Facebook Adds Delete Account Option

roseability writes "Facebook have quietly added the ability to delete you account. 'Deactivate Account', under Account Setting, has become 'Deactivate or Delete Account', and when checked it purports to permanently delete your account and all information you have shared. Facebook is actually willing to erase your data permanently? They must be counting on very few people doing so." Mixed reports on this: perhaps this is a limited test?

Comments

Reality still wins.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that took long enough. Real life's had this ever since cyanide.

Re:Reality still wins.

[larry bagina]

where is slashdot's delete account button?

Re:Reality still wins.

[helix2301]

I think this is part of them tightening up there security.

Re:Reality still wins.

[KiloByte]

There is absolutely nothing you would gain from deleting a slashdot account.

Your posts would not be deleted, as no other post is ever deleted without a grounded Cease&Desist or similar legal reason, your journal is public info as well. The only removable thing is your user description, which can be replaced with an empty string at a whim.

Facebook accounts, on the other hand, nearly by definition contain slews of personal data.

It's like a public mailing list vs private mail.

Re:Reality still wins.

[YourExperiment]

You only see it if you're logged in. Duh.

Re:Reality still wins.

[AnAdventurer]

I think real life has had this since gravity. Maybe cyanide came first, hard to tell.

Re:Reality still wins.

[youn]

Anonymous coward? you talk about selling your id to the highest bidder... you've been there long enough to know don't even have an id :)

Re:Reality still wins.

[Hognoxious]

How so? The numeric IDs are assigned sequentially, so even if it had the same name it would have a new number.

Re:Reality still wins.

[clone53421]

Says you!

Re:Reality still wins.

[morgauxo]

Not really. Cyanide is no guarantee that your body won't get stuffed and put on display in a museum for generations to look at.

Re:Reality still wins.

[adolf]

There is absolutely nothing you would gain from deleting a slashdot account.

Your posts would not be deleted, as no other post is ever deleted without a grounded Cease&Desist or similar legal reason, your journal is public info as well. The only removable thing is your user description, which can be replaced with an empty string at a whim.

Thank you for the detailed opinion as to why you, personally, would have nothing to gain by deleting your own account on Slashdot.

But please realize that the fact that it's always been that way on Slashdot does not mean that it should be that way, and that others may have a different opinion than you.

I've been here a long time. There is far more personal detail about me on Slashdot than my Facebook page is likely ever to contain. Mostly, this is because I'm pseudo-anonymous here. I don't think I have enough publicly-available information on Slashdot that someone can pin my pseudonym down to who I really am, but it would doubtlessly be rather easy to do given access to Slashdot's non-public data.

Thankfully, Rob Malda, along with his handlers and peons, have over the years earned my trust that they will treat my non-public data with a reasonable amount of respect.

When the day comes that I feel like my trust has the potential to be violated, I want a button that says "Delete this account and everything associated with it," and I want it to work, at least within the confines of Slashdot. I expect this, in particular, from an organization such as Slashdot which has sometimes daily postings about privacy and abuses thereof.

I don't care if such a button is rendered somewhat meaningless by other web sites. I just want Slashdot to do the right thing and nuke my stuff on request, just like the editors here clearly expect everyone else to do.

Meanwhile, look down at the bottom of this very page. See the line that says Comments are owned by the Poster? That, too.

Re:Reality still wins.

[lurking_giant]

4 words... Look before you leap.

Re:Reality still wins.

[CraftyJack]

Thankfully, Rob Malda, along with his handlers and peons, have over the years earned my trust that they will treat my non-public data with a reasonable amount of respect. When the day comes that I feel like my trust has the potential to be violated, I want a button that says "Delete this account and everything associated with it," and I want it to work, at least within the confines of Slashdot.

Especially if some social networking site was to buy Slashdot and then helpfully combine your profiles based on matching email addresses.

Re:Reality still wins.

[Sir_Lewk]

People are better at recognizing people by names than numbers. If a prolific slashdot poster, say TheRaven64, deleted his account, then registered it with a new UID, I know for sure that I wouldn't notice, and I'd wager that most other people wouldn't either.

Re:Reality still wins.

[Svartalfar]

While I understand your desire, I disagree with it a little. Your profile being deleted, that makes sense. If you want it gone then it should, as you put it, be nuked. But the posts you make should remain on the site. Maybe with a "by poster deleted" or something of that effect, but not removed. Several times a day people link to past stories or comments on this site as references. If I were to read a conversation someone linked to and half the comments, or even one just really important one, were missing... it would throw off the entire citation. Slashdot postings provide a history at the very least of the viewpoint of the slashdot community. If a researcher really felt the need he could pull up past comments and do research on the trend in nerd rage or something equally bizarre. Detaching your name from the comments, Sure. Removing them from the community at large? No. You gave them to us willingly, we're not giving them back.

Re:Reality still wins.

[WNight]

Yeah, not until one person noticed for any reason and pointed it out to everyone.

Re:Reality still wins.

[Sir_Lewk]

Even then, it wouldn't terribly matter. You'd have to have someone dedicated enough to comment on every article informing people of the deception and they'd surely be modded offtopic for their trouble (citation: the guy that posts in all the articles to tell people that sopssa is a troll).

Besides, if someone had low enough karma that they felt the need to reset their account, chances are most regulars already know them as a troll. Resetting their account would mainly serve to make sure their posts started off at neutral karma again, not -1.

Re:Reality still wins.

[Sir Cypher]

I think this is part of them tightening up there security.

Where security? There security!

Re:Reality still wins.

[Thundercat007]

You can delete but it takes something like 15-30 days for them to process it. The moment I chose to delete my FB account, my account was hacked and spammed messages to my friends. I then had to go through the password recovery to get my account back so I could re-deactivate it.

Re:Reality still wins.

[Pharmboy]

Not to mention the fact that if they truly are such a troll, they don't really care about their name, just the content of their trolls. They can already just setup a new account and start over with zero karma.

Re:Reality still wins.

[Hognoxious]

I would. Maybe because he's about the same as me, but I think most people would do a double-take if he suddenly reappeared up near 1,900,000.

Re:Reality still wins.

[adolf]

You gave them to us willingly, we're not giving them back.

Look down: Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.

I gave them to nobody.

Please rephrase your point to include this simple truth.

Re:Reality still wins.

