Facebook Just Forced Its Most Powerful Critics Offline (vice.com) 180
Facebook is using its vast legal muscle to silence one of its most prominent critics. The Real Facebook Oversight Board, a group established last month in response to the tech giant's failure to get its actual Oversight Board up and running before the presidential election, was forced offline on Wednesday night after Facebook wrote to the internet service provider demanding the group's website -- realfacebookoversight.org -- be taken offline. From a report: The group is made up of dozens of prominent academics, activists, lawyers, and journalists whose goal is to hold Facebook accountable in the run-up to the election next month. Facebook's own Oversight Board, which was announced 13 months ago, will not meet for the first time until later this month, and won't consider any issues related to the election. In a letter sent to one of the founders of the RFOB, journalist Carole Cadwalladr, the ISP SupportNation said the website was being taken offline after Facebook complained that the site was involved in "phishing."
I'm sure this will work, Mark (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't see how this will backfire for Facebook at all. Certainly multiple news outlets won't run with this story, informing millions of people like myself of this group's existence. The group itself will not find another hosting provider, and this incident will never be brought up the next time legislators want to talk about regulating Facebook.
Stunning work, Mark, you and your boys have done it again. Sit down, put on a copy of "The Way We Were", and relax knowing you have headed off another crisis.
Re:I'm sure this will work, Mark (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree completely. It's terrible... without this, I'd never have known about the group.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory music video https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I never heard of them.
Gone and forgotten?
They had zero impact on me.
Re: (Score:2)
"I can't see how this will backfire for Facebook at all. Certainly multiple news outlets won't run with this story, informing millions of people like myself of this group's existence."
The Pirate Bay could tell them a thing or two how to handle that.
Re: I'm sure this will work, Mark (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, Facebook must be guilty of almost every crime on the statute book, or likely to be added in the foreseable future.
I feel they are some facts missing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Did these "prominent academics, activists, lawyers, and journalists" just decide they are going to be an oversight group to Facebook without working with them? and Give themselves a name "realfacebookoversight.org"
Then Facebook, not really knowing about this groups, see a website, that seems to be pretending to be a facebook or government backed group without any communication, which seems to be spewing a lot of negative press about facebook isn't going to try to block it.
Reading TFA, this seems rather unclear on how really official they are.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Reading TFA, this seems rather unclear on how really official they are.
They aren't "official", that's the point. They're self righteous, self appointed and certainly not non-partisan.
Re:I feel they are some facts missing. (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't "official", that's the point. They're self righteous, self appointed and certainly not non-partisan.
Wait, partisan? How is trying to hold Facebook to account for following their own stated positions a partisan activity? And even if they were partisan, why would that justify taking down their site?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is trying to hold Facebook to account for following their own stated positions a partisan activity?
How is it partisan? I don't know, since I'm not going to read this group's output. How could it be partisan? Very easily. They just pick the bits they like, interpret those bits in a way they like, and then demand that Facebook do that.
The justification for taking down their site is the fact that they're calling themselves the Facebook Oversight Committee, and then putting "Real" in front of that in order to make it even more confusing. If they want to be another partisan think-tank then can still do tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"How is it partisan? I don't know, since I'm not going to read this group's output."
Then you have nothing useful to say about the question asked. Thanks for making that clear up front.
"The justification for taking down their site is the fact that they're calling themselves the Facebook Oversight Committee, and then putting "Real" in front of that in order to make it even more confusing."
Only to people who don't know what real means. Like you.
"If they want to be another partisan think-tank then can still do
Re: (Score:2)
You also claim to have special knowledge of what the word "real" means. I'm having so
Re:I feel they are some facts missing. (Score:4, Informative)
Four words: Descriptive use of a mark.
They would never get a judge to claim that a group using Facebook descriptively, as part of a name that is descriptive of what they do, violates Facebook's trademarks, because it falls squarely within the realm of fair use. Claiming that people might think that this is Facebook's actual oversight team, rather than "real" being used ironically, was the only chance they had of stifling their critics.
