The utterly bizarre world of Facebook

[Foxbat]

I don't use it. Tried it. Thought it was a complete nonsense and waste of time. Closed my account after a fortnight (well, you can't really leave once you're in but I did what I could..another reason why I distrust and dislike it).

Here's another couple of reasons why I will forever stay away.
First: A painting from 1964 of a woman eating ice cream - banned (within a week) for being too suggestive.
This painting is 'too obscene' for Facebook

Not my cup of tea but...come on...not exactly going to bring down civilisation is it?


And yet, we also have this much more disturbing, much more dangerous situation.
Paedophiles use secret Facebook groups to swap images - BBC News

Why, I ask, were Facebook so quick to ban one painting and yet had to be informed by the BBC of secret Facebook groups used by Paedophiles? They are now investigating....why so long to do anything? Why didn't they find this themselves? Surely they have security checks?

 

[thaddeus6th]

I'd guess the number of groups they have mean checking is difficult to impossible.

Agree entirely on the painting.

Like you, I have an account in abeyance. Much prefer Twitter (which is why the latter's woes and former's empire-building is a bit depressing).

 

[Foxbat]

With the vast amounts of cash Facebook is taking in, it would be quite feasible for them to set up a section tasked with actively seeking out misuse. They could easily employ people to carry this out and still make huge profits. It seems to me they're not prepared to do much more than scratch the surface and hope they don't find anything nasty.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

First: A painting from 1964 of a woman eating ice cream - banned (within a week) for being too suggestive.

Or clever marketing by Facebook.

I can't believe that was taken down other than to generate publicity.

They only care about exploiting their users (who are NOT the customers) and making money.

 

[dask]

Who needs Facebook when you got the Chrons?

 

[J Riff]

Still, if you have a band, it's a great place to put up your stuff, and gather up 3000 followers, even if you have never played anywhere and only know three songs. It's good for that.

 

[Dave]

You cannot avoid it, or least I can't. Lots of community groups and volunteer groups use it instead of email. It prevents those round robin email chains because everyone is always on the same page. The alternatives are a forum like this, which I would prefer, or Yahoo Groups, which appear to have died but not yet been buried and exist as a kind of walking dead.

So, I have a Profile on Facebook, but I have no friends and I have befriended no one. I am member of about 10 closed groups and I maintain a Facebook Page (you have to have a Profile to do that.) I regularly get asked "Do You Know XXX?" Who Cares? Sometimes it is my son, or someone I worked with in 1987 or someone I have bever heard of before. It does spookily find people that are friends of friends and are therefore acquaintences.

However, I agree that it is terribly mismanaged. There is a London History forum group who ejected someone. So, that person set up another group with an identical name and forum header. It is claimed they said they did this just to screw the other people. Facebook don't want to know. She hasn't broken any of their rules.

The main problem with it is how it forces you to mix business with personal friends. Something like LinkedIn is clearly only for business, but Facebook began life as a yearbook for college students. There are a lot of occupations where being "friends" with people outside of work can produce a conflict of interests. Facebook forces this to happen. Anyway, now that it is trying to turn itself into Twitter and Twitter is trying to become Facebook, I foresee a future where they both disappear up their own....

 

[hardsciencefanagain]

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554.full.pdf

 

[Caledfwlch]

I am a member of the Consumer Action Group, a UK Forum that deals with everything from Debt problems to retailer issues, and a couple of years ago, there was a flood of posts in the Employment forum along the lines of "Help, my employer has dismissed me because of something I put on my Facebook Wall" and I wrote a guide to try and help people avoid these situations by describing how to make your account as Private as possible, so nobody can find/see your profile without your permission, and some "rules" Rule No 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was DON'T ADD ANYONE FROM WORK, Whether its a Coworker you think is a friend, or a supervisor or Manager" just resist it, and if your going to say stuff about your workplace make sure you have your privacy settings on maximum, and don't then allow your Employer to easily circumvent those privacy locks by going to your "About Me" and adding your Employer - many employers especially large companies you will find appear in the drop down list, and so it is another way of letting your Employer in.

Half the people dismissed it happened because a Coworker they thought was a friend back stabbed them, the others were silly enough to add Managers, and then were daft enough to complain about work on their Wall....

To be totally safe, just don't publish statuses regarding work, at all.

A horrifying Trend in the US appears to be Employers, before offering a candidate a job, are demanding the Candidate hands over the login & password info for their FB Accounts and Email's so the Employer can snoop out what sort of person they are or appear to be. Thankfully such a thing would be unlawful in the UK.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

To be totally safe, just don't publish statuses regarding work, at all.

Or use a false ID, post some fiction occasionally and only use your FB account to see what nonsense your cow-orkers, friends and family are posting, as it's walled garden, much public on FB is deliberately inaccessible unless you log in.

 

[Caledfwlch]

Or use a false ID, post some fiction occasionally and only use your FB account to see what nonsense your cow-orkers, friends and family are posting, as it's walled garden, much public on FB is deliberately inaccessible unless you log in.