[vadim_t]

And right under that, in the terms of service it says:

In each such case, the submitting user grants Geeknet the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

Copyright doesn't mean absolute control over your stuff. You certainly can demand that unlawful reproduction be stopped, but if you granted "royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable" permission you can't go and change your mind on that.

Re:Reality still wins.

[adolf]

Sweet! So, I'm wrong. The comments are mine, while they have permission to use them forever (which is fine).

Good enough.

I still want to be able to delete my stuff though.

Re:Reality still wins.

[bandmassa]

Since hemlock, actually, or even since walking up to a large predatory cat and slapping it on the nose.

They probably don't delete it, they probably archive it securely for legal purposes and anonymously for research purposes.

Re:Reality still wins.

[ikeman32]

Well that took long enough. Real life's had this ever since cyanide.

The sad part is that those the choose the delete option just don't realize that their information is still there in the facebook back ups. In fact the deleted accounts are still on the servers where they previously reside just waiting for someone with the right privileges to undelete.

Re:Reality still wins.

[Dunkirk]

So it's all just legal double-speak then. You don't really "own" your comments, except when Geeknet wants to disavow itself from them to avoid being held responsible for them in some sort of litigation.

I've just narrowly averted posting in a couple of other threads here this morning. This thread has got me thinking that I want to just go ahead and delete my Slashdot account. (I deleted my Facebook account a couple months ago.)

Re:Reality still wins.

[vadim_t]

For me, that you can't delete comments actually makes slashdot more valuable.

It's one of the reasons why I post here, and not on some guy's blog. In some places, comments vanish or fail to appear depending on the whims of the owner, moderator, and upset posters who can't stand losing an argument and just delete their comments.

Slashdot has the advantage that some very, very unusual situations excepted (like a court order), everything stays, no matter what. That makes me a lot less reticent to type a long well thought post, as I know it's not going to vanish just because I ran into the wrong moderator today. Even if it gets modded down to -1 it still stays on the site, so I can still have a conversation with the one I'm replying to.

I can understand why you'd want more control, but IMO there's no policy that's the best in all cases. I prefer the slashdot way, while you might be happier somewhere else.

Will it delete your data?

[Chrisq]

The TOS say they can keep it, perhaps this just deletes your login and deactivates your account

Re:Will it delete your data?

[neoform]

In several countries (eg. Canada) they cannot retain the info once you've requested it deleted. They also cannot simply sell it to whomever they want.

Re:Will it delete your data?

[Mashiki]

Who knows for sure. While I don't have an account there, I'm guessing this is about the Canadian and German governments starting up the lawyers. In which case it'll be a full-on delete.

Re:Will it delete your data?

[lonecrow]

OK here is a hypothetical. Lets say I write a poem and share it with my neighbor by making a photocopy and saying to him, "here this is for you". Lets further say that 5 years later I decide that my poem reflects badly on me and I want to destroy it. After burning my copy I remember that I shared a copy with my neighbor.

a) Do I have a legal right to demand that he destroy his copy?
b) Do I have a moral right?
c) Is this the same as posting a picture on facebook and "sharing it" with my friends?

A strange game...

[bhunachchicken]

... the only winning move is not to play.

Re:A strange game...

[shadowofwind]

Yes. Except that sometimes they spam you even if you've never played.

Re:A strange game...

[Shimmer]

You're comparing Facebook to thermonuclear war? Give me a break.

Re:A strange game...

[betterunixthanunix]

Actually, he compared it to tic-tac-toe.

Re:A strange game...

[jridley]

It's tic-tac-toe that teaches him the concept of an unwinnable game though.

Re:A strange game...

[clone53421]

Tic-tac-toe isn’t unwinnable, it’s unlosable. Much different from global thermonuclear war.

Re:A strange game...

[gclef]

Oh, no. I've seen people lose at tic-tac-toe...I've even seen people (adults, mind you) lose at tic-tac-toe to a chicken. (Why yes, this was in Las Vegas, why do you ask?)

Re:A strange game...

[clone53421]

I never said that other people couldn’t lose. It’s not unwinnable, remember?

Re:A strange game...

[geminidomino]

Actually, he goes from playing GTW to Tic Tac Toe at Falken's direction, learns the concept of an unwinnable game from that, and applies that knowledge to the former. So it applies to both.

Re:A strange game...

[hairyfeet]

It is a shame the place that trained those (The IQ Zoo in AR) has closed since the father passed away, but there is still hope the son might reopen it. It is the only place I've ever encountered...the mugger ducks.

As you would go through the IQ Zoo you could see all the performing animals, the tic tac toe chicken and the goose that played the piano, but you would notice as you went along the path these signs that said beware...of the mugger ducks. It was only after encountering them that I learned of their true nature. You see, like all the animals at the IQ Zoo the ducks were crafty little suckers, but unlike the others that did their little tricks for their rewards, the ducks had turned to the dark side. They had become...the mugger ducks.

As you would get closer to the concession stands the signs would get larger. Beware they would say, BEWARE...of the mugger ducks. I like everyone else laughed or ignored the signs, so little did I know. You see the ducks had formed a ninja strike team of maximum stealth and efficiency. So fast and accurate were they, you would never know until it was too late. All you could do was beware...of the mugger ducks. After I got my large popcorn and walked a dozen yards away from the stand did I learn of their crafty plan. A single duck would hide at the edge of a bush, with nothing but his beady eyes showing,watching your every move. When I walked by with lightning precision he struck, rushing between my feet and grabbing a shoelace, making a perfect tripwire. As I went down the seemingly empty bushes exploded, with ninja attack ducks swarming down from all directions! Within seconds I sat alone, with nothing but an empty popcorn box to prove that I hadn't imagined the whole thing.

So if you are walking down a path and see what seems to be a silly sign about ducks, don't ignore it but pay heed. For out there somewhere they wait, like wolves waiting for their next victim. For they are....the mugger ducks.

Re:A strange game...

[interkin3tic]

Tic-tac-toe isn’t unwinnable, it’s unlosable. Much different from global thermonuclear war.

Another difference is that with tic-tac-toe, people rarely get vaporized. I mean, sure, it has happened, and will happen again, and tic-tac-toe sometimes does lead to global thermonuclear war, but generally speaking, your chances of annihilation are less with tic-tac-toe.