If they had called it ExternalFacebookOversightTeam or something similar, FB likely wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.
Re: (Score:3)
But that's exactly the point. Using the word "real" insinuates that it's officially recognized. For example "@realDonaldTrump".
It doesn't matter if Facebook's true, real, authorized oversight community isn't coming online fast enough to suit your purposes, that doesn't give you the right to claim you are that group.
If they used the name ExternalFacebookOversightTeam as you suggested, this wouldn't have happened and there would be no story.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. No disagreement here. The question was why suing over the Facebook trademark wasn't sufficient without the phishing claim, and the answer is that it's a descriptive use of the mark. So unless there's a trademark registration specifically for "Facebook Oversight Board" (unlikely), a trademark claim wouldn't have worked. But a phishing claim — claiming that they are fraudulently pretending to be a site that is somehow officially sanctioned by Facebook — sort of does, precisely because
Re: (Score:2)
Outside of Twitter, most of the time when I have seen somebody say that they're "the real X", it's an attempt to claim that X, whatever it is, isn't as good as they are, so they're "the real X".
Exactly. I was trying to figure out how to say this but couldn't get it as concise.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's exactly the point. Using the word "real" insinuates that it's officially recognized.
No, it doesn't. The word that does that is "official". "Real" means something else.
It doesn't matter if Facebook's true, real, authorized oversight community isn't coming online fast enough to suit your purposes, that doesn't give you the right to claim you are that group.
Which they did not do.
If they used the name ExternalFacebookOversightTeam as you suggested, this wouldn't have happened
How do you know?
Re: (Score:3)
It is Ok to be Self righteous and non-partisan. Just as long as you are honest about it.
I know in today's political climate my political leaning is going to be left of center, about 15 years ago it use to be right of center. However today, my views are going to be more left leaning than right leaning. However, when dealing with things that are important more than some internet rant. I really try to make sure I have my facts straight and give as much of an honest view on what I see. Now if someone disagre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Partisan is fine, as long as it's clearly opinion. When Journalists offer up opinion as though it's news/fact, it's a travesty. A blight on the professions.
Sadly, it's almost completely that way now.
People SHOULD be taking the time, like you did, top read and learn. Something more than the headline or the soundbite. Especially if you're listening to a politician, since none of them tell the complete truth.
The real loser in all of this is the American citizen. Even if they do take the time and
Re: (Score:2)
When Journalists offer up opinion as though it's news/fact, it's a travesty.
Calling Cadwalladr a journalist is a travesty.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading TFA, this seems rather unclear on how really official they are.
Does it matter? Since when is Facebook the arbiter of the entire internet?
Re: (Score:2)
It kinda does matter.
Let's say I make a group called "McDonalds Health And Safety Advisory Board" I am not connected with OSHA or have any real power vs just me saying stuff. I could have some Medical Doctors in my group who agree with me. So I go on, with official looking documents, where I may point out problems with particular restaurants, some may be real violations, others are just my judgement, say the floor is too dirty, or there is a pothole in the drive thru.
Now these restaurants who I am discre
Re:I feel they are some facts missing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even in your hypothetical case about slander, do you believe that McDonalds should be able to contact that group's ISP and have the site removed with no due process? That's the problem here.
Facebook made no such legal complaint about this group. The website was taken down via a complaint to their ISP about "phishing", which is a fairly well defined illegal activity - typically the harvesting of user credentials for nefarious purposes.
There is certainly an argument that having "real" and "Facebook" in your name constitutes some sort of trademark violation, or that their accusations amount to slander. But even if it did, the procedure for taking down such a site shouldn't be interpreted as "phishing". It should be decided in a courtroom. Facebook doesn't get to operate above the law, even if a judge decides that they were in the right.
I'm of the opinion that unless there was some provable criminal activity going on with that site, Facebook will have some explaining to do at the next Congressional hearings.
Re: (Score:2)
They may, be able to contact the ISP and turn off that site. Now it is the ISP has a decision to Stop the site or not. Not complying with Facebook or McDonalds means that they may have a bigger fight on their hand than it is worth keeping a customer or a set of customers.