What people also don't realise, if they don't have their account on maximum privacy is Debt Collectors are also using it as a free source to stalk and try to locate people. I think a discussion needs to be had with the Information Commisioner as to whether that is legal, and fair. People don't open FB accounts in the expectation of being stalked by commercial companies, but as a friends network, the DWP Fraud Units are doing it too, but that is an anti crime measure, specifically legislated for, and they are a Government Organisation which is a bit different to the first example. The proper databases such as Credit files that Debt Collectors are legally allowed to use are notorious for having incorrect information, and attempting to judge a person's means and lifestyle from Facebook is even more prone to potentially costly mistakes.

In the US, one Debt Company actually began locating debtors on FB, and then contacting everyone on the debtors friends list demanding they make Person X pay the debt he owes, hoping to use embarresment and shame to force debtors into paying. But wierdly, in a lot of ways, American Debtors actually have a lot more rights than UK ones, which is a reverse of what is usual, and the company got hammered, and hammered very hard for its actions.

 

[Deep Space Nina]

Facebook is a world of it´s own. That is also why it is so fascinating. Why they ban something and other things are not deleted: There is on the one hand a program that automatically detects things like naked female breasts. I guess paedophils have learnt not to use certain pictures or certain words.

But what I in fact like that you should use your real name. Of course not everyone does, but when you are harrassed by someone with a name that is obviously not real, facebook bans those people quite quickly. Yes, I know that as I am sometimes in contact with such individuals. Very often they are banned before I even report them. I have been registered on other social media platforms and with nicknames it was really much worse.

I did not join facebook for a long time, but in fact it really helps me to stay in touch with other people. Especially on conventions, you sometimes exchange e-mail, but hardly everyone ever writes. On facebook it is so easy to drop someone a line or just to upload event photos and look what others uploaded. My first surprise was that my parents called me and we chatted. I wanted to tell them news in my life. Mum said: "We already know that. It´s on facebook."

 

[Juliana]

I've used FB for years because I have both family members and good real life friends who after their 20s have scattered around the globe; it's a great way to keep up with small bits of news and how big everyone's kids are getting.

Nowadays I also use it for writing, as I find I really enjoy connecting with Chrons members and other writers on it.

But I've always been extremely cautious about what I post on it (or here, or any other virtual space) because I have friends who've been badly burned by what were silly, throwaway posts.

My mum has a fake ID account on FB; all us family folk know who she is and have her as friend and she lurks and looks at our photos. She never posts or 'likes' anything not to 'out' herself, as she's a university professor and doesn't want a ton of friend requests from students and co-workers.

 

[Caledfwlch]

Juliana - if your Mother wanted, she could use her real name, and maximise the privacy settings, so people cannot find her either by name, phone number, and email, and also set everything to only viewable by friends added to her account. She is quite right to be careful though, it is never a good idea to add work colleagues, especially Managers, supervisors etc, but the person you have sat next too for 5 years, might well seem like your best friend, but end of the day they will put themselves and their career first - on the Consumer Action Group (A UK Consumer Rights forum) we were getting loads of people in exactly that same position, maybe promotion or pay rises were lurking, but it was all on the theme of "I posted a complaint about a manager, customer or work, and my colleague who I thought was my friend has shown screenshots to management"

I doubt it hit the news in the US, but a few weeks ago the Press in Europe where making a big fuss, because the EU Human Rights Court had ruled that Employers can view your "private messages & emails etc" they either failed to understand the judgement, or were intentionally doing so to create a little panic and sell papers - it does not mean that EU Employers can look at my Facebook Account or my personal Email, it means that Employers have the right to monitor and view the business accounts you use - part of this Employees job was to "speak" to clients via Yahoo Messenger, and that was all he was supposed to do, however, he also added his friends from his personal Yahoo Account to his business Account, equally, they were not monitoring his personal Email address, but the Email Account provided by his Employer.

I was amazed it even got to such a high court - as far as I know all that has been standard for years - also, if an Employer provides you with a work desktop, laptop, tablet or phone, but stresses you must not use it/them for personal business, only work uses, their IT Department clearly have a right to monitor to ensure that is the case - afterall, if an employee with a work laptop was using it and a work provided mobile broadband dongle to download porn, or child abuse photographs, the Employer is also at risk of trouble, they have a legal duty to ensure their systems and equipment are not used for committing crime.

They don't have a right to monitor personal accounts as such, however, if you use a work computer or device to access your personal stuff like Facebook, don't be surprised if because of the security software they run, your Employer via the IT Department can see what you do, accidently get copies of your passwords etc.

One guy I worked with was stupid enough to use a work Desktop PC to install Torrent software, and download pirated films and music as his home broadband was usage limited. He obviously was sacked within days of doing it.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

and maximise the privacy settings

Except they are designed to be awkward, you can't be sure it's private (unless you try logged out and also as someone else and even then it's full of holes) and tomorrow Facebook may change how they work.