Troll?

[singingjim1]

The post sounds kind of troll-ish to me. Why is this so shocking? Pretty much every internet club out there gives you the ability to delete your account. Why would Facebook be the exception? Maybe I'm missing something. It's just seems normal that if you create an account you have the ability to delete it if you want to.

Re:Troll?

[just_another_sean]

Facebook has had a (generally difficult) way of deactivating your account for years (all along?). But their TOS say that they reserve the right to keep your data forever. TFA is implying that this may have changed and that deleting your account now may in fact remove your data from their servers. Personally I'm not holding my breath.

While I agree that TFA seems a bit speculative I don't think the OP is trolling. I think enough of us on /. have taken an interest in FB's over reaching grab on people's personal data that even speculation on it changing (esp. for the good) is newsworthy. (IMHO of course...)

Re:Troll?

[betterunixthanunix]

It is shocking because until now, the option to delete your account required significant effort to actually locate. In fact, it was not that long ago that deleting your account required a phone call to Facebook (an uproar which eventually resulted in the "delete account" option being made available at all).

Re:Troll?

[nacturation]

The post sounds kind of troll-ish to me. Why is this so shocking? Pretty much every internet club out there gives you the ability to delete your account. Why would Facebook be the exception? Maybe I'm missing something. It's just seems normal that if you create an account you have the ability to delete it if you want to.

Please tell me how to delete my Slashdot account. Bonus points for telling me how I can delete the data including every post I've made.

Re:Troll?

[bsDaemon]

Slashdot is a different beast, though. It wasn't started in a model that encouraged using real names/identities -- ie, using your .edu email address specifically to connect with people at your school. Registered slashdot users also tend not to be complete morons, and there is a lack of many features which morons find attractive, such as the ability to post pictures of ourselves shotgunning bear while holding a joint in one hand and an under-age girl in the other. You know, stuff like that.

A few months ago I started skunking my FB data, then removing it. Last week I deleted the account (there was a way to do it before they made it obvious). In FB's attempt to attract more users and build a "platform," they've just made it slightly less horrible than MySpace. I got phone numbers and email addresses for the friends that mattered and for whom I wasn't already in possession of the information, then just slipped away. Do you have any idea how much more time I have to waste on Slashdot again now that I don't have any competing sites?

Re:Troll?

[singingjim1]

Ah. Thanks for the knowledge.

Re:Troll?

[bsDaemon]

oops.. I meant beer not bear (though both can totally be shotgunned). Stupid brain farts. I'm useless before I've had my 2 pots of coffee.

Re:Troll?

[Idbar]

Registered slashdot users also tend not to be complete morons

Do you also have the "Apple" section blocked?

Re:Troll?

[Jon Abbott]

The Slashdot user ID was made to require people to use the same name/identity... Prior to that time, people could enter in whatever name they wanted (different for each post even), and people would often pretend to be Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, etc. I personally think it was more interesting back then because there were flamewars between famous computing people. :^)

Re:Troll?

[Bl4d3]

... such as the ability to post pictures of ourselves shotgunning bear while holding a joint in one hand and an under-age girl in the other...

You know shotgunning (former)bears could be dangerous, as they're known to be armed themselves.

Re:Troll?

[nacturation]

oops.. I meant beer not bear (though both can totally be shotgunned). Stupid brain farts. I'm useless before I've had my 2 pots of coffee.

Personally, I like to have a rip-roaring start to the day by consuming 2 pints of bear.

Re:Troll?

[bhunachchicken]

"Slashdot is a different beast, though."

Sure, but the issue here is the ability to delete accounts. It's perfectly possible for someone to write something libelous and then wish a few years later that they could delete it. You could argue that it may not be possible to trace it back to its original owner, but most Slashdot users at some point point towards a website / project, etc. that can identify them.

"Registered slashdot users also tend not to be complete morons"

Slashdot uses a moderation system that allows users to mark others' comments as (amongst other things), Troll, as well as changing their relationship with one another. This therefore makes your statement largely a matter of personal opinion.

However, if you mean that Slashdot is largely devoid of txt spk 12 yr olds, then, yes.

Re:Troll?

[wyoung76]

Registered slashdot users also tend not to be complete morons

Do you also have the "Apple" section blocked?

There's an "Apple" section??? Never noticed...

Re:Troll?

[AmiMoJo]

The problem is that you need an account to keep tabs on what other people are posting about you. For example, if someone tags you in a photo but you don't have an account you can't delete the tag, or even know it is there if their photos are not public.

My solution is to create an account in your name but fill it with obvious fabrications. My date of birth is listed as 01/01/1901 and I don't have a profile photo. People I know still respond to friend requests so I can keep an eye on them and if anyone tries to tag me I hear about it.

Re:Troll?

[kevinmenzel]

Yes, but if someone tags you, and you don't have an account, and the tag isn't linked to an account, then the tag isn't searchable. The only way to find all photos of Fred, or Johnny, or Jill, is if they have accounts (and even then you can only see the photos you have permission to view, though a lot of photos get posted with "friends of friends" or "everyone" permissions). So is someone adding non searchable meta-data really that big a deal?

Re:Troll?

[Jon Adbott]

Disregard that! I suck cocks!

Re:Troll?

[sv_libertarian]

Really you'd have to have the underaged girl tucked under your arm and hold your beer, to get the best grip on your shotgun as that bear charges you.

Re:Troll?

[freeweed]

Yeah, it's at /index.html.

Re:Troll?

[vlueboy]

Yes, but if someone tags you, and you don't have an account, and the tag isn't linked to an account, then the tag isn't searchable... So is someone adding non searchable meta-data really that big a deal?

Agreed. However, having a page at all is a problem even if your friends don't talk / tag / rat you out.

The press got a "free pass" with New York's Times Square's [failed] car bomber recently, "borrowing" the guy's photo --news usually credited FB for it, and I'm sure nobody asked HIM for permission. Would we enjoy the same treatment if some unfounded charge (hopefully!) was blown out into the media? It's adding insult to injury

Re:Troll?

[vlueboy]

Crap. That's what I get for submitting to finish quickly when someone TALKATIVE is bothering me continously IRL and has no idea what they're makaing me mess up.

The quoted part was quoted inversely.

Re:Troll?