Re: (Score:2)
this seems to be their sole basis for accusing them of phishing:
http://prntscr.com/uugtng [prntscr.com]
mind blown. that's just embarrassing, the isp should be held accountable too.
btw, it's "SupportNation is owned by Endurance International, a large U.S. company that owns multiple ISPs. Neither SupportNation nor Endurance International responded to requests for comment.". just in case anyone wants to "take down" their site there and take them to some other provider that isn't a lackey.
Precident is with them (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If any organization is to provide REAL OVERSIGHT to Facebook, then it must be at arms length and not associated with Facebook
I agree, and humbly suggest that job be given to the BOP [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I feel the[re] are some [real] facts missing. (Score:3)
I think the parent should be modded up, but now I don't know what "real" means.
In the context of the organization that Facebook is attacking, it seems clear that "real" is intended in the sense of "sincere" or "true" and "facebook" is clearly the target.
From the perspective of Facebook, the "real" can be seen as an accusation of "false" against Facebook's own profit-driven posturing around "social responsibility".
From the perspective of Trumpistan, the "real" could be a meta modifier because Facebook was to
Re: (Score:2)
that seems to be pretending to be a facebook or government backed group without any communication
Yes and this is America so we all know the only appropriate response is to walk in, shoot everyone and then say "Hello? Who were you anyway?"
Seriously Facebook thinking someone may have been shady doesn't excuse their actions.
Re: (Score:2)
No freedom of speech isn't about spreading lies. There are Slander laws out there where people cannot say untruthful things with the attempt to hurt such person or group. In terms of misleading being called the REAL FACEBOOK OVERSIGHT Non Profit Organization does give the impression that they are trying to convice you that they are the Real Facebook Oversight group.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that was the _whole_ point of it: you have the right to lie about everything, all the time.
You are obviously not a true American. You might even be a communist!
Don't worry.. (Score:3)
The megacorps will just ban those people you dislike and never get greedy at all.
Bad Move (Score:2, Troll)
I have consistently defended Facebook against charges of "censorship" by people who don't like what Facebook does on their own computers. When you post to Facebook and they delete it or whatever, that's not censorship.
But this is censorship. WTF!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. It's censorship when you do it to someone else, and it's not censorship when you do it to yourself. You don't need to know anything about who agrees with what; that's not a factor.
Anything Facebook does to their own website can't be censorship, which is why I mock comrades who pretend facebook.com is "ours" instead of "theirs." But things Facebook does to your website, through force or fraud, may very well
Re: (Score:2)
When you post to Facebook and they delete it or whatever, that's not censorship.
Censorship is exactly that. You probably meant to say, "It's not government censorship" or "it doesn't violate the first amendment," which are both true, but not the only way to censor.
Why is this surprising? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you call yourself "The real Facebook Oversight Board" and you've absolutely created "confusion in the marketplace" protected by trademark, since you are absolutely NOT "the real Facebook oversight board." If you call yourself "Facebook Sucks" or "Facebook Watch" or "Facebook Problems" then you're protected by law..
Outraged shouts to the contrary, you don't get to put yourself forward as something you're not.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, absolutely Facebook had a right to go after them legally for the possibility of a trademark violation. However, they did not have the right to falsely accuse another website of being involved in a phishing operation. Additionally, the ISP should have investigated if there really was a phising operation happening before just yanking the site on Zuckerberg's word. It's not like he's viewed as some infallible paragon of virtue.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing in Facebook's cybersquatting and trademark complaint that mentions phishing. That's appears in the SupportNation abuse mitigation team email.
Re: (Score:2)
So where's the phishing? Your link shows only that realfacebookoversight.org actually exists and that it re-directed to a page in the-citizens.com.
Re: (Score:2)
So you ignored "There is nothing in Facebook's cybersquatting and trademark complaint that mentions phishing" and expect the link to show a phishing page?
Do you see cybersquatting and trademark infringement? Yes? Bingo.
Re: (Score:2)
So where is ANY wrong-doing of any kind?
