UK citizens who disagreed with the controversial vote to bomb Islamic State (Isis) in Syria are expressing their displeasure by reporting the prime minister's official Facebook page for violence.
The rise of IS (Daesh) has been marked by an increase in videos of beheadings and other unsavoury activity being shared on the social network, and Facebook has provided functionality to help users report content that they do not wish to see on their newsfeeds.
Ben Hopper, a filmmaker based in London, posted a step-by-step video on Facebook on how users can use the report functionality to get David Cameron's official Facebook page reported for "threat of credible violence".
Of course, Facebook isn't going to ban the official page of the UK's prime minister just because his citizens disagree with his decisions, but the social network still has to review every single report that is made in order to establish that it does not go against Facebook's Community Standards.
On Facebook, you can report content by clicking on the button with the three dots on a profile's cover picture and clicking "Report Page". If you select, "I think it shouldn't be on Facebook", you can then choose to report the page for hate speech; threatening, violent or suicidal content; sexually explicit content; or for being a post that describes buying or selling drugs, guns or adult products.
In the aftermath of the vote, David Cameron posted on Facebook: "I believe the House has taken the right decision to keep the UK safe – military action in Syria as one part of a broader strategy."
On 2 December, MPs voted 397 to 223 to approve the motion on IS in Syria (United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249) in the House of Commons chamber, with MPs voting "for" coming from many of the UK's political parties including the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Ukip and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).
Cameron's critics aren't just annoyed that the UK will be contributing to more loss of life in Syria – many UK residents are also complaining on social media that it doesn't make sense how the UK government can afford to put so much money into aggressive military action in the light of a slew of cuts made to the NHS and benefits in 2015.