[bsDaemon]

Assume, in my scenario, that there is a secondary "helper moron" who is holding the beer bong for moron 1.

Re:Troll?

[Jon Abbott]

Let me guess, you have a goatee? :^P

Precursor

[mysidia]

To more changing of privacy controls and what can be made private out form under users who had already selected some strong privacy settings or are trying to select new settings?

"If you don't like our changes to the privacy policy, you have 15 days to press the 'Delete Account Pmernanently' button, and then none of your currently private information will be shared."

Uh.... Hello? Server Backups?

[blcamp]

Even if it's truly deleted, I'll bet the data is out there in an archive somewhere.

I deleted my account months ago

[FictionPimp]

They have always had an option to delete your account or deactivate. They just made finding the delete function easier now.

Re:I deleted my account months ago

[jazzPecq]

True.

Jan 1st I deactivated my account, which did _absolutely nothing_.

After googling, I found a hidden "Delete Account" which did the job.

Re:I deleted my account months ago

[betterunixthanunix]

They have not always had an option to delete your account. It was not that long ago that deleting your account required you to call them up and argue about the issue; in fact, the media fallout over that process is the reason they created the "delete account" option in the first place.

Re:I deleted my account months ago

[FictionPimp]

I'm simply saying this is not new. For at least the last 12 months (checking with people I know who have deleted their accounts) you have had the option to do so.

Re:I deleted my account months ago

[betterunixthanunix]

What is new is that deleting your account is now in the same place as "deactivating" it, which should help alleviate some of the confusion people had earlier.

Re:I deleted my account months ago

[etnoy]

The parent is somewhat correct; the delete option has existed for a long time, though it has been extremely well-hidden. I would describe it as a hack. When I deleted my account in early 2008, I had to create a new fake account and "overwrite" the e-mail of the old one. Everything I had done vanished, including all my messages in groups and on other people's "walls". There's a better explanation of the procedure here.

Re:I deleted my account months ago

[FictionPimp]

Always was just just used in place for "as long as I've given a shit to check"

it's only one line of code, after all

[Anonymous Coward]

typedef DeactivateAccount DeleteAccount;

Re:it's only one line of code, after all

[geminidomino]

Yeesh, such a pedant....

define("DeleteAccount", "DeactivateAccount");

function DeleteAccount($id)
{
                                        DeactivateAccount($id);
}

function DeactivateAccount($id)
{
                                    ArchiveForeverAndEver($id);
                                    DisableLogin($id);
}

Who else offers a delete option?

[bobbabai]

I have never seen any other web service that offers a self-service delete option? Why are they so hesitant? I have tried to get a few online accounts deleted over the years and it varies in difficulty, but each time it required an email or online chat exchange with a real person.

Re:Who else offers a delete option?

[m.ducharme]

I believe Google has offered self-service deletion of Google Account information for some time now.

If this would allow us to get rid of...

[sarkeizen]

Our one friend who killed herself's account. That would be nice. Having her profile continually show up with the "you haven't talked to X in a while send them a message and reconnect with them" box. Doesn't actually make facebook win any sensitivity awards in my book.

Re:If this would allow us to get rid of...

[bacon volcano]

There was a good article in the New York Times about this a week or so ago. It's actually a bit of an issue for the site. Turns out they do have a way of handling it, but it's far from perfect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/technology/18death.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=facebook%20dead&st=cse

Re:If this would allow us to get rid of...

[FinestLittleSpace]

You can request for an account of a deceased person to be removed by providing proof of death (news articles/death certificate).

Re:If this would allow us to get rid of...

[AHuxley]

Facebook have got her down as dormanted, Yahoo have got her down as deleted,
Twitter have got her down as inoperative... Microsoft has her down as excised,
Apple have her down as completed

Re:If this would allow us to get rid of...

[vlm]

Its easier to delete your own account, plus that improves your life by decluttering it.

Re:If this would allow us to get rid of...

[daid303]

I'm still looking for the:
[x] Send an email reminder about deleting my account after I died.
Option in FB.

Re:If this would allow us to get rid of...

[Digital Vomit]

Our one friend who killed herself's account.

What?

Re:If this would allow us to get rid of...

[jsvendsen]

http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=deceased

Re:If this would allow us to get rid of...

[kundziad]

They could add a "Report a dead user" button...

Re:If this would allow us to get rid of...

[MtlDty]

On Google she's still in beta

Re:If this would allow us to get rid of...

[AHuxley]

or a mistake ;)

Re:If this would allow us to get rid of...

[neoform]

You're able to tell Facebook that your friend died. I did this when someone I know died, and facebook removed all apps and ads from his page, and he never pops up in those suggest-a-friend style things.

http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=deceased

Freedom!... wait...

[segin]

Finally, now I can finally free myself from the horror...

No! I can't do it, I need my Mafia Wars and FarmVille, I'm going to die!

I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[bogaboga]

For sure...I am not into Facebook and do not yet see the reason why I should join it. Connection to me and vice versa can be done using traditional means especially email.

Most importantly, many times, I just need to be left alone by especially by those from my past.

I believe most of the 500,000,000 folks on Facebook are not doing anything useful on the site. Most of those accounts are just 'feel good accounts'. Right?

Re:I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[Chrisq]

Connection to me and vice versa can be done using traditional means especially email.

Oh the nativity of youth. When email becomes a traditional communication I know I'm getting old.

Re:I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[VisiX]

I have recently signed up for facebook because my friends stopped calling and texting people and just started posting "I'll be at blah blah blah at 8pm tonight, come along". I was missing out on a lot of fun things I could possibly be doing because I didn't have an account, so now I have one.

Re:I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[BVis]

Sorry, can't let this one go. "Naivete"

Re:I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[vlm]

I have recently signed up for facebook because my friends stopped calling and texting people and just started posting "I'll be at blah blah blah at 8pm tonight, come along". I was missing out on a lot of fun things I could possibly be doing because I didn't have an account, so now I have one.

That's the same reason I deleted mine. Kid whom sat at the same lunch table as me in 8th grade posted every single time he entered or left a restaurant or bar (kind of like a manual foursquare). I guess I could go alone, unfortunately he now lives almost 3000 miles away. Dude I worked with a decade ago posts every time he goes to the gym, for motivation, I guess. I guess I could go along, unfortunately he lives 200 miles away. Same deal with the guy who was my high school physics lab partner, now living about 100 miles away.