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, I can't help you if you can't read words.
Trademark infringement [nolo.com]
Cybersquatting [businesslawtoday.org]
Whether you consider that wrong-doing is irrelevant. Rule of law, not of man.
Re: (Score:2)
I see neither of those. This is quite similar to the court decisions several years ago that the various Xsucks where X is a trademark are NOT infringing.
There is a case for tortious interference against Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't help you there.
Which was based upon the added work "sucks" being derogatory and therefore incapable of creating a reasonable likelihood of confusion. "Real" is the opposite. "Oversight" ranges from neutral to the opposite. There is a resonable likelihood of confusion.
No, there isn't,
Re: (Score:2)
Tortious interference has nothing to do with the ISPs legal right to terminate and everything to do with a 3rd party convincing them to do so. If you've been practicing law that long, you should know that.
Re: (Score:2)
WRONG. [americanbar.org]
The defendant must have engaged in wrongful conduct that caused a breach of the contract or disruption of performance.
(1) Convincing them to follow a policy of termination for violation of the terms of service is not inherently wrongful. Especially when the "convincing" consisted of merely a providing a URL showing the alleged infringement.
(2) Termination a sub
Re: (Score:2)
I'm questioning the truthfulness of the complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you are? What truthfulness are you questioning? The URL that they provided? That they hold a trademark for the name "FaceBook"?
Or are you questioning the argument that they made to the ISP that that constituted trademark infringement and cybersquatting? In which case, how was the argument untruthful? Merely because you don't agree with it? That's not how any of this works. Something doesn't become untruthful simply because you present the objective
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook has assured us that it does have evidence and facebooks own facebook oversight board has corroboratted it. However due to the sentitive nature of this evidence it is banned from being shared on any websites and facebook will get any such websites taken down with phishing allegations.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So by extension seeing how Trump only ever uses his personal twitter account rather than the official white house one, is he suddenly in fact not POTUS thanks to trademark law?
Re: (Score:2)
Absolute statement.
Followed by rationale negating the absolute statement.
Bravo. You're a master of ineffective rhetoric. Now go back to reading @realdonaldtrump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey smartass.
Search "Real" at https://appext20.dos.ny.gov/co... [ny.gov]
Then tell me how none of the more than 500 results exist.
And yes, those are entity names, if you want to get pedantic about it.
Re: (Score:3)
I knew it! @realDonaldTrump is fake!
Most powerful critics? (Score:3)
I thought you had to be a Attorney General of a state to be a "powerful" critic.
After all, small players like the President and Congress have legal limitations on what they can do...
Pretty simple to see who (Score:2)
Just goes to show, there some who should never have power. Well! unfortunate for everyone that some do have power.
Here we go again (Score:2, Insightful)
Come for the Russian trolls. Stay for the politicians urging facebook to silence Trump.
Facebook, being private, can done this willingly, and it doesn't violate the first amendment. Pay no attention to the little men behind the curtain threatening section 230, or breakup of the company.
And per my .sig, some will downmod this, even if it's the most accurate thing you will read on this subject.
Shame on SupportNation then (Score:2)
ISPs have a social and professional responsibility to reject calls to shut down websites without independent verification and due process.
Shame on SupportNation and their parent company Endurance International for being spineless.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you feel about realslashdotoversight.org?
Sounds like the neighbourhood watch batshit crazy Facebook pages that are really gossip sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, just fine. I don't actually care if there is or is not actually a realslashdotoversight.com site out there. Why should I?
Is that Slander or Libel? (Score:2)
If Facebook made false claims about the group phishing, then the group should sue them for libel.
Who didn't see this coming? (Score:2)
Of course a scumbag like Zuckerberg is going to fight dirty. The only thing I find surprising is that the Real Facebook Oversight Board didn't have a "Plan B" to get back on-line again quickly, with a minimum of drama. I can't help but think of Pirate Bay, and all the futile efforts by some of the most powerful actors in the on-line world to take that site down.
