bliss]

Moderators!   ...  Staff!   .....   what are all these  "unregisted visitor"   ...   "guest"  comments all about lately???    Many don't sound so straight up   ...   underlining innuendos perhaps. ...hidden agendas?   Please look into, thank you.

 

We're just playing around with some of this new software's features, and testing moderated guest posts. Since they are moderated (meaning that a moderator had to proofread them and approve it for public display) I cannot imagine any not sounding straight up or having underlining innuendos. If that were the case, then it shouldn't have been approved. {{ Edit: I've been gone for a few days, but looking around this morning I see what you mean. - Bob }}

 

As always, please use the Report button on any questionable post (meaning let's not continue to derail this topic with off topic replies).

 

For what it's worth, guest posting has been disabled now. 

Edited December 12, 2013 by Dismal_Bliss
Ammended comment

[niall]

I used to have a Facebook account – twice. The first time was because all my friends and work mates pestered me into signing up (way before I was baptised). I deleted it because I didn't like the amount of rubbish appearing on my feed, or whatever it's called.

 

The second time (I still wasn't baptised) was just supposed to be a way of keeping in touch with my family. Since it was only intended for my family, I only put the most basic information in my profile. What concerned me, and resulted in me deleting the account again, was when I received an email from Facebook recommending I "friend" a particular girl. I knew the girl, that wasn't the problem. The problem was that I received the request through my work email – because it was a government email, I never posted it anywhere on Facebook!!

 

This girl never asked Facebook to send me a friend request. So, how did Facebook link the two of us? And how did they get my work email?

 

Facebook is a HUGE databank where people voluntarily upload their whole life. The Queensland Police (and no doubt all Police departments) use it to track offenders, and find out who their friends and associates are. That's great! But who else can access this information, and what will they use it for?

 

I remember, a while ago, people were outraged to find that Facebook actually own everything posted on it – even if you delete it. Your personal information, and even your photos.

 

If that's still the case, I can't imagine the Society ever having a Facebook account. 

Edited December 12, 2013 by niall

[trottigy]

I was asked to update this thread with this:

 

 

 

In fact, recently the Governing Body removed a 'Jw.org' Facebook page set up by a brother. Why? He lost the password to his account and just abandoned it. In the meantime, many apostates left hundreds of slanderous negative comments on the posts, making it appear to any who stumbled across the page that an apostate set it up! Our brother tried to find a way to get back into the account to delete it but couldn't do so.
So he had to contact the Legal Department about what he had done. They then did what they could to find and delete the page.
How do I know about this? I am from the same congregation as the brother who set up the page.

I'd like you please to copy and paste this story about the jw.org Facebook to your forum as it is both the true story and good news that the Legal Department has indeed removed the page.

[Kevin Anthony]

I can tell you this. I have never seen such a well monitored and spiritually protective forum for Jehovah's Witnesses as JW Talk. Most apostates and opposers would be too lazy or clueless to know, or find, the answers given to prove genuine credibility. And even if they did somehow make it past that, there are all the diligent moderators and seasoned members here to keep an eye on things. I was impressed, and knew I wanted to be a part of this. Thanks for having me.

[Txjw]

Wait.... What?????

Jw archives is apostate???

I haven't been on it often but I have shared info from it once or twice. Yikes!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrumpysWife]

He puts stuff on his site that should not be posted, like letters for the elders and the WTLib CD. KM's etc. He just doesn't think he should have any restrictions. I won't go there anymore.

[shali]

I have a facebook page that I only use when emergency info needs to get out ASAP.  Once the info is out, I deactivate my facebook account.  I haven't used it in over a year now and don't plan to go back on.