When I got rid of all the pseudo-spammers and ignored all my far away "old friends" there wasn't really enough left to bother keeping the account... So I used this "new" feature in May to delete it, and nobody seems to care except my wife.

Re:I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[dingen]

If you really think e-mail isn't a traditional form of communcation, you are in fact old. In fact, only old people think of e-mail as a form of communication at all. Back in 2007, Slashdot ran an article saying that teenagers are only using e-mail to get in touch with old people, but aren't using it to communicating with each other at all.

Re:I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[AHuxley]

Yes if you watch tv now, it was all 'find us on the web" now its facebook, twitter ect.

Re:I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[Anonymous Coward]

So hide him.

If he ever decides to send you a message, write on your wall, or comment on one of your posts, you’d see it. In the meantime, you don’t have to read all of his dumb status updates. Just click the convenient Hide button and tell it to hide him from your news feed.

Sheesh some people make things so difficult.

Re:I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[mjm1231]

Well, in fairness, most people are quite youthful at the time of their nativity.

Re:I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[BasilBrush]

For sure...I am not into Facebook and do not yet see the reason why I should join it. Connection to me and vice versa can be done using traditional means especially email.

And 15 years ago someone would have been asking why he needed email, when he can use traditional forms of connection such as the telephone and the postal service.

Back in the 1980s, when we used to use paper memos to send information around the company rather then email, I remember there was a woman in the office that used a computer to prepare her memos, which she's then print out to send. She had a word processor on the computer but didn't know how to use it, so she used the spreadsheet program to compose the memos, splitting the text up into lines manually.

You know, time moves on, and technology delivers us better tools to do the job. And some people use a less suitable tool for a job just because that's what they are familiar with.

Email is designed for sending text messages from one person to one or more other people. Which arrive quickly, but can be read at a time convenient to the receiver. That's it. Facebook is an application designed for maintaining your social network. For the job of maintaining connections with your social network, Facebook is the tool for the job.

I think Facebook controversial on slashdot because many geeks are not particularly talented at maintaining their social network. Some don't recognise the need to have a personal social network (i.e. friends). Some don't recognise the fact that a social network requires maintenance. Some see their entire social network every day (family and colleagues) and don't want a bigger one, and so the maintenance takes care of itself. But some see maintaining a social network is something they can improve on using a tool specifically designed for the job.

Most importantly, many times, I just need to be left alone by especially by those from my past.

So maybe, for whatever reason, you are not someone who wants to maintain a social network. So maybe Facebook is not for you. But if we're only talking about certain people from your past, there are ways of dealing with that use case. You don't have to accept them on to your Facebook friends list. Alternatively you can accept them, then choose to "hide" them, which means you be not see anything they say.

I believe most of the 500,000,000 folks on Facebook are not doing anything useful on the site. Most of those accounts are just 'feel good accounts'. Right?

I live in a different country now, doing something completely different than before, and it came about due to social interactions that I would not have had had I not been using a social networking tool. And now that has happened, it becomes the way by which friends in my old country don't become old friends that I lost contact with. That's extremely useful.

I can't speak for "most" people on Facebook. But then you, as a non-user, have even less ability to do so.

Re:I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[Chrisq]

If you really think e-mail isn't a traditional form of communcation, you are in fact old.

I rather suspect you are mixing up traditional with obsolescent or obsolete.

Re:I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[dingen]

No, I'm not. Of course e-mail is not obsolete. But it is very old-school.

Re:I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[vlm]

But some see maintaining a social network is something they can improve on using a tool specifically designed for the job.

Tool designed specifically to sell your personal information to marketing / pr / HR / credit score companies / Big Brother / "who knows, but it sure won't be to your benefit".

Also, lets face it, facebook is pretty much software support for inane and stupid stuff. Its "friends" in that your friends suffer thru with you, like going to Basic Training together.

Re:I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[BasilBrush]

Tool designed specifically to sell your personal information to marketing / pr / HR / credit score companies / Big Brother / "who knows, but it sure won't be to your benefit".

Did you read my entire post? It's been very much to my benefit. That's the reality. Versus?... Your paranoia. There has been absolutely no harm to me from being on Facebook. The pros and cons are therefore pretty simple for me to weigh up.

For sure Facebook is an advertising platform. As much as slashdotters hate that, it doesn't actually harm me at all. I ignore it.

Also, lets face it, facebook is pretty much software support for inane and stupid stuff. Its "friends" in that your friends suffer thru with you, like going to Basic Training together.

"IMHO" would be more accurate than "face it". Certainly the apps are inane and stupid. But I only ever see a message from an app once. Hit ignore and they're gone forever. But keeping in contact with friends and family that I can't currently see in person is certainly not inane or stupid. And believe it or not we enjoy it, not "suffer" it.

Re:I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[Brian Feldman]

This is just sad.

Why?

It is said because he doesn't care about communicating with friends enough to keep up with modern communication trends.

Re:I'm not into Facebook - yet! What am I missing?

[VisiX]

They still call me to do things, they just don't call me directly all the time for group type outings. Do you call everyone you know to invite them directly if you are going to see a movie or going to the gym to play basketball? I don't, and neither do most people. I like movies and basketball and if my friends are there I am more likely to go, especially on a weeknight.

Re:Perhaps...

[AHuxley]

Very good point, just create a random account for virtual fun and a clean real account for real life.
Random facts from day one that match your virtual fun, just make it matches what a web cam can see :)

is "delete" really an option?

[ad0n]

i just "re-activated" my long deactivated account in the hopes of "deleting" it finally. i only had the de-activate option.. no delete available on my screen.

Re:is "delete" really an option?

[bogaboga]

Was there anything positive you got from joining Facebook...or did joining further 'complicate' your life?

Re:is "delete" really an option?

[ad0n]

there absolutely were positives. but there were also negatives. I decided to de-activate my account a few years ago now. At this time however, I would delete my account if given the option to do so.

Re:is "delete" really an option?

[FictionPimp]

Positives: I got to touch base with high school friends, I got used it to organize some parties.

Negatives: I got to touch base with high school friends, It was impossible to sort though all the crap that came in, I was constantly ignoring this and that, I started unfriending people who posted too much shit to get shit from them for unfriending them. It started arguments with my family when I didn't want to friend them or I friended them and ignored them. I lost real life friends because facebook allowed me to learn more about their personalities then I ever really wanted to know. I got into real life arguments because I didn't check or respond to a facebook status.