The two situations are very different, so tactics would also be different, but both groups had to know they would find themselves in an all-out wa
Game Over, Facebook. (Score:2)
You've gotten way, way too big for your pants, Facebook. 'Break you up'? Not good enough. 'Shut you down for good' is more like it, but with 7 digits worth of users (oh sorry wrong term I mean 'products', LOL) there'd be war over that. Facebook needs to be broken into small pieces, and sold off, and Zuckerberg and the senior execs need to be
Re:Game Over, Facebook. (Score:4, Interesting)
They need to begin executing corporate officers for the crimes of the corporation. Corporations are people after all.
Close. If corporations are people, then we should sentence them in equivalent ways. Do something that a natural person would go to jail for 5 years? Then you don't get to do business for 5 years. No income, no meeting with business partners, creditors, or clients. Nothing.
Charged with a crime, for which a natural person would be prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction? Then you don't get to do any business outside that jurisdiction until the trial.
Yeah, this would be incredibly disruptive, but if you want to claim the benefits of personhood, you should take the downsides.
Re: (Score:2)
Charged with a crime, for which a natural person would be prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction? Then you don't get to do any business outside that jurisdiction until the trial.
People can still do business with people in other places when they can't leave, they can just only do it virtually. That doesn't make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
People can still do business with people in other places when they can't leave, they can just only do it virtually. That doesn't make sense.
You're right. I just hired a virtual plumber the other day. I'm sure he'll show up just as soon as the virtual mechanic fixes his truck.
Oh wait ... did you mean you can do your job virtually, so all the people who lose their jobs when they're locked up should stop complaining and get jobs like yours?
Barbara Streisand (Score:2)
Standing on a hill with floodlights and a megaphone.
I don't have a Facebook account, never did, never will. I never heard of this oversight group and I'm willing to bet neither did others outside of the members friends and families. But Facebook has just made sure a lot of people will know about it now as well as FB's only failures on this front.
If somebody is silenced on FB, and there is nobody (Score:2)
What but pathetic leftovers are still on Facebook?
If FB was gone tomorrow, would you even care?
Oh noes, my site was deletd from Geocities! The oppression! How will the constitution cope?? /s
Still, I hope Trump bans FB/Insta/WhatsApp, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok etc. :D
Not because I don't think that is an abuse of power, but because I DO think it is (apart from doing the world a favor), so some mutual head bashing can start between them.
Cause we can sit back, and eat popcorn, while hitting two birds with one s
Re: (Score:2)
"What but pathetic leftovers are still on Facebook?"
Isn't asking that here a bit ironic?
"And I would have gotten away with it too [...]" (Score:2)
Website (Score:2)
demanding the group's website -- realfacebookoversight.org -- be taken offline
Damn! It appears that ministryoftruth.org is already taken.
They do make a good point though. Facebook claims that it's a phishing site. Is it? Just because they might fool a few unsuspecting users into thinking that they are doing legitimate oversight? Then how does Antifa.org exist, claiming to be anti-Facist? And how did they get an .org domain if they claim not to be an organization?
The site appears to be back up (Score:2)
The old site redirects here. [the-citizens.com]
Site is up (Score:2)
The site: realfacebookoversight.org is readily accessible.
Re:Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd hope so. "Sad" is the appropriate emotion. Facebook et al. have been inventing spurious justifications to purge undesirables off the Internet for years. Only idiots thought this would be limited to wrong-thinkers.
Re: Hilarious (Score:5, Interesting)
I would say sad as well. They might have a leg to stand on if it was some kind of trademark claim or some other IP claim. But phishing? That's just dirty, even by Facebook's already sleazy low standards.
Re: Hilarious (Score:3)
[What is] Re:Hilarious [?] (Score:4, Insightful)
What is supposed to be hilarious? If it's the AC tripe that precedes your comment, then I'm missing the joke and wondering why AC is back (and we can see it is already back to its negative contributions). And I even blame your mysterious comment for causing me to look at AC.
If the joke is Facebook's censorship of the Oversight Board, then I see the irony, but not the humor.
