I just dropped this in Castlewood's lap. I got the "The people who manage this page will review your post" message. I must presume that they are fearful of something, as open and free discourse is not "on their menu".
"How come you took down all of the negative comments and reviews by ex-patients, their families, and attorneys? I don't understand. Are you afraid of something? If you can't accept the bad with the good, how can you ever learn and grow? Are you only... comfortable with the "yes" parrots? Does anything negative about your treatment methodologies scare you so much that you have to remove it, and, if so, doesn't that reflect poorly on your treatment methodologies, that you are afraid of, or cannot, or are unwilling, to accept criticisms? It seems to me that if your treatment center is unwilling to accept open peer review, that you, yourself, are uncertain of the validity of your treatment methods. In science, this is not the road to furthering the edge of knowledge, rather, this is a clear sign that the researcher's have something to hide. Is this true in the case of your methods? I would be most interested if you would reply, here, openly. On the other hand, if you choose to not allow further negative comments, and if you choose to not address my concerns, concerns from a member of the general public by your standards, as I am not considered a practitioner in mental health, although some have disputed that, after 35+ years of teaching and scientific research experience, I will, of course, draw my own conclusions, based upon your actions, or inactions, as it may be. I look forward to your response, in the near future, of course, as that would be an indication of polite discourse on your part."
It is always best to remain silent, in the face of considered opposition. I posted the following to their web page. Any response that she makes, will, of course, be posted here, also.
"Hello, Ms. Figaro,
I appreciate your timely response to my comments and interrogatives on Castlewood’s Facebook page. I understand that you may wish to wait for a more directed response to my comments and interrogatives from someone with more experience at Castlewood, as you have stated that you are a new employee there. I have no objection to that, and would, in fact, prefer the same, as responses from someone with little to no experience in the issues at hand would be less than helpful and could be easily be misconstrued. I do, however, have some concerns about the statements, and implications thereof, that you did make in response to my comments and requests for information.
First, you stated that "My personal mission is to ensure we have positive & helpful information on our social media, and for that reason I need to take your post down." I am considerably at a loss here, as the obvious implication is clearly that my comments and questions are neither positive nor helpful. I am not attempting to be argumentative, here, and I only seek clarification. I would greatly appreciate it if you would clarify your position on my comments and questions, and inform me of how this determination was made, so that I can understand your point of view on my posting to Castlewood’s Facebook page, wherein I was only seeking information concerning why negative, and potentially helpful, feedback, was removed from that same page.
Second, your request, "Can I have someone call you to discuss further?", is in stark contrast to my specific request, that "I would be most interested if you would reply, here, openly". I am quite certain that productive discourse that involves discussing the methods that are employed by Castlewood in any attempt to aid your patients, and the critiques of them that have been posted to your Facebook page, and since removed, would be of considerable value and interest to future potential patients. Scientific inquiry is not generally done in abject secrecy, at least until the research is published, whereupon it is open for further critique and revue. As Castlewood’s ex-patients, their experiences, and the outcomes of their treatment, are the results, as it were, of the scientific inquiry and management of their mental and physical health issues, their postings are part, as it were, of Castlewood’s publications. As the negative reviews posted to Castlewood’s web page are indicative of Castlewood’s methodology and potential outcomes, and of extreme interest to potential future clients, it is apparent to me that any open discussion of those methods and their outcomes would be of benefit to both those same potential clients and their counselors at Castlewood, and could, possibly, lead to a better understanding of the methods used and their possible efficacy. In light of the negative comments and critiques of Castlewood, it would be beneficial if all parties involved had an open forum for discussion, such that all parties would be able to fully express their concerns, and counter arguments, as, surely, some counter arguments in opposition of the negative reviews must exist. That forum has been, in recent historical cases, an open Facebook page, along with other social media. However, since Castlewood has chosen to selectively remove comments from, at least, this venue, it is easily concluded that Castlewood does not wish to engage in open discourse concerning the negative issues brought to Castlewood by past patients, their families, their representatives, or most interestingly, a member of the scientific community.
Third, you stated that “I do know we plan on adding a post to our FB explaining our reasoning for shutting the reviews down and many if not all of the questions you raise in your post. That post will be up this coming week.” I will be most interested in reading the promised Facebook post that you have referred to. If Castlewood truly answers “many [sic] if not all” of my questions, it should prove to be an invaluable clarification of my questions.
I thank you, in advance,