Conclusion: I'm not 12, and if I'm not important enough to at least call on the phone, then I guess we really are not 'friends'.

Replacement options: Google Calendar for organizing parties, twitter for posting my useless comments no one cares about, and phone, email, texting for the rest.

Re:is "delete" really an option?

[Goaway]

I did the exact same thing, and got the same result. However, I recalled hearing that the option has existed for some time already, and has just been very well hidden.

I looked it up, and the trick is to go to this address:

http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account

Re:is "delete" really an option?

[ad0n]

give the man a prize (or mod points).. this worked! my account is submitted to deletion ! but i have 14 days to reconsider .. hehe, ya right!

Re:is "delete" really an option?

[Posting=!Working]

You may not be 12, but it sounds like your friends act like they are, and some of your family.

I have plenty of real friends who I ignore on FB, and I tell them about it. They don't mind because they're my friends. I have real life friends and family who I won't friend on FB, but I tell them why, and it doesn't affect our relationship. I hide everyone's feed that updates 3 times a day, and those whose posts are trivial daily activities ("Driving home," "Eating dinner with wife and kids," etc,) or that I just don't want a daily/weekly update about. I don't "like" anything since they changed the info section into mindless lists. I don't even "like" the band I play in. I block my status updates from some. I ignore posts to my wall frequently, and delete everyone else's posts to my wall from time to time. None of this has affected any of my real life relationships.

It's just facebook, it doesn't really matter. If you keep that attitude, people will accept it. If they can't or won't, they probably aren't the kind of person you'd want as a friend. Or at least that I'd want as a friend.

Re:is "delete" really an option?

[thechao]

It works; a bit of a PITA, but it works. Basically, you have to log out of Facebook (everywhere); also clear all your cookies. This keeps affiliated sites from logging you in. Then you have to stay out of Facebook for >2 weeks. I haven't logged in in 20-or-so days; just went to just it out and I got a "your email doesn't appear to be in our system" message.

Re:is "delete" really an option?

[Vultan]

Negatives: I got to touch base with high school friends, It was impossible to sort though all the crap that came in, I was constantly ignoring this and that, I started unfriending people who posted too much shit to get shit from them for unfriending them. It started arguments with my family when I didn't want to friend them or I friended them and ignored them. I lost real life friends because facebook allowed me to learn more about their personalities then I ever really wanted to know. I got into real life arguments because I didn't check or respond to a facebook status.

I wish I had moderation points... the experience the parent describes is identical to mine, and the precise reason I got off Facebook. It is so much easier to tell people "I'm not on Facebook" than it was to deal with the drama.

Re:is "delete" really an option?

[tibman]

Thanks, revived my "deactivated" account and submitted it for deletion.

Re:is "delete" really an option?

[mahadiga]

https://ssl.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account is better.

No Delete Option...

[Nittle]

I don't see the delete option on my account. It just allows deactivation.

Re:No Delete Option...

[Raxxon]

Same here... Just Deactivation.

Although I did find it interesting that when you look at deactivation the order of the reasons changes. Only "Other" remains in the same place....

Re:No Delete Option...

[ZeroExistenZ]

I've tried this a while ago...

They promise to delete your account within 14 days without active use. (if you login, you reactivate your account.)

See delete account

Re:No Delete Option...

[Nittle]

It just goes counter to the parent post. I had deactivated my account about a week ago. I reactivated it to try to delete it. And the link you posted requires you to log into Facebook to see it, odd.

See delete account

Re:Doesn't Matter

[sakdoctor]

Damn right!

I won't be satisfied until the delete button releases nanites which crawl into the backups, and REALLY delete my profile.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

When I filed for divorce, my name, my soon-to-be-ex's name, my current address, my martial status, my soon-to-be-martial-status was all made a matter of permanent public record.

Anybody can go to the state's court website and look it up, in perpetuity.

At least with Facebook, I got to consent to the privacy loss.

Re:Uh.... Hello? Server Backups?

[DIplomatic]

Right. And even if my account is deleted you could still find traces of me in my friends' pictures, old posts, etc. I imagine the delete account button will just stop gathering new data about you.

Well well well

[Linker3000]

It's the start of forgetting!

They only made it easier to do

[PalmKiller]

You have always been able to go here to delete your facebook account which was easy to find in google http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account They have only made it simpler for those who take things at face value (pun intended).

Had this long ago

[wisnoskij]

They have had this option to delete accounts for years now.
I even used it like 4 years ago.

Maybe they just moved the button that starts the process?

How can you tell?

[Arancaytar]

How does someone who owns data prove that he has deleted every copy of it?

Re:How can you tell?

[organgtool]

Good point - you can never know if someone has destroyed all copies of your personal information. You just have to take the word of the company and its leaders that they have complied with your request. Luckily for Facebook, Mark Zuckerburg is one of the most trustworthy people in the technology sector.

Re:How can you tell?

[Ant P.]

Should be simple - tell them to delete it, wait a while, then subpoena them for the data. If they can recover it, they're obviously lying.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[gorzek]

Marriages are in the public record, too. Did you complain about that when you got hitched?

if you know what movie that quote is from

[circletimessquare]

you are old enough to have avoided the facebook boondoggle in the first place

so its a wash

incidentally, discovering the philosophical connection between global thermonuclear war and social networking is both deep and hilarious

Re:Uh.... Hello? Server Backups?

[Inda]

That's not always true though. In the UK, you can quote the data protection act and request that someone qualified deletes all data relating to yourself.

I've done it many times, normally after they've pissed me off and caused me to waste some of my time. Tell them that an administrator is not qualified, and clicking a 'delete' button is not enough. Offsite backups deleted too.

Maybe they do and maybe they don't. There would be fun and games if they contacted me in the future.

Facebook is all about the hide

[copponex]

Good advice from a facebook friend, whom I promptly hid.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[JorDan Clock]

Maybe if his wife was really ugly...

All data is retained forever

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

Don't count on this feature as a way to erase traces of your activity or your personal data - while other users will not be able to access your profile any longer, the authorities and FB personnel can still track everything you did. Don't even try to alter all fields in your profiles - I bet all data is versioned, thus it's too easy to see a pristine version of your profile.