If the joke involves name or definitional confusion involving "oversight", then I acknowledge I am confused. That's probably what Zuck wants, but I'm still not seeing the "hilarious" humor.
Returning to my preferred focus on solutions, since I set my personal rule of 5-minutes-per-day for Facebook, the Facebook hasn't been much of a problem for me. Actually the main unanticipated benefit is that most days I don't even feel like using the five minutes. (But maybe I should deduct the time it takes to scan the email notifications from Facebook (basically scanning for stuff from close friends). (However, I'd estimate that I spend less than a minute per day scanning that email for categories and originators.))
Properly fixing Facebook will require more than a bit of oversight. I think division into conquered pieces is a minimum objective. The unusual trick is that the pieces still need to communicate.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, everything looks like fucking ASCII art nowadays so I can't actually fucking write anything.
Anonymous Coward is NOT back. You still have to login.
Another dimension of MEPR? (Score:2)
Seems to be a distinction that doesn't make much difference. If someone doesn't care enough about what they say to associate it with their reputation, I'm ready to take that as prima facie evidence it's tripe and not worth my time. Therefore I'd like a system that lets the trolls render themselves as invisible as possible in favor of people who have something worth saying and associating with their identities. (And yes, there are cases where anonymity or secrecy are justified. Can't remember ever detecting
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech is either absolute core of our Republic or it isn't. Those that offer up an "open platform" ought to be obliged to honor that core value, regardless of abuse(s). The alternative is to be abused by those that wish to stifle free expression.
If you're worried about WS and German badguys (tm) but not Totalitarian Leftist Cancel Culture and PC Fascists then you aren't paying attention to who has real power and who doesn't.
One sided conversations are boring. One might as well be talking to NPCs
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-1
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-2
Re: Hilarious (Score:2, Funny)
No. Want some popcorn? **hands over bucket** :D
No matter which way this goes, it will go in our favor. :D
FB bashed? Win for us.
Trump bashed? Win for us.
Both bashing each other to death? Ohh baby, gimme some more of that sweet popcorn!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I absolutely love it. "Facebook is a free company bro. They can take your content down if they want to bro." What happened to those people?
This is not about Facebook banning a group from their own facebook.com website, it is about taking down another website (realfacebookoversight.org).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hilarious (Score:2)
Except Facebook lied to their web hosting company by saying that they were phishing.
Re:The Real Slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why such a hurry to push out a vaccine for covid-19 before the election? Certainly if you care about the basic phenomenon of testing to insure safety its [sic] more important to do it properly than to do it quickly right? Seems that this 'president' is more concerned about the political ramifications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What about HILLARY! What about Clinton!
Sound familiar?
Re:why the hurry? (Score:4, Informative)
Who's talking about this election? The need for Facebook to have a comprehensive oversight board was made clear last election, when disinformation was running rampant and foreign hacker groups were using the platform to get promoted over reputable journalism sources. But it's now been four years, and Facebook has managed to drag its feet enough that its astounding ineptitude has managed to infect a second election.
Re: why the hurry? (Score:2)
Re:legal, but these guys are bullies (Score:4, Informative)
[Emphasis mine.] Your anecdote about an incident where Facebook shutdown a part of Facebook. (It's a part of Facebook that your neighbor created, but it's still just part of Facebook.) Such activities on their part will never have the capacity to censor, or to seize and destroy a religion. They did not interfere with the church being rebuilt; they just stopped helping.
This submitted story, though, is about something completely different, where Facebook shut down someone else's website. And that is the kind of thing which might be used to censor, or to seize and destroy (or at least more credibly interfere with) a religion.
There's a big difference between shooting yourself, and shooting someone else. I don't care if Facebook uses their own feet for target practice, but I sure as fuck care if they use us for target practice.
Re: (Score:2)
But they don't present themselves as people who are going to chop out any religious content.
My anecdote, while perhaps less severe in degree, does provide some indication that they are not above the alleged claims.
Re: (Score:2)
They're making their personal mission to seize and destroy religion.
All religion? I'll venture a guess that there's one that they'll leave alone.