Interesting story coming out of Michigan. According to reports, Majed Moughni - a Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives is suing Facebook for what he believes was damage done to his campaign. Moughni came in 4th place in the Republican primary from his district despite launching a marketing effort through Facebook to gain support for his campaign. He was able to generate around 1.600 followers on Facebook, before the social networking giant pulled the plug on his page. He contends this move by Facebook cost him the election and that his lawsuit filed is a reflection.
Facebook has defended its decision to remove Moughni’s original page (he now has a new one) claiming that his original page exhibited “suspicious or anomalous behavior.”
Before now, I never heard of Majed Moughni. So I can’t speak much to his political views (though I suspect I’d disagree with him on most issues). And I certainly can’t speak to whether Facebook’s decision suspend his account had anything to do with the election outcomes. But this story raises questions in the mind of this blog’s humble host as to what criteria Facebook uses to allow and disallow pages. Assuming the possibility that social networking does impact the level of support a politician can earn, should sites like Facebook exercise more transparency when they make a decision to remove someone’s page? Moughni thinks so, since he’s indicated that monetary compensation is not his desired outcome, but instead more accountability.
What do you think?