Why are they storing all your data forever? First of all, very few people will do that so there's no point breaking DB connections, secondly, your profile is very valuable for the authorities and advertisers.

Re:All data is retained forever

[mlts]

With the way most databases work [1], I'm almost completely sure that most social networking sites do keep backlevel copies. All it would take is just looking at a certain point in time with an archive log at tables used for a certain account, and it wouldn't be hard to see what happens over time.

In fact, I am sure this is or will be monetized. A social network could make some good cash if they figured out over time what people changed or preferred through their FB status and preference changes. For example, if there is a significant trend from rap to bluegrass, it might be usable/salable info to record labels to start picking up more in the genre gaining popularity. Similar if quotes from a certain person or TV show start gaining more people using them.

[1]: I don't know about NoSQL based databases, but those are fundamentally broken, sacrificing integrity for performance, so it may not be possible to restore to a point in time even with an archive log.

Hasn't this been around awhile?

[Warshadow]

I'd swear they've had this option for ages. It was just buried in a non-obvious place.

Legal extortion is possible

[Posting=!Working]

One of Facebook's options is to keep all the status updates and pictures for 10-20 years, then republish everything. For a "deletion fee", they will keep all your high school and college pictures, raunchy status updates, and other potentially embarrassing information off the internet. Most wouldn't care, but I'm sure there's plenty who want a high profile job that would pay dearly to keep that hidden.

AFAIK, it's completely legal, and already impossible to stop, they own the data and you (or someone you know) voluntarily published it once. It's pretty likely that they'll be replaced by the next big social media site or at least won't be doing nearly as well financially in 10-20 years as they are now, if they still exist. And if they go bankrupt, anyone could buy the data and do the same thing.

I don't think it's likely, but it is possible.

Re:Legal extortion is possible

[mlts]

I'd probably say it is almost definitely will happen. Remember: There are no criminal laws against data loss in the US, only civil, unless the data is classified+. So, a place can file bankruptcy, someone else can buy the stored data and do what they want with it, and there will be zero legal recourse possible.

What is needed are data retention laws that people face jail/prison terms. Then, we might see some action. Otherwise, expect those photos of lighting farts in high school to haunt people even when they hit the retirement age.

Re:Legal extortion is possible

[commodoresloat]

AFAIK, it's completely legal, and already impossible to stop, they own the data and you (or someone you know) voluntarily published it once.

It's too bad there aren't laws against blackmail and extortion.

Re:Legal extortion is possible

[Posting=!Working]

They don't cover pictures that you published of yourself in the past, and that you freely gave up to facebook. All they are doing is what you gave them the legal right to do, and even asked them to do. They could argue that they have to verify that you really are who you say you are, and this costs them to do so, so they charge a fee to do it.

You can't keep a newspaper from republishing a picture you gave to them to publish, but they might not run it if you pay for advertisements in the same paper.

Re:Legal extortion is possible

[commodoresloat]

If Facebook explicitly connects the threat to republish embarrassing pictures with a demand for money, you can bet your ass they will run afoul of blackmail laws whether or not they own the photos or the legal rights to republish them.

Re:Legal extortion is possible

[Posting=!Working]

They're publishing an archive which they own. They can charge a fee to modify it without running afoul of any laws.

There is no explicit connection. They're not making a threat to repost embarrassing pictures. They're reposting all the contents of facebook. There is no law preventing them from republishing the archive, or advertising that they are republishing the archive. There's no law that says they can't charge to modify the archive they legally own. No threats are made or needed.

US Code defines blackmail as "Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41 - 873

Re:Legal extortion is possible

[Posting=!Working]

Read that code again, namely "threat of informing against any violation of any law of the US."

State laws might cover embarrassing photos, but federal law only covers criminal violations.

Re:Legal extortion is possible

[commodoresloat]

There is no explicit connection.

Then there is no "extortion," legal or otherwise, and no need for tinfoil.

Say what?

[damn_registrars]

Facebook have quietly added the ability to delete you account

Did it come at the expense of the ability to grammar check their own news releases? I did not know that good grammar and common sense were mutually exclusive.

Re:Uh.... Hello? Server Backups?

[hesaigo999ca]

this coming after the previous article was this one
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/07/25/2221200/The-End-of-Forgetting

Re:Doesn't Matter

[vxice]

If perfection can never be attained perfection is a process not an end. Just because they fix one huge bug doesn't mean they get a pass on all other bugs.

Re:Shit

[geminidomino]

Yar, that ye can, matey.

not quite

[jDeepbeep]

You're comparing Facebook to thermonuclear war? Give me a break.

No. He is comparing it to global thermonuclear war. ;)

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Shihar]

If the delete option works, great. Personally, the split second another comparable service comes out that catches maybe 5 or so of my closets friends... I am gone. I probably won't delete my account, but I will purge the ever living crap out of it and leave it as a glorified address book page.

The issue with Facebook is that it has lost my trust. Facebook doesn't do what I want it to do anymore. Facebook started as a thing for college students to connect and share college studentie stuff. Now, my freaking grandmother is one Facebook. Yeah, I can sit around and fiddle with my privacy settings and make a special grandma list that I have to remember to use every time I wont to post something that she might hurt her 70 year old sensibilities, but it is a pain in the ass.

It is going to be pretty easy to get me to jump ship. Just give me a social networking site that lets me have a split personality. We naturally have split personalities. The face you present in a meeting at work is different from the one you present to your mom and different from the one you present to your friends on Friday night. Facebook absolutely sucks at making this distinction. Not only does Facebook suck at making this decision, they keep desperately trying to get you to post ALL your information to the world. The first social networking site with a clean interface and that understands that we all have split personalities is going to stand over Facebook's bloated corpse. They don't even need to destroy Facebook, just offer up something convincing enough that I will use the alternative and Facebook. A social networking site that lets me cleanly and smoothly deal with my co-workers and grandmother wanting to be 'friends' in addition to my real friends is going to have Facebooks head on a pike.

Thanks

[mevets]

for the pointer, it seemed to work, although they insist on keeping it a zombie for two weeks so I can re-activate it.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[bjourne]

If the delete option works, great. Personally, the split second another comparable service comes out that catches maybe 5 or so of my closets friends...

Five friends in your closet eh? Normally, stepping out of the closet is the problematic part but you're just jamming them in there...

Re:Uh.... Hello? Server Backups?

[AmiMoJo]

The Data Protection Act allows organisations to keep data about you even without your consent if it is necessary for their business. A good example would be credit agencies - if they had to delete data on request it would be easy to wipe your history clean and people with a history of defaulting on debts would be able to clear the slate any time they wanted to. Banks also need to keep records for (IIRC) 6 years to meet legal requirements etc.

You can request a copy of all information held about you and that information is corrected in the case of errors, but you can't force someone to delete everything they have on you.

European anticipation

[Jimpqfly]

Facebook is just anticipating a European decision, since this "deleting" instead of "disactivating" option will be required soon. They don't want bad advertisement, so they act quickly. It's actually a very good idea, and a smart move from them.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Mister Whirly]

I doubt it. The complaints usually start shortly after the marriage, once you realize what you have done.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[http]

Where is the -1, Idiot moderation option? You didn't consent to, you insisted upon divorce (as evidenced by your claim that you filed). Being married or not actually has legal consequences for people outside your bedroom and living room and thus is not at all a private matter.

Is it ethical?

[Cyberax]

Deleting all your posts can mess up other peoples' conversations. It's not really ethical.

Making all your posts anonymous might be a reasonable compromise.

Re:Is it ethical?

[rsborg]

Deleting all your posts can mess up other peoples' conversations. It's not really ethical.

Making all your posts anonymous might be a reasonable compromise.

Seriously, this is done in other blogs; it's not a big deal... you should just see a thread with comment, reply, /reply deleted/, reply, etc. Yes it messes up the thread, but it's the right of the poster to have his/her content removed. Especially if that content talked about personal details and family members/etc... there are many reasons such information was fine to be public at one point and now considered dangerous (ie, stalker or lawsuit, etc)

The only issue is that I don't think it's fair (or easily possible), if another commenter has cut and pasted details of the /to be deleted/ users posts... for material to be deleted... in that case, it's fair-use copy.

Re:Is it ethical?

[Cyberax]

It's OK to delete information selectively. But wholesale mass deletion is a bit different.

And blogs are different from Slashdot discussions. For one thing, comment threads are usually smaller.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[interkin3tic]

Anybody can go to the state's court website and look it up, in perpetuity.

I need some tech support: I'm having a very difficult time finding "Anonymous Coward" in any state's court website.

Watch out

[ThatsNotPudding]

It could be a spin on the Godfather line:
"Leave the account, delete the person."

Deleting not necessary, just limit or fake

[Control-Z]

What's to stop you from deleting fields you don't like and/or filling them with fake but reasonable data? That's what I did.

I think in a way, having a carefully controlled Facebook account has more advantages than disadvantages. Give it a unique e-mail address, study what happens with that address. Post that you like ponies and rainbows. Have some fun with it and learn. ;)

Ripe for abuse!

[GameboyRMH]

If Facebook is anything like major news organizations, you can probably get them to believe someone is dead by defacing Wikipedia.

Just make the Wikipedia page (using the Tor network of course):

"Joe Victim was a firefighter in $facebook_location. He is famous for saving a group of orphans from a fire which is why the existence of this page is not suspicious. He died of lung cancer on April 5th 2010, leaving $facebook_spouse_and_children."

And then quickly before the moderators swoop in (remember the page won't be up for long, don't waste time!):

"Facebook, could you please delete the page of my brother Joe Victim who passed away earlier this year? (wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Victim). It would really ease the grieving process for the family and his friends.

Thank you
John Victim"

Re:Doesn't Matter

[zero_out]

Entering this info into public record wasn't a big problem in the past, because it still required someone to go to a building, search through records, and after hours of searching, find what they wanted. Now, anyone with a little knowledge of computers, and the internet, can search for this information from the comfort of their own home/office/wherever, anywhere in the world, and it takes mere minutes. The laws WERE fine, until they lowered the bar of accessibility.

Facebook != future of communication.

[GameboyRMH]

Facebook is not the future of communication. Facebook is a fad.

Maybe online social networking is the future of communication, but Facebook is not, just as we're all not using 2MB SMTP-only-accessible ISP-provided email accounts today.

Facebook is the AOL email address of social networking. Hot fad right now, historical footnote and geek punchline later.

Re:Facebook != future of communication.

[BasilBrush]

Maybe online social networking is the future of communication

Online social networking is a specialist tool, not a replacement for other forms of communication. Probably the nearest equivalent is CRM - Customer Relations Management for businesses. Clearly such tools aren't going away now they are here. They perform a valuable function. They are not just something for a bit of fun.

It may not be Facebook in the future, for sure. From time to time the market leading tool changes.

Yet Facebook does have a very strong lockin because they hold peoples current social network. One can't just switch to another company's system, whatever the attraction, because most of your friends won't be there. That's a far stronger lockin than Microsoft ever had on Windows and Office, and look how hard those have been to unseat as market leaders.

So it's hard to see why Facebook should necessarily be "a fad".

Re:Facebook != future of communication.

[GameboyRMH]

The only way that Facebook has stronger lock-in than Myspace is that they have Farmville/Mafia Wars/Tumbleweed Town/whatever, and AFAIK those are run by separate companies that should be happy to integrate with other social networking services.

Delete me

[oldmac31310]

I opened a Facebook account for the purpose of promoting my music. When I finally had the account set up, I realized that it was of no use to me whatsoever. I realized later that the link for setting up an account for artists/musicians is actually pretty hard to find and is a separate kind of account. When I tried to delete 'me' account I just got the option to deactivate not delete. I thought that very strange and a bit unsettling. What took them so long to add the option to delete?

Cool.

[toonces33]

If I only had a Facebook account I would try it out. Maybe I should register just so I can test it.

why not me facepalmbook?

[orthicviper]

facebook hasnt given ME this delete option yet.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[http]

I did not advocate anything. Next time you want to try putting words in my mouth, don't.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Enigma23]

Just give me a social networking site that lets me have a split personality.

Welcome to Livejournal - I have multiple filters to lock down exactly how much information I give out on each and every single post I make.

Not showing up on my account

[otakuj462]

This is not showing up on my account.

In other news...

[tmh - The Mad Hacker]

Facebook makes large donation to the Internet Archive!