 

[Caledfwlch]

Except they are designed to be awkward, you can't be sure it's private (unless you try logged out and also as someone else and even then it's full of holes) and tomorrow Facebook may change how they work.

Aye, that is why in writing the guide for the Action Group, I provided screen shots giving careful and clear instructions of what and how to change. Unless it has gone now, at the time, the privacy settings included a link that would show how your Account appeared to someone not on your friends list. With settings on max privacy, all anyone could see if they managed to find you is your profile picture and name. On max, with the right settings it should also be impossible to find someone by email, name or phone number, to get added, you would have to either add them, or send them a link to add you.

It's getting ridiculous how FB are trying to resist various Court Judgements within EU Nations, claiming those Courts have no authority over them, it must be costing them fortunes in legal fees.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

must be costing them fortunes in legal fees

Internet / Tech Global mega corps regard lawyers as an important part of cost of doing business, and it's tax deductible

A certain tech company spends very little on R&D as most real innovation is bought in. Their R&D costs include lawyers for all the spurious "design patents" (UK equivalent Registered Designs) and spurious actual patents. Also clerical, overheads etc. A minority of it on actual engineers.

Look at what Google, Facebook etc spend on Lobbyists too!

 

[Caledfwlch]

It's about time that Lobbying was banned, or heavily restricted, it is deeply unfair that people, representing companies that pay little if any tax, are able to get access to MP's for making donations.

The Tories have passed a law that heavily restricts charities from Lobbying, oddly though it doesnt apply to private corporations...

At the very least all contact between a Minister, or senior Civil Servant should by law be recorded, audio if not video, and available to the public along with everything else like Ministers private business interests, voting record etc.

The UK Culture Secretary is kicking off about advert blocking software at the moment, and wants to look into banning it, as his poor, poverty stricken friends in the multinational corporations and the Press are losing out due to it. The Press it seems have not learned the lessons of the audio visual media industry - that in the game changing world which the Internet has brought us, you either evolve and change your business and planning to suit the new reality or you die. But as they have the financial clout to buy MP's like the Culture Secretary it seems the Press are looking into ignoring the new reality and trying to buy legislation and/or assistance to instead, try and force people and the internet to change and suit their archaic 1950's business model, instead of adapting to the modern world.

The idiot Minister is even claiming that adblock software is not only "the same" as the problems AV Companies had with pirate downloads before they evolved but that the adblock companies themselves are running a criminal "protection racket" because they offer companies the opportunity to buy on to a "whitelist" but that makes no difference to users, unless they choose to allow the whitelist to decide whether ads are blocked or not, they don't stop a user from continuing to block ads from a particular company.

I suspect the fool does not actually understand or know what a Protection Racket is, and if he wants to play that game, then Apple, for example are hugely guilty of it, the way they block other companies from producing and allowing the installation of non Apple originated software on to Apple products.
I have never understood how they get away with it - Microsoft were fined millions by the EU for "lack of choice" by having Windows install Internet Explorer automatically - Apple are streets ahead in denying users choice, and creating an anti competitive software and hardware industry, yet have never faced a single investigation.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Point of order: I think the lobbying ban on charities only applies to activities funded by taxpayers' money (NB if a charity received, say, 50% of its funding from the public purse, it could still use the 50% non-public cash to fund lobbying).

I do agree on lobbying being excessive and rampant ignorance about the most basic aspects of the internet in the upper echelons of government. Cameron's idiotic idea (thankfully now dropped) to effectively ban encryption was perhaps the worst example of that.

 

[Caledfwlch]

Point of order: I think the lobbying ban on charities only applies to activities funded by taxpayers' money (NB if a charity received, say, 50% of its funding from the public purse, it could still use the 50% non-public cash to fund lobbying).

I do agree on lobbying being excessive and rampant ignorance about the most basic aspects of the internet in the upper echelons of government. Cameron's idiotic idea (thankfully now dropped) to effectively ban encryption was perhaps the worst example of that.

I wonder how much damage Encryption laws have done to business in the US - not all encryption is banned as I understand it, only encryption which is "unbreakable" which kind of defeats the point. The fear mongering used to justify it was "if the NSA cannot hack it, then Mafia Don's and Terrorists will start using it" Ironically, most normal people and business probably wouldn't even use it, just normal people paranoid about their privacy, thus if terrorists and criminals were using it, whilst the content would be unreadable, it would send up a massive flare, drawing attention to the sources and receipts of such messages. Another irony is that Apple Iphones use a form of encryption legal in the US, but the Authorities can't even break that, hence Apple regularly gets hit with Court Warrants ordering them to unlock the phones or tablets etc of Suspects for the FBI, local Law Enforcement and so on.

I think Theresa May's ludicrously poorly written drugs law which effectively bans things like Tea Drinking and Aromatic Oils comes into force soon. They apparantly have learned nothing about the fact that prohibition does not work, only increases crime, which is what will now happen with formerly "legal highs" I wonder if Video Games are also in breach of the legislation since they cause users to feel happier, and affect their state of mind.