Ranger Rick Kicked Off Facebook

News Type: Opinion — Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:59 AM EDT

odd-news, environment, media, marketing, web-2-0, social-networking, social-network, profile, social-networks, charities, nonprofits, word-of-mouth, social-change, national-wildlife-federation, nwf, word-of-mouth-marketing, facebook-group, ranger-rick, environmental-nonprofit

Danielle Brigida

Live Poll

How should Ranger Rick exist on Facebook?

A profile
58%
A group
12%
A cause
8%
Other (maybe not yet created?)
8%
Not at all
15%

Total Votes: 26

Ranger Rick

Ranger Rick, the persona of the National Wildlife Federation, has been banished from Facebook. NWF is asking people to help bring him back by joining the "Set Ranger Rick Free" Facebook group and by sending emails to appeals-comment@facebook.com to return Ranger Rick's profile to Facebook.

Ranger Rick's expulsion has sparked much debate on how Facebook handles profiles that are welcomed by the public, useful and informative but are not considered "real" or "human". While Facebook is known for their lack of lenience when it comes to any kind of mascot or organization that braves to have a profile, it seems that by closing their doors they are severely limiting their options. Especially for Non-profits where a group doesn't have the same beneficial news-feed options that a profile has. We aren't talking about commercial use or spamming. With Ranger Rick, we are talking about allowing positive forces to exist within Facebook's structure without causing their community any harm.

It seems that by the number of fake profiles Facebook can't possibly control (there are 6 other Ranger Ricks alone, plus countless celebrities), it would behoove them to come up with a solution that doesn't leave Non-profits or other informative mascots forced to scramble and cope with their lame group option. They have made space for the political agenda and it seems hypocritical for them to exclude organizations with a positive message.

It also seems silly that they would feel the need to take action when no one had complained about Ranger Rick or reported him. Ranger Rick was simply existing on Facebook and they happened to notice him, which made him a target. That's not very consistent with their networking message, or their web 2.0 platform where we have partial control. If they were truly interested in keeping the community safe they would only go after the profiles that were truly abusing the system.

As the voice behind Ranger Rick, I found that most people responded to him positively and got a good laugh at seeing their childhood nature friend join the ranks of Facebook. That's really what this is about. Is it worth taking Ranger Rick, a harmless cartoon with an educational message, off Facebook? I understand if we are talking corporations, but the thought of locking up Ranger Rick or deleting his profile based on the fact that he isn't "real" seems comical and also rather insulting. Don't you think the public can make up their own mind about who they friend on Facebook? And don't you think that deleting a funny but useful figure seems a tad too controlling? I'd like hear what everyone thinks.

It's about time Facebook had a Ranger.

18 Votes
Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

Danielle Brigida's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: Web 2.0, Wildlife Resource
Regions: none

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

5.9

2.1

{"commentId":975088,"authorDomain":"makingmelody"}

danny-175582

Not the first time a coon has been made a target

{"commentId":975088,"threadId":"142434","contentId":"919695","authorDomain":"makingmelody"}

3 votes

#1 - Sat Aug 25, 2007 4:40 PM EDT

{"commentId":975623,"authorDomain":"vikibabbles"}

Viki Babbles Gonia

Huh. Care to explain?

{"commentId":975623,"threadId":"142434","contentId":"919695","authorDomain":"vikibabbles"}

2 votes

#1.1 - Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:36 PM EDT

{"commentId":975221,"authorDomain":"pody"}

Dom Pody

As long as Facebook applies the policy to all mascots of this type, I see no problem with it.

{"commentId":975221,"threadId":"142434","contentId":"919695","authorDomain":"pody"}

4 votes

#2 - Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:13 PM EDT

{"commentId":978890,"authorDomain":"SoapboxDave"}

SoapboxDave

I respect your point of view, but I don't think it's that simple. Ranger Rick represents a collect group which have concerns and issues and pay for NWF to represent their voices much like a candidate elected to represent their voters. I think Ranger Rick should be allowed to be a platform for those serious discussions.

Also, why is it wrong for people to decide who they want as friends as 500 did on Facebook? Why should Facebook make that decision for you? Now if NWF were to pay Facebook they could have their message sent to your personal profile without your consent. I think they asking for friends and letting them choose is appropriate option.

Full Disclosure: I work for NWF

{"commentId":978890,"threadId":"142434","contentId":"919695","authorDomain":"SoapboxDave"}

1 vote

#2.1 - Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:17 PM EDT

{"commentId":979551,"authorDomain":"pody"}

Dom Pody

Dave, I'm sorry but it is that simple. Facebook was designed to allow people (key word) to create profiles and network with their friends. Those designers chose to only allow real human beings to create profiles. However, they did give an option for interaction between supporters of a cause-- groups. Further, with the development of the Facebook API came Causes, an application dedicated to showing your support for a particular cause, of which the NWF certainly could be.

Also, why is it wrong for people to decide who they want as friends as 500 did on Facebook? Why should Facebook make that decision for you?

Because Facebook has the right to decide what content they wish to show their viewers. They are a voluntary service-- if you don't like what they've done, don't support the service.

What Facebook did was not wrong. It was an adequate response to an abuse of their Terms of Service, which clearly state that only persons are eligible to have a Facebook account.

{"commentId":979551,"threadId":"142434","contentId":"919695","authorDomain":"pody"}

2 votes

#2.2 - Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:22 PM EDT

{"commentId":980627,"authorDomain":"adventurebooks"}

Robert Blevins - AB of Seattle

I have to agree with Facebook on this one. Think about it this way...if they allowed this, people would begin to upload profiles for every famous fictional character known. Then people would begin creating profiles for their pets.

People only. No characters.

{"commentId":980627,"threadId":"142434","contentId":"919695","authorDomain":"adventurebooks"}

1 vote

#3 - Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:52 AM EDT

{"commentId":981252,"authorDomain":"daniellebrigida"}

Danielle Brigida

I'm really enjoying the discussion this is sparking. But I wrote this article more amused than angry. Of course Facebook has every right to delete Ranger's profile. I just wanted to get a sense of how Facebook can improve. This is really helping, so thank you for your comments!

In response to Robert:

"I have to agree with Facebook on this one."

Just to be clear, I don't want anyone to think this is NWF against Facebook, or even me against Facebook. I truly enjoy spending time on the site. I wrote this article to explain a situation that doesn't sit right with me. I am on Facebook constantly and am friended by non-real people all the time and it's a pity that there isn't a category that suites them better. It doesn't bother me when I am friended by people I don't know because I can always say "no" and that's that. I'm sure if NWF paid Facebook it would have a sponsored ad similar to Ford and all the others populating the news feeds(which actually annoys me much more than a friend's feed).

I found this situation amusing because it actually points out a place where maybe Facebook could grow and improve. Instead of limiting Non-profits to groups and causes, why not give them a place where people interested could go that allows easier access and branding than a group and that doesn't fall on one person in the organization.

Ultimately it is up to Facebook and their decision will be respected, but I think they will have more and more trouble controlling all the fake profiles and would benefit greatly from an additional type of person (maybe a Mascot Type that could relay game information for a school or represent a non-profit). These are just thoughts. Any one care to help me brainstorm?

{"commentId":981252,"threadId":"142434","contentId":"919695","authorDomain":"daniellebrigida"}

1 vote

#4 - Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:27 AM EDT

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"142434","isPrivate":false}

DANIELLE BRIGIDA

Backyard

Ranger Rick Kicked Off Facebook

Live Poll

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: