Facebook To Overhaul Data Use Policy

dryriver writes "The new Facebook advertising policy: 'Our goal is to deliver advertising and other commercial or sponsored content that is valuable to our users and advertisers. In order to help us do that, you agree to the following: You give us permission to use your name, profile picture, content, and information in connection with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us. This means, for example, that you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you. If you have selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect your choice when we use it.' — Facebook also made it clear that the company can use photo recognition software to correctly identify people on the network. It said: 'We are able to suggest that your friend tag you in a picture by scanning and comparing your friend's pictures to information we've put together from your profile pictures and the other photos in which you've been tagged.' — It [Facebook] said it was also clarifying that some of that information reveals details about the device itself such as an IP address, operating system or – surprisingly – a mobile phone number. The Register has asked Facebook to clarify this point as it's not clear from the revised policy wording if a mobile number is scooped up without an individual's knowledge or as a result of it being previously submitted by that person to access some of the company's services. Importantly, Facebookers are not required to cough up their mobile phone number upon registering with the service. At time of writing, Facebook was yet to respond with comment."

Comments

A relevant link:

[twjordan]

https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-site-governance/section-by-section-summary-of-updates/10153200989785301

The post is pretty bad without a link to the actual updates. ./ has fallen a bit.

Re: A relevant link:

[Anonymous Coward]

./ has fallen a bit.

./ has fallen a bit further.

Re:A relevant link:

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be at the wrong website. This is SlashDot, not DotSlant.

Re: A relevant link:

[FatdogHaiku]

you missed that by one post... The post you replied to was actually a witty post about "./", much like the one you were hoping to create.

Re:A relevant link:

[Trax3001BBS]

https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-site-governance/section-by-section-summary-of-updates/10153200989785301

The post is pretty bad without a link to the actual updates. ./ has fallen a bit.

Poor Sarah Rose and the rest that posted they will not allow that, they are posting under that ToS so of course they do.

I want nothing to do with facebook, I don't trust Mark Zuckerberg and want no part of him.

I made mention on /. that I disabled my account 4 years ago but it wasn't, I went through the motions but it claimed I could revive my account by logging in again. Someone replied to me how to really delete your facebook account. I logged in with my old info and there it was -my account I closed out ages ago; hopefully it's gone now.

I have blocked Facebook at the router level but still able to read that ToS, many lines in my HOSTS file deal with facebook yet I still get through. Recently I've hit facebook pages which shortly claim I need to log in to read, ain't going to happen; nut I figure it's too late my info has been posted, Not sure what I posted, I'd never give a real name, address or any real info, but I did post a picture.

Re:A relevant link:

[girlintraining]

The post is pretty bad without a link to the actual updates. ./ has fallen a bit.

It was bought out and is now a corporate tool for Dice. All the original editors have moved on. It's just a dead husk now.

Like Facebook soon will be; I'm advising all my friends to turn their profile pics all black and delete all personal photos and "likes", unsub from all groups, etc. Basically, gut your profile and delete all your past posts, etc. Just leave a stub.

Re:A relevant link:

[davester666]

What a huge surprise.

Their existing data use policy is too restrictive.

It would be simpler to just have:

We promise not to use your data in the following ways:

Re:A relevant link:

[Anonymous Coward]

And you think they don't keep all versions of every piece of information?

Re:A relevant link:

[Maxo-Texas]

They've repeated lied in the past and will continue to lie in the future.

Understand if you post on Facebook, you have no privacy.
Even if other people post about you on facebook, your privacy is going to be impaired.

Understand *you are the product being sold*.

It's a challenge for me. I finally withdrew from facebook. It's taken a while for people to start emailing me. At first they were annoyed that I needed special handling and they couldn't just set the event up on facebook. But now there are more of us avoiding facebook so email is coming back.

I wouldn't have withdrawn if they hadn't been such weasels about privacy settings.

Re:A relevant link:

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Are you sure you did it right in your hosts file? You should go ask APK just to make sure, nobody knows hosts files better than he does.

Re:A relevant link:

[Trax3001BBS]

Are you sure you did it right in your hosts file? You should go ask APK just to make sure, nobody knows hosts files better than he does.

Yes, thanks for that. I do run APK once in a while to update my HOSTS file (sits at 4.377 MB now)
but this was at the Router level, blocked sites (I have a HotSpot available to whoever).

After the reply I went and added it to the HOSTS file itself and it's blocked. I just reinstalled Windows 7 this last week so still tweaking it.

Re:A relevant link:

[Camael]

Their existing data use policy is too restrictive.

It would be simpler to just have:

We promise not to use your data in the following ways:

Why would FB tie themselves down by committing not to use the data in any number of ways?

If you read TFA, FB makes it clear that under current policies they will use your data as they please.

Facebook has agreed to explain how it uses a name, profile picture, content and information in connection with ads after it got into hot water over its Sponsored Stories function, which – without prior consent – served adverts to Facebookers featuring the faces and names of people who had "Liked" a particular product.

The Mark Zuckerberg-run outfit now states that it will no longer take responsibility for how those ads are served, because users will have agreed to that usage upon signing up to the network. Existing users will also be expected to simply comply with the new terms, or else ditch Facebook in protest against how their data is being re-purposed.

Re:A relevant link:

[davester666]

Whoosh it was an empty list

Re:A relevant link:

[Camael]

Hahaha I get it. Nice. =)

Re: A relevant link:

[Anonymous Coward]

In /, /. and ./ are the same.

Re:A relevant link:

[peragrin]

facebook doesn't actually delete anything though.

it is all still there waiting for facebook to use it however they see fit.

Re:A relevant link:

[Monoman]

Facebook vs email (with the NSA snooping). That is quite a dilemma we have today.

Re:A relevant link:

[EzInKy]

You might be at the wrong website. This is SlashDot, not DotSlant.

Or it just may be that it is you who is at the wrong site. Just sayin'....

Re: A relevant link:

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I have, for years, been WRONG!

My Slashdot replies have been unwittingly posted in a masturbation forum called "Point Stroke".

It seems to have been taken over by armchair satirists and political screed-writers.

Oh, What? That is Slashdot? You don't say!

Re:A relevant link:

[w_dragon]

I wish that idiotic 'you are the product' meme would die. We have perfectly good words to describe our relationships with Facebook, twitter, slashdot, and all the other similar services on the Internet. Most of us are the audience. Some of us are also the content producers. We create content that drives people to the service that allows the provider to make a profit. Saying that a person is the product is just a bit of rhetoric designed to invoke an emotional argument, it doesn't actually say anything useful.

Re:A relevant link:

[knorthern knight]

> I have blocked Facebook at the router level but still able to read that ToS,
> many lines in my HOSTS file deal with facebook yet I still get through.

A hosts file will block one or 2 small outfits. For a monstrosity like Facebook, you need to block ip address ranges. Here they are...

31.13.24.0/21
31.13.64.0/18
66.220.144.0/20
69.63.176.0/20
69.171.224.0/19
74.119.76.0/22
103.4.96.0/22
173.252.64.0/18
204.15.20.0/22

Here are the corresponding whois entries

31.13.24.0 - 31.13.31.255
IE-FACEBOOK-20110418
Facebook Ireland Ltd
IE

31.13.64.0 - 31.13.127.255
IE-FACEBOOK-20110418
Facebook Ireland Ltd
IE

66.220.144.0 - 66.220.159.255
66.220.144.0/20
Facebook, Inc.
THEFA-3

69.63.176.0 - 69.63.191.255
69.63.176.0/20
Facebook, Inc.
THEFA-3

69.171.224.0 - 69.171.255.255
69.171.224.0/19
Facebook, Inc.
THEFA-3

74.119.76.0/22
74.119.76.0 - 74.119.79.255
74.119.76.0/22
Facebook, Inc.
THEFA-3

103.4.96.0/22
103.4.96.0 - 103.4.99.255
FACEBOOK-SG

173.252.64.0 - 173.252.127.255
173.252.64.0/18
AS32934
FACEBOOK-INC

204.15.20.0 - 204.15.23.255
204.15.20.0/22
Facebook, Inc.
THEFA-3

Re:A relevant link:

[admiral snackbar]

NSA can't snoop on Facebook? Right.......

Re:A relevant link:

[Maxo-Texas]

I think it gives you a very good sense of how and why facebook will default to decisions not in your interest

Re:A relevant link:

[Monoman]

OMG I hope not ;-)

Re:A relevant link:

[mdm42]

I made mention on /. that I disabled my account 4 years ago but it wasn't, I went through the motions but it claimed I could revive my account by logging in again. Someone replied to me how to really delete your facebook account. I logged in with my old info and there it was -my account I closed out ages ago; hopefully it's gone now.

It would be useful if you would detail the steps you took to "really delete" your Facebook account. Others might benefit. ;)

Re:A relevant link:

[Trax3001BBS]

It would be useful if you would detail the steps you took to "really delete" your Facebook account. Others might benefit. ;)

Damn was hoping to avoid that (having to look it up) :}

But your right, it could help others so I did find it.

The reply is here
Facebook's Android App Can Now Retrieve Data About What Apps You Use
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3647639&cid=43456911

The link given http://m.wikihow.com/Permanently-Delete-a-Facebook-Account

And a belated thank you to SternisheFan, it seems to of worked.

Thanks

[oldhack]

The Facebook users beware. Nobody forced you to use it.

That's the end of USEFUL discussion.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

First, that wasn't a discussion. Beyond that: we could discuss how this plays into Facebook's long-term prospects; how this plays into user's expectations; whether this sort of thing would be likely if Facebook wasn't public and had no aspirations to be public; whether this is actually legal and whether it should be legal -- for instance, changing terms to include your name and likeness in advertising would seem egregious if a brick and mortar store had that as a requirement for entering the premises; and probably plenty of other issues come to mind to other people.

Re:Thanks

[zippthorne]

Nobody forced your friends to use it either, but no one is stopping them from using it either, and by some of their possible actions, you're using it whether you want to or not....

Re:Thanks

[Austerity Empowers]

Yes, yes, and we'll continue to use fake pictures, fake names, and build a profile of lies because they can't really stop that either.

Facebook is a worthless social tool, there's no reason to be honest. Meanwhile Linked-In is a repository of highly accurate data but it's not a lot of fun, nor does it have the mindshare facebook has. Facebook needs a new gig, it has a lot of viewers, it has very little useful facts and if pushed, they'll find it becomes increasingly factless.

Re:Thanks

[fermion]

12-24 year old define themselves with peer groups. At one time that meant smoking, even though no one forced anyone to smoke. It is just what one did. Before that you went to the malt shop.

Facebook for most people was a phase.I see more kids get over it earlier as their parents spend more time on it. Now companies are using it to try to reach a generation that is not on tv, and it me moving from a phase to a cost of doing business. No one forces you to cut out coupons to buy name brand products, but we do. It could be that facebook ends up being the broker of the kind of relationships that some people like to have with retail brands, in which case value will be added for some people. And the kids who like the freedom that facebooks gives them will not go away, just like when we smoked ciggarettes.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

The Facebook users beware. Nobody forced you to use it.

You jest, but what happens when government services start requiring facebook login?

That's nothing, what happens when government services start requiring always on webcams in your home?

Re:Thanks

[pecosdave]

It's like a blend of 1984 and Brave New World. Just like 1984 they will be monitoring you through your real life telescreen but like Brave New World it won't actually be forbidden not to have one, but the people will no longer have the motivation to think or act outside what they were indoctrinated to do.

Re:Thanks

[meerling]

They eventually will, it's cheaper than them providing their own monitoring equipment/bugs.

Re:Thanks

[SGT CAPSLOCK]

It's sadly the case...

One of my friends has a wife who decided it'd be cute to post pictures of me on her Facebook account despite my telling her plainly that I didn't want that to happen. I got the pleasure of sitting and watching her do it, and giggle about it throughout my protests.

Nothing can be done to stop it. It's not like I'm going to steal her camera and delete her pictures. So, I'm in their system, despite being really well known as the paranoid "they're out to get me" guy to pretty much everyone who knows me.

No matter how careful we are individually, the ignorance of others certainly can affect us strongly these days...

Re:Thanks

[Lincolnshire Poacher]

Meanwhile Linked-In is a repository of highly accurate data

Well other than all the made-up skills that people can assign to you without your involvement.

'King of France', 'Maximum Awesome', 'Knife Skills'...

Why am I being endorsed for skills and expertise I do not claim on my profile?

Re:Thanks

[Ultracrepidarian]

Black electricians tape?

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sadly the case...

One of my friends has a wife who decided it'd be cute to post pictures of me on her Facebook account despite my telling her plainly that I didn't want that to happen. I got the pleasure of sitting and watching her do it, and giggle about it throughout my protests.

Nothing can be done to stop it. It's not like I'm going to steal her camera and delete her pictures.

You could just take the camera and beat her to death with it ;-)

Re:Thanks

[StoneyMahoney]

Closed my Facebook account mere minutes ago. Side note: a friend of mine closed his a while ago and the captcha he had to type was "Treachery"

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as there's tons of sex.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

So, I'm in their system, despite being really well known as the paranoid "they're out to get me" guy to pretty much everyone who knows me.

And this is why privacy/data protection laws need to be updated to have far more teeth than they have today. When you have an organisation as influential as Facebook and it is actively encouraging other people to do things like providing your picture or your phone number with or without your knowledge or consent, any argument that some use of that data about you is permitted under their ToS has no weight if you're not a Facebook user yourself, but it seems clear that they're storing the data anyway. Actually, I'm not sure how that's not already illegal, at least within the EU, but the regulators don't seem in any hurry to take action and even if they do the penalties are little more than the change in Zuckerberg's pocket.

FWIW, I am similar to you, being well known among my friends as someone who doesn't want to share his personal details with Facebook. I feel sufficiently strongly about this that in the situation you described I would have made it very clear to my "friend" and his wife that I would no longer consider them friends if they thought it was funny to violate my privacy in that way, but then again I'm also confident that I would never have to go that far with anyone I consider a friend in the first place. I'm sorry if you're not always in such a happy position with the company you keep.

Re:Thanks

[cas2000]

ask her how she'd feel if you took a photo of her, printed it with her name, address, phone number, email address and any other personal information you can think of, and then posted hundreds of copies of it on bus shelters, lamp posts, walls, bulletin boards, etc all over town.

then tell her that that is exactly what she's done to you.

if you're feeling really pissed off, don't pose it as a question, just go ahead and do it.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes me happy that I have never created a FB account. I actually have Facebook and Twitter blocked in my router so that I never see anything related to them.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

... One of my friends has a wife ...

You mean your friend didn't stand-up for your privacy and needs? Time to de-friend someone.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

So, I'm in their system, despite being really well known as the paranoid "they're out to get me" guy to pretty much everyone who knows me.

FWIW, I am similar to you, being well known among my friends as someone who doesn't want to share his personal details with Facebook. I feel sufficiently strongly about this that in the situation you described I would have made it very clear to my "friend" and his wife that I would no longer consider them friends if they thought it was funny to violate my privacy in that way,

Empty threat. You cannot unfriend them without a Facebook account.

Re:Thanks

[TractorBarry]

Well go ahead and post her picture and real phone number to an adult dating site whilst she watches you.

For bonus points giggle about it (in a mocking impression of her) whilst you're doing it.

See how much she likes that.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

ask her how she'd feel if you took a photo of her, printed it with her name, address, phone number, email address and any other personal information you can think of, and then posted hundreds of copies of it on bus shelters, lamp posts, walls, bulletin boards, etc all over town.

More like all over the world.

Re:Thanks

[An dochasac]

...

Nothing can be done to stop it. It's not like I'm going to steal her camera and delete her pictures. So, I'm in their system, despite being really well known as the paranoid "they're out to get me" guy to pretty much everyone who knows me.

No matter how careful we are individually, the ignorance of others certainly can affect us strongly these days...

Threaten to sue the person who posted your photo without your signing a release. Make it expensive for individuals to violate your privacy. Spread the word on Facebook and elsewhere that destroying the privacy of individuals is a potentially costly exercise. Learn from the MPAA/RIAA and other intellectual content cartels that using your image or quoting you on FB without a release is costly. I charge $100 per IP address that could potentially view my image and given that IPV4 has 4.3 billion addresses... (I can hardly wait for IPV6.)
No this is not an idle threat. Given the US's primary industry (lawsuits), its only a matter of time before you'll have to buy Facebook insurance to cover the possibility that you'll accidentally post something that could be taken as defamatory, could infringe on MPAA/RIAA rights or infringe on a person's privacy or defame their character. I suspect when the average tweet costs $40 in legal fees, Facebook will die quietly.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that is not what she did to him and your comparison is idiotic.

A photo posted on facebook doesn't automatically provide your name, address, phone number, email address and other personal information unless you've put all that information in your profile and made it public. If you've done that, you're a complete fucking idiot for doing it and blaming someone else for your stupidity is pointless.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be that facebook ends up being the broker of the kind of relationships that some people like to have with retail brands

Substitute bands for brands and you've pegged my Facebook profile. I'm only friends with two people, but I have dozens of bands and band members' accounts in my news feed.

Re:Thanks

[__aaltlg1547]

Explain to that former friend that he and his wife are no longer welcome at your house and you will not be going to theirs as long as he's married to this nasty person.

Re:Thanks

[arashi no garou]

I'm only friends with two people, but I have dozens of bands and band members' accounts in my news feed.

Then you may want to go back to MySpace. I hear they are ditching the failed attempt at being a Facebook clone and are going back to their roots as a music lover's haven.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing can be done to stop it

In certain (european) countries publishing an (identifiable) image of a person without expressed consent would be a criminal offence. For example in Germany the behaviour described above attracts a fine and / or a jail term up to 1 year.

Re:Thanks

[pixelpusher220]

Only criminals* buy electrical tape.

*and state licensed electricians - you do have your license papers right?

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you can. Just do it old school. Flaming dogshit on the porch? Chuck eggs at the house? the possibilities are endless :)

Re:Thanks

[pixelpusher220]

A photo posted on facebook doesn't automatically provide

Did you miss the part about facial recognition? Or perhaps the numerous times Facebook has been caught using their cookies to track *everyone* even when you're not logged into Facebook or even a friggin member?

Facebook's entire business plan is to link data to actual people. This gives them the face to do it even more.

Re:Thanks

[Austerity Empowers]

People endorse me for skills that I have that I may not necessary want to be known for because they are less lucrative, or pigeon hole me in to a job role that is being offshored (i.e. board design/system engineering). Yet they are factual and I spent a hunk of my life doing those things. If the economy takes a dump perhaps I'd do those things again until I could find something with a future. But as with any career, what one did in the past is likely not what one wants to do in the future, and you shape that by targeting your resume and skills. It is factual, but of all the true things that can be said, only those few that serve the need are selected.

Generally I dislike the "endorse" feature, and the "recommendation" feature, it invites dishonesty and back scratching. I refuse to use either one.

I suspect that I could have truly bogus information, such as being the King of France, removed. I have not had that problem, most of my work acquaintances take this sort of thing seriously (unlike my facebook friends). Fortunate, as being guillotined isn't really good for growth.

Re:Thanks

[kheldan]

Are you kidding me? "There's nothing I can do about it"? Sure there is. First, she (or they) are no longer your friends; you make it clear to them that ignoring your wishes in the matter is the cause. Second, you inform them that if they don't remove the photos, there will be legal action compelling them to do so. If they do not comply then you get a lawyer to send them correspondance explaining to them that they must or there will be consequences. If they still don't you get a court order compelling them. You have rights, your privacy is valuable and important, and no one should be allowed to trample on those.

Re:Thanks

[Omestes]

It depends. I had a party at my house once, and someone posted photos to Facebook from their phone, tagging my house as a location. I have never been able to remove this. Even flagging the photos doesn't remove the "check in" as my house as a public location. Trying to complain doesn't work, since my house isn't actually associated with me, according to Facebook, I am not the owner of this "venue". So, despite me never telling facebook my address, and removing all location data from everything I share, Facebook now can associate me with an address.

The problem with things like Facebook, is that you have no power over what others can do with your information. You can abstain from using it, or use it as responsibly as possible, and it doesn't matter once someone posts something about you.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Facebook can do facial recognition. I guess that now that they have a name, they're going to search the Internet for all other photos and find other photos of people who look like this guy. How, precisely, does that get Facebook all of the other information? Does Facebook connect to all the state DMVs and use driver's license photos to fill in information that they otherwise don't have? I guess that'll be convenient for people new to Facebook; they can just enter in their name, and everything else about them is automatically filled out, right? All because they were tagged in one photo!

And on the cookies... Agian, how do they tie the cookies to the person when the person doesn't have an account on Facebook? All they can get from the tracking cookies is that a certain computer visited several sites - excatly the same as any other banner ad service does. It's not like somehow Facebook can say "Ah hah! This computer which visited newegg.com and youporn.com must be the same person whose name is tagged in Sally Fuckwit's photo album, even though that person has never actually logged in to Facebook!"

Man. Paranoia really makes people go crazy sometimes, apparently.

Re:Thanks

[cas2000]

you have no clue what you're talking about.

there are numerous ways they can and do associate your name with your other personal info - without you having to enter any of it yourself, and without you even needing to have a facebook account. starting with:

1. your name. it's in the tagged photo of you that was uploaded.

2. someone with your name, phone number, address etc in their phone contact list and the facebook app installed - the idiot who posted the photo is a likely candidate.

facebook may flag that info as 'tentative, not confirmed 100%' but they still have it. the more people who have you in their contacts list, especially if they are connected on facebook with either you or the photo-uploader, the higher an accuracy score it will get.

additional confirmation can come from many other sources, including public data like electoral rolls and phone books, private databases like subscription lists of magazines and newspapers, information-sharing deals with credit reference agencies,direct marketing companies, etc and hoovering up any information supplied if anyone in your household has been ignorant or stupid enough to enter competitions[1] or store "loyalty" programs - these latter two were the primary ways marketing scum built personal profiles on individuals before facebook.

there's nothing really new about what facebook's doing except the scale and reach and intrusiveness of it. even the hordes of idiots not only willing but eager to supply personal information is old-hat. it used to be possible to avoid much of it simply by choosing not to enter competitions or give your information away - now the scum can get your info from people you know - friends, family, colleagues, co-workers, acquaintances. and they can do it whether those contacts know about it or not.

google has done the same, and owning the android platform (and their app store) just makes it easier for them. they *stole* my phone number out of my android phone or from the contact list of someone who knows me. i know this because I ignored their request for my phone number for over a year (they asked on the rare occassions i actually logged in to my rarely used gmail account). they stopped asking, and one day i noticed they had my phone number associated with my gmail account - a complaint and demand to remove it was completely ignored.

google also has access to your android phone/tablet's GPS data - they know where you spend your time, where you live, where you work, where you travel, what route you take, what shops you enter or walk past.

as does Apple if you have an ipad/iphone.

as does facebook if you have their app installed on your phone or tablet.

WTF do you think so many shitty apps demand access to your phone state and identity, full network access, and gps data? it's so they can spy on you, you fucking moron.

and you can't even own or use an android phone or iphone without signing up for an account and giving at least an email address....well, technically you can with android if you work hard at it, but you're losing much of the functionality that makes buying a smartphone worthwhile.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sadly the case...

One of my friends has a wife who decided it'd be cute to post pictures of me on her Facebook account despite my telling her plainly that I didn't want that to happen. I got the pleasure of sitting and watching her do it, and giggle about it throughout my protests.

Nothing can be done to stop it. It's not like I'm going to steal her camera and delete her pictures.

take her details, fb name, address and phone number, hell even pshop her face onto a porn pic and plaster them on public toilet stall walls, phone boxes and around town "call me for sex, super whore awaits your calls/friend requests" etc and giggle away back as she is bombarded

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

She sounds like a bitch. Hopefully your friend will divorce her. Soon.

ha!

[MightyMartian]

Hi, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg here. I own you're fucking asses, you pathetic like pukes. If I want to sell your left fucking kidney, I can do it because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg and you're pathetic addicts.

Re:ha!

[craigminah]

Yup...that's part of the reason I refuse to join facebook...heck, I bet the US Government (and others) are mining the crap out of facebook in search of terrorists.

Re:ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a 100% sure bet. How else can they keep the no-fly and gate rape lists up to date?

Re:ha!

[Dcnjoe60]

Hi, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg here. I own you're fucking asses, you pathetic like pukes. If I want to sell your left fucking kidney, I can do it because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg and you're pathetic addicts.

No, he can't do that because it would be a HIPAA violation, but just about anything else would be correct.

Re:ha!

[Frosty Piss]

No, he can't do that because it would be a HIPAA violation, but just about anything else would be correct.

Nonsense.

It *might* be a HIPAA violation for him to tell everyone he sold your kidney, but HIPAA has nothing at all to do with the waiver you signed allowing his doctors to swoop in and *take* your kidney.

HIPAA is about health information privacy and has nothing to do with the fact you clicked through a Kidney Sales Agreement form...

Re:ha!

[93 Escort Wagon]

I quit Facebook (and deleted my account) several weeks ago - right after the stuff about their shadow profiles came out.

It sucks because Facebook can have its uses - it's definitely a much easier way to keep in contact with some of my friends and family that live across the US and in Europe. But, in the end, what Facebook is doing to its users just is too high a price for me to willingly pay.

What's interesting is it's been obvious for a while that Facebook is trending downward - it's the older folks (my peers) that are really keeping it going. Younger people (e.g. my daughter) mostly still have Facebook profiles, but it's no longer their primary sharing tool. Some have moved to Tumblr, some to other networks - but the tide turned a year or two ago. I'm sure Zuckerberg knew this when he was figuring out the optimal time to launch the IPO, and I'm sure it's why they're pushing harder and harder now. It's only a matter of time before they join MySpace.

Re:ha!

[TheRealMindChild]

The shadow profile stuff came out much longer than several weeks ago. Provided is a slashdot link to a story almost 2 years old:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/18/1429223/facebook-is-building-shadow-profiles-of-non-users

Re:ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they're mining the crap out of facebook too. But not exactly for counter terrorism purposes though.

Re:ha!

[hutsell]

Hi, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg here. I own you're fucking asses, you pathetic like pukes. If I want to sell your left fucking kidney, I can do it because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg and you're pathetic addicts.

That's probably a decent description of his present state of mind, considering he also supports the idea in his original business card in a succinctly summarized but less eloquent form. Funnier then when it was without any hindsight about the ramifications.

Re:ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

I realize you've been using that sig for quite some time now, but the changes to Facebook's data policy mean you no longer own it. All your sig are belong to fb, as evidenced by Moped Zuckerberg spotted in Rome. Details in the next update to Facebook's data policy, which will be at 11.

Re:ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry; I thought he was talking about being pathetic addicts, rather than about kidneys. If I'm in rehab, that's not fair game for Zuckerberg to spill.

Re:ha!

[93 Escort Wagon]

I'm talking about the more recent revelations that came out this past June - regarding how the "friend finder" was slurping up information like your friends cell phone numbers etc. and storing that in shadow profiles (which got exposed because of the Facebook bug in their profile download tool).

The existence of Facebook and Google+ shadow profiles has indeed been known for a while.

Re:ha!

[lxs]

I don't believe you are. The real Zuck would have a cute PA correct his grammar before posting.

Re:ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg here. I own you're fucking asses, you pathetic like pukes. If I want to sell your left fucking kidney, I can do it because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg and you're pathetic addicts.

Joke's on you dickhead. The left one is failing and cancerous. You just saved me a ton of money having it removed. Meanwhile I get to keep the good one. Fuck you, cunt!

Re:ha!

[MightyMartian]

Mark Fucking Zuckerberg. We just changed the TOS, and no we I'm coming for the other one. That's what you get for signing up with Facebook. Fucking stupid rube.

Re:ha!

[davide marney]

I quit facebook after the Obama campaign revealed that they got special permission from FB to ignore its ToS and allow campaign workers to hoover their friend data and send it to the campaign for analysis. A very dirty trick, IMHO. The ToS basically means nothing, its assurances are meaningless.

Re:ha!

[Sir Holo]

Well, if you have even one "fb friend" who is outside the USA, and you post, your communication has traveled outside the border––to the NSA it is fair game.

Also, I'm pretty sure that posting in a "fb group," or reading posts in a "fb group," can be an international communication to thousands.

Just a thought.

Re:ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

The HIPAA is Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.... Privacy and Information are not in the title, although the content provides protections for health information privacy.

Re:ha!

[craigminah]

Well I don't have a FB account so no FB "friends".

Re:ha!

[craigminah]

Politicians seem willing to do anything and work hard to further their political careers...too bad they don't want to further our nation and its people's lives.

Re:ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup...that's part of the reason I refuse to join facebook...heck, I bet the US Government (and others) are mining the crap out of facebook in search of terrorists.

Hardly. Facebook has humongous volumes of data and is the expert at mining it. It is much more likely that the government is paying Facebook considerable amounts of money to do the mining for them. After all, that kind of mining is Facebook's main way of making money.

Sure, they won't find terrorists in that manner (what kind of terrorist would communicate via Facebook?). But they'll dig up the dirt in the underwear of the politicians responsible for allocating money or power to the NSA.

Re:Ugh.

[Cyfun]

How about a witty third post? :D

All the extra faces :)

[AHuxley]

http://rt.com/news/facebook-profile-picture-recognition-208/
http://www.ibtimes.com/facebook-create-facial-recognition-database-profile-photos-1401665
Welcome to a wonderful facial recognition database for US users (vs privacy issues in Europe).
Try and forget the US government electronic surveillance program.

Re:All the extra faces :)

[Anonymous Coward]

All the extra faeces :)

FTFY

HA!

[singlevalley]

Is there still some private data that they are yet to make public? How about emails? Maybe those should be public too? Stupid FB.

Re:Ugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't have that either.

Facebook really makes me want to move to a remote island and live off coconuts. Creepiest thing I've ever seen in my life.

/etc/hosts jokes aside

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Here's a real excerpt from my /etc/hosts file, saves me no end of trouble:

0.0.0.0 www.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 facebook.com
0.0.0.0 www.static.ak.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 static.ak.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 www.login.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 login.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 www.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 www.fbcdn.com
0.0.0.0 fbcdn.com
0.0.0.0 www.static.ak.connect.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 static.ak.connect.facebook.com

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooo. Thanks!

I didn't have a few of those on my hosts list. 36,872 entrys and counting!

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Other than localhost, my router and (static) printer, these are the only hosts entries I use.

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside

[Anonymous Coward]

Missing from your list:
0.0.0.0 static.ak.facebook.com

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside

[BrokenHalo]

It's probably preferable to use the loopback interface 127.0.0.1 rather than 0.0.0.0.

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside

[0123456]

0.0.0.0 is invalid, so should cause an immediate fail without attempting to connect. If you run a webserver on your computer, a loopback address may actually hit the webserver and require a response.

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Exactly. 0.0.0.0 doesn't get far enough down the TCP/IP stack to even get to the hardware.

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside

[Ja'Achan]

I set up my own DNS server, that way all subdomains get blocked in one go. (I use maradns, it was pretty easy to set up.)

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside

[buchner.johannes]

So what is your opinion on the changes proposed by the new Facebook Data Policy?
Oh that's right, you can't read it.

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside

[cornjones]

Being technical enough to block it, if he ever cares to, i am sure he can get the data (google translate, if nothing else). Other than seeming a bit over the top to me, it is likely a good answer to the problem.

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside

[Trax3001BBS]

0.0.0.0 is invalid, so should cause an immediate fail without attempting to connect. If you run a webserver on your computer, a loopback address may actually hit the webserver and require a response.

0.0.0.0 is linux format, 127.0.0.1 is another format and the one I use; the top of the HOSTS file determines which is used
0.0.0.0. LocalHost
or
127.0.0.1 localHost

There's some who claim "127.0.0.1 on some machines this may run minutely faster" http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/

So 0.0.0.0 www.login.facebook.com would go to LocalHost or you -satisfying the request be it you or a link from a web page.

The HOSTS file is a routing file. you can also use for shortcuts like 74.125.235.33 findnow - typing findnow in the address bar would take you to Google.

A HOSTS file is simple tracking, malware protection that even speeds up page loadings by removing the non article stuff.

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside

[userw014]

I did something like that a long time ago as a first approximation of what I wanted - but I had to replicate it on every laptop & desktop in my household.
My goal was two-fold. I was using dial-up and I had young kids whom I didn't trust to not click on every link and button on a page. I wanted to prevent advertisements saturating my dial-up link and limit the amount of time spent cleaning up malware.
As I was using a *nix box as a home router (for dialup), I could use it's firewall functionality to block hosts and networks, and as I was using it also as a caching DNS server, I could also "poison" my view of the DNS too. Rather than using "localhost", I set up a pseudo-network on the *nix server that would always return an ICMP unreachable and had the domains point to that, as well as DNS servers that were being used by some of the shadier phishers/spamers/etc.
It works pretty well for EVERY device on my home network - game consoles, web cams, printers, blue-ray players, smart phones, iPods, as well as conventional laptops and desktops. It isn't something I can do with a conventional SOHO router, or even Linux based firmware on a SOHO router.
For a while, I tried using the SpamHouse DNS RBL stuff too, but it became hard to maintain. I thought about automating using the evidence generated by port-scanners attacking the SSH port on the linux box to add to the black lists too.
I don't have a complete solution yet for IPv6. DNS is a good first approximation for now.

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

"0.0.0.0 is linux format, 127.0.0.1 is another format and the one I use"

I love how people can speak with authority on a subject they clearly know nothing about.

What The Fuck?

[wrackspurt]

I've never used Facebook exactly because of shit like this. I just don't get how it got so big and stays so big. Genetics? Like a different genetic strain of our species which makes hundreds of millions willing victims just as long as they get noticed and pretend friends.

Anthropology suggests each of us normally has about half a dozen close friends at any one time. About that many friends make sense when you consider the emotional and temporal investments and returns. Facebook just makes no sense. It's like people so pathetic just getting noticed no matter the reason or the cost is some twisted form of self validation.

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that an average? Because I have way fewer than that. Heck, I barely have that many according to FB.

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never used Facebook exactly because of shit like this. I just don't get how it got so big and stays so big.

Your confusion, as you express above, can be alleviated simply by remembering that average I.Q. is 100.
That average is found at the peak of the "bell curve" which represents the distribution of I.Q. scores in
a population.

What you need to remember is this : half the population has an I.Q. of 100 or lower. This means that half the
population is not very smart, to express it in charitable terms. A lot of behavior which doesn't seem to "make
sense" can be therefore explained by the fact that a very large number of people are just plain idiots. And idiots
do idiotic things ( as Gomer Pyle might have said : "Shazam !" ).

Facebook is milking idiots. Facebook is used by idiots. That's really all there is to it. Well, except for this :

I own a smallish ( non Fortune 500 ) company. Part of the hiring process at my company involves finding out
if a prospective new hire uses Facebook. If they do use Facebook, they are not hired. Of course they are never
told that the reason they weren't hired is that they use Facebook, but there you have it. I have discovered too many
employees using Facebook on company time, and this is unacceptable. All such employees have been "weeded out"
( fired ) and we don't take on any new people of this sort.

~

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I wish more companies were like that. Usually when I say I don't have facebook they think I'm either some kind of anarchist freak or just "not with it".

Re:What The Fuck?

[EdZep]

Sounds like a wise choice. I know Facebook isn't the only app employees might waste your time on, with their phones. Every time I see someone's employee fiddling with their phone -- usually while not providing customer service, but always while stealing paid time -- I wonder how they manage to remain employed.

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

It got big because it was about connecting with people. (Some people want more than six friends.) It turned to shit when it became about making money.

Re: What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Employees that are allowed to take "short" Facebook breaks are supposedly more productive.

I don't "use" FB, but do have an account. Easiest way to get old friend a email addresses. Am I hired?

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like a really stupid policy. Instead of trying to weasel around the issue simply ban non-work related sites on company time and tell people interviewing that that's your policy. Employees violating company policy are instantly fired. There's no reason to be sneaky about it.

There are valid uses for FB. Not everyone knows how to setup custom RSS feeds for their favorite news sites. Follow what you want and you get all their stores in one place. No need to go visit multiple websites. Sadly it's still the easiest way to share pictures among a group of semi-related people who all went on a hiking trip. The discussion coming up with the trip's time, location, drivers, etc.. and it's results (pictures, videos, etc...) are all right there in one place. Sharing baby photos with grandparents, siblings, and a few friends is still easiest on FB. Almost all email providers limit email sizes. Most people don't know how to setup personal server space to share photos. FB makes it easy. It's original purpose of letting old buddies get back in touch with you is still valid. Not everyone with a FB account uses it to constantly spam the world with their self delusions.

Re:What The Fuck?

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

It's because "friend" refers also to relatives, classmates, or anyone else the person wants to keep in touch with, which would total far more than their close friends.

As for how it became so large, it's a combination of a few things:

-- The company started out by luring in university undergraduates as a way of coordinating schedules, knowing what was going on with one another, and so forth when each of them had a reason or the interest required to look at their "friends."

-- When open to the public, it became the first turnkey service that allowed people to similarly keep in touch and interact without dealing with technical jargon-laced configurations or a variety of different programs/services (even if they weren't interested in using more than one or two of its services). That made it perfect for both the older people that find things like "SMTP server" confusing & intimidating, and the adults that have the knowledge but simply didn't want to deal with the extra hassle of configuring several different programs.

Re: What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Employees that are allowed to take "short" Facebook breaks are supposedly more productive.

I don't "use" FB, but do have an account. Easiest way to get old friend a email addresses. Am I hired?

No, in your case, you are rejected for poor grammar. Writing skills are important, too.

Re:What The Fuck?

[Tippler]

You seem to be postulating that the use of Facebook is indicative of low intelligence. As a recent graduate of a top 20 medical school, I can confidently say that greater than 80 percent of my peers use Facebook. The percentage is similar in my residency program. Are you saying that hundreds of at least moderately intelligent people with the motivation to go through four years of college, four years of medical school, and 3 or more years of residency are not candidates for your company because we choose to occasionally interact via an electronic medium with which you are not comfortable? If your hiring practices are subject to such idiotic generalizations, then you will stay "smallish" or go bankrupt very quickly.

Re:What The Fuck?

[phantomfive]

I've never used Facebook exactly because of shit like this. I just don't get how it got so big and stays so big.

IMO they overtook Myspace because they actually respected the users more with regards to advertising. Facebook was a real step down from Myspace in features and usability at the time (once again IMO), except for one thing, the intrusive advertising on Myspace. You would look at your little sister's page, and it would show giant ads for things like adult-friend-finder. Who wants to see that?

If the advertising gets too intrusive, people will leave, but Facebook has a good system in place to let them know how users respond to various things, so they will probably push it right to the limit of where people want to quit, but not past.

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be postulating that ... with which you are not comfortable?

Maybe ignorant of the issues would be a more palatable term. Does exposing the health data of any patients you may have friended by your willing use of this online tool constitute a HIPAA violation? Are you comfortable with the legal and ethical ramifications of that?

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure GP sees activities such as sharing pictures or planning trips to be only for stupid people.

Re:What The Fuck?

[FireFury03]

Sounds like a wise choice. I know Facebook isn't the only app employees might waste your time on, with their phones. Every time I see someone's employee fiddling with their phone -- usually while not providing customer service, but always while stealing paid time -- I wonder how they manage to remain employed.

Flexibility runs both ways - if you're going to be a dick and prevent employees from taking the occasional 5 minute break (because it's "stealing" from you) then they're not going to be inclined to do anything over and above their contract either. Don't expect someone to stay late to clear up some problem (because that would be you "stealing" from them) if you're never going to return the favour.

FWIW, an old employer of mine started doing the kind of shit you're suggesting - I got a massive bollocking for ending up 5 minutes late due to traffic one morning... the previous night I had stayed 2 hours late to finish some work. Needless to say, I never stayed late again, and left the company relatively soon afterwards... in fact, most of my colleagues also got pissed off with them and quit - they lost 75% of their technical staff in a 2 month period.

Re:What The Fuck?

[multiben]

First of all, some of the smartest people on the planet have facebook accounts - it is not solely the domain of "stupid" people and "idiots" as you put it. There are also plenty of people who have enough self discipline that they are able to refrain from using facebook while they are at work and do not spend every waking moment taking selfies and posting pics of food they are about to eat. That you are unable to see this and instead implement a blanket hiring policy which eliminates candidates based on their social media preferences suggests that you yourself, sir, are in fact an idiot.

Re:What The Fuck?

[drkim]

...that average I.Q. is 100... ...What you need to remember is this : half the population has an I.Q. of 100 or lower.

I'm guessing your company isn't selling Wolfram Research 'Mathematica.'

You're confusing 'average' and 'median.'
The 'median' is the number that half the numbers in the set are above, and half the numbers in the set are below.

From Wiki:
"The current scoring method for all IQ tests is the "deviation IQ." In this method, an IQ score of 100 means that the test-taker's performance on the test is at the median level of performance..."

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are throwing away 80+% of potential hires because of $(petty_reason_x). Great thinking there, man.

Re:What The Fuck?

[jmhobrien]

Given your willingness to believe in your on lies, it's hard to believe you aren't running a fortune 500 co.

Re:What The Fuck?

[santosh.k83]

Well I do use facebook to keep up with organisations and individuals working in the field of environment and conservation. There's no website out there that can collate information from dozens of organisations and hundreds of individuals (conservationists, researchers, photographers) all related by a single cause, and present it. I don't use facebook for games, nor stupidly post personal stuff like photos, addresses, phone numbers and the like. Until a large fraction of all these organisations and individuals set up multiple accounts on multiple sites (many of them aren't even on Twitter, let alone G+, tumblr and more obscure ones), I have to weigh the potential privacy benefits versus denying myself of information interesting to me. For the moment I stick with FB for this purpose, as I figure even if they were to data mine my profile and posts, all they'd get is a lot of ecology related stuff, and nothing really personal.

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that an average? Because I have way fewer than that. Heck, I barely have that many according to FBI.

FTFY

Re:What The Fuck?

[cornjones]

Part of the hiring process at my company involves finding out
if a prospective new hire uses Facebook. If they do use Facebook, they are not hired.

Says the guy posting on /.... wtf?

reminds me of people bitching about the evils of science by posting on the internet.

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who stayed away from facebook for a relatively long time, here's why I decided to join in the end:

- Easily maintain (loose) contact with friends and family that do not live nearby (in my case, around 600km)
- Changing social group: there's different kinds of people that use facebook actively, compared to those that don't have it
- Easy and fast communication tool; many use facebook's IM component, which allows quick organisation of meetups and so on
- (relatively) good mobile client; the mobile client is good, which means that people are usually easy to contact through it
- Ubiquious platform that can be used as an outlet -- briefer than a blog, longer than twitter messages, and some people might actually read it.

Personally I take a privacy-aware approach -- everything is public, or I don't post it at all.

In general: You don't need to be there if you don't want to. That doesn't mean that facebook can do anything they want -- we have legal guidelines after all.
However, I feel there's a more important part that you're missing, which I'd like to illustrate with the following questions:
What's wrong with using facebook as a tool for communication among friends and classmates? Why doesn't that make sense? Why am I not allowed to keep in contact with my distant friends just because you believe it isn't worth it? Is it really a crime to want to be liked? Have you stopped to consider that maybe some people make different decisions about the investments and returns their friendships give them, and put different values on those aspects than you do?

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Health data shouldn't be on facebook. Most people with an education like his manage to separate work and private life. You're suggesting facebook somehow magically breaches that. Why?

Re:What The Fuck?

[santosh.k83]

Agreed. For me, I use it almost exclusively as a platform for keeping in touch with orgs and people involved in my interests (ecology, conservation, astronomy). The vast majority of them are on facebook and apart from Twitter, you'll hardly find them anywhere else. The bigger organisations do have sites of their own, but not the smaller ones and the hundreds of individuals. They have all chosen FB Pages, and so either I keep in touch with them via facebook or practically isolate myself to just my neighborhood in this day & age of instant communication and so-called global village! I don't post personally identifiable things like family pictures or sensitive contact information, so I hope I've managed to strike a balance here that works.

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

... half a dozen close friends ...

I read an article (I think the point being Paul Revere wasn't the only "the British are coming" activist, but the only one well-known.) which claimed that humans have an 'association' limit of 150 people. To me, this means 1 person is limited to a 'pressing the flesh' personal influence upon about 11,000 people. Any larger organisation must depend on the chain of command. I also remember some celebrity (Stephen Fry?) with 50,000 face-book friends, admitting it was entirely pointless.

... getting noticed no matter the reason or the cost ...

I think IRC has a similar problem although one is actually making 'personal' contact in a very limited form. Those limitations allow people to idealize the communication as talking to a benevolent person. Before the internet bloomed, Mr Warhol said "In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes". Perhaps he was prescient in understanding we need approval so much, that many people will ask absolute strangers for it.

Re:What The Fuck?

[SuricouRaven]

Bell curve.

Mean = median = mode.

It's a defining characteristic of the distribution.

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it really so hard to imagine that doctors wouldn't post their patient data on facebook? One would expect that if a prospective doctor uses facebook, he would not be posting patients records but would instead would be keeping in touch with old contacts and maybe viewing a couple mildly entertaining cat pictures to relax a bit. Just like most other people.

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never used Facebook exactly because of shit like this. I just don't get how it got so big and stays so big.

Probably because despite what "great" dangers you see in using Facebook, most people have been using it for years without a hiccup. There's simply a glaringly large discrepancy between the risk alarmists tout and the actual risk people have observed to exist.

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never used Facebook exactly because of shit like this. I just don't get how it got so big and stays so big.

Your confusion, as you express above, can be alleviated simply by remembering that average I.Q. is 100.
That average is found at the peak of the "bell curve" which represents the distribution of I.Q. scores in
a population.

What you need to remember is this : half the population has an I.Q. of 100 or lower. This means that half the
population is not very smart, to express it in charitable terms.

You do realize that the IQ scale is normalized, right? Assuming you're operating under the hypothesis that there's some objectively meaningful way of quantifying intelligence, no matter how smart the population gets on this scale, most people will STILL be at 100 IQ points. So explaining away behavior you don't like or agree with as being due to an average IQ is completely and utterly meaningless.

For the vast majority of people, there's probably no real risk (of persecution by the government and other such big, scary organizations) in using Facebook. Hell, if you have friends or people you'd otherwise want to be in contact with who use Facebook, using it would probably improve your life!

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck "friends" their patients? That's just a ridiculous hypothetical with little real-world applicability. You clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Re:What The Fuck?

[Mr. Slippery]

You're confusing 'average' and 'median.'

Not only is the median a type of average, but for a normal distribution -- a Gaussian "bell curve" -- all three types of average -- median, mean, and mode -- are the same value.

Now you know.

Re:What The Fuck?

[DerekLyons]

I've never used Facebook exactly because of shit like this. I just don't get how it got so big and stays so big.

If you don't get it by now (it's been explained in the comments on numerous /. articles on Facebook), you're either seriously dense or just trolling/karmawhoring.
 
Here's what I've done on Facebook today... it's a fairly typical day actually;

• Gotten the latest updates on my boat's upcoming re-union.
• Linked a gentleman in a submarine veterans group up to his boats re-union association.
• Discussed the early history of Japanimation in the US on an anime fan group.
• Shared screenshots from a game session last night with a small private group of my friends who play the game.
• Seen pictures of my nephew on his first day of school (today isn't a holiday in the UK).
• Discussed the impact of a potential policy change on a club I belong to (again, in a private group).
• Updated the information on a beer tasting class I'm holding in a few weeks for a different club.

Etc... etc...
 
It's one site, one login, and messages/posts never bounce (unlike email). If I want to share photos, there's no need to upload them one place and then try and figure out how to link to it and use a different communications link to disseminate the link. Two, three clicks and it's done. If I want to set up a public or private discussion group, again, two, three clicks and a few seconds typing and I'm in business. It's a simple site with a simple UI, fairly unobtrusive advertising, and it just bloody works. The trade of "stuff I like" for "so damn much useful stuff, functionality, and access" is a fair one.

Re:What The Fuck?

[DerekLyons]

Indeed. I'm active on a number of USN submarine veterans groups.... and there's a very high percentage of nuclear power personnel - guys that have been through the (intellectually) toughest school the USN has to offer. These guys, according to the grandparent, are 'low-IQ idiots'. Submariners, especially nukes, are many things... but low IQ? There's very few of my shipmates I'd tag with that. And that's not mentioning the wide variety of engineers among my friends.

I'll have some of whatever he's smoking.

Seriously, I've never grasped Slashdot's need to marginalize Facebook users and attempts to hand wave away it's technology and usefulness. (And this goes back to the very beginning - long before they started amping up the ways they use personal information.)

Re:What The Fuck?

[cloudmaster]

So, the article at the top there is about selling advertising, which is a way to facilitate business people to communicate with their customers via Facebook. And you're suggesting that the idea of doctors communicating with their customers via Facebook is a ridiculous proposition which would have no application in the real world? Please come back when you're put a tad more thought into this, Anonymous Coward.

PS: I personally know at least two doctors treating chronically ill patients with whom they regularly communicate via Facebook. I might know more, but this is not a topic that I discuss with everyone I know. :) Normally, anecdote is not the sigular of data, but in this case I'm pretty sure that there has been "protected health information" recorded in Facebook's data centers.

Which bring up the question as to whether they're doing enough to comply with HIPAA laws. And PCI laws, as some bone head has probably sent credit card numbers through "private messages" at some point. With sufficient creativity, it'd probably be possible to shut Facebook down through regulatory compliance audits, unless their TOS is equally creative. ;)

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The regulars are coming." The colonists still considered themselves British at the time. ;)

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, some of the smartest people on the planet have facebook accounts - it is not solely the domain of "stupid" people and "idiots" as you put it.

Everyone here seems to be missing the point, it is not about being "smart" or "stupid". The poster has determined that Facebook is a time sinkhole, people mindlessly waste hours of time playing stupid farmville games instead of providing the company with whatever service they have been hired to perform. His company does not want to pay people to sit for hours and play games instead of working. Get this through your heads people, it is not a "right" to use Facebook at work. If you are on your lunch or break then that is different as that is "your time". You are also not "entitled" to gossip about company IP on a forum that makes it quite clear they only exist to sell your thoughts and ideas to third parties in order to make money.

If I owned a company I would have a similar anti-Facebook policy, if you are on company time (not lunch or break) accessing social media would be a firing offense. Discussing company IP on social networks would be prosecuted.

Re:What The Fuck?

[Miamicanes]

The problem is, Facebook is doing everything it can to make it nearly impossible to engage in any kind of social activity or commerce without consenting to their use of that information. It's not so much what you do on Facebook per se, as their ability to aggregate out-of-band information behind your back, from sources only loosely associated with Facebook, that makes them truly awful and dangerous.

Personally, when a store "offers" me a discount in return for liking them on Facebook, I get really mad. Most of the time, I'll throw down whatever I was planning to buy, leave in disgust, and do my best to avoid shopping at that store for months afterwards. From that point forward, I feel like I'm getting screwed over with every purchase, and over-charged by the amount of the discount they didn't let me have. The worst part is, the number of stores I can happily shop at keeps getting smaller and smaller. Every goddamn trip to buy Diet Mountain Dew or bagels turns into an exercise in moral calculus & deciding whom I hate the least this week.

At one time, I used to "like" stores to get the discount, complete the purchase, then proudly and loudly un-like them a moment later & post a note to my wall about how I completely *hated* them for twisting my arm into prostituting myself to avoid getting surcharged and screwed... but then I found out that by the time I did that, it was too late to stop them from harvesting my personal information for offline use anyway.

Re:What The Fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly misread his post. He said they won't hire anybody who uses FB. It has nothing to do with using it at work.

Anyway, the real test should be if I'm getting my work done.

Re:What The Fuck?

[drkim]

You're confusing 'average' and 'median.'

Not only is the median a type of average, but for a normal distribution -- a Gaussian "bell curve" -- all three types of average -- median, mean, and mode -- are the same value.

From your own article above:

"The "mean" is the "average" you're used to, where you add up all the numbers and then divide by the number of numbers."
Used without qualification, the word average tends to imply this usage.

"The "median" is the "middle" value in the list of numbers."

*shudder*

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes me shudder. I am so *very* glad I dont have a Facebook account, for reasons just like this.

so glad i never signed up for that shit

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously spooky shit man, fuck zuckerberg

AC for life, mother fuckers!

Re: Ugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I second that.

Facebook.com to shutdown and apologise

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, this was just a dream. Don't mind me.

Terms of Use

[Todd Knarr]

I wonder what would happen if you sent a nice letter to Facebook's CS department, copied to Legal, saying:

You have stated that you wish to use my likeness in commercial content that will earn you revenue. If you wish to do so, my standard rate is $10 per view of said likeness. You may not use my likeness without compensation to me. By using my likeness you agree to pay my standard rate for each view. If you do not wish to pay, you must refrain from using my likeness. By using my likeness you agree that the terms of this agreement and the rates stated therein apply to you, that you will pay them, that this agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements and that no future agreements may supersede this agreement without an express agreement in writing between myself and Facebook.

Re:Terms of Use

[Virtucon]

I wonder what would happen if you sent a nice letter to Facebook's CS department, copied to Legal, saying:

You have stated that you wish to use my likeness in commercial content that will earn you revenue. If you wish to do so, my standard rate is $10 per view of said likeness. You may not use my likeness without compensation to me. By using my likeness you agree to pay my standard rate for each view. If you do not wish to pay, you must refrain from using my likeness. By using my likeness you agree that the terms of this agreement and the rates stated therein apply to you, that you will pay them, that this agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements and that no future agreements may supersede this agreement without an express agreement in writing between myself and Facebook.

You forget, you don't control their ToS. If you don't agree, don't use it, period. What's repugnant about these changes is the fact that Facebook buries their opt-out settings or as the NYT reported, disables your ability to opt out. With the usual weasel-clause in most ToS for sites, "We reserve the right to change our ToS at any time without your consent..." you have little choice but to stop using them if you disagree. I think in the case of Facebook, that's something everybody should do, including Google+ although even Google is making it more difficult to get around that clap trap as well.

Re:Terms of Use

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what would happen if you sent a nice letter to Facebook's CS department, copied to Legal, saying:

You have stated that you wish to use my likeness in commercial content that will earn you revenue. If you wish to do so, my standard rate is...

You forget, you don't control their ToS.

But I do control their ToS. I saved a copy of the ToS page to my local drive, added a <BASE HREF> tag at the top so everything would still point to Facebook's servers, added a clause that states "by continuing to provide you with this service, Facebook grants you the right to change its Terms of Service whenever you want without its consent," reloaded the page and clicked Agree. Isn't that what everyone else does? End users, I mean, not Facebook. Perhaps I missed the point of this game. Does Facebook not want to play anymore?

Re:Terms of Use

[Anonymous Coward]

But I do control their ToS. I saved a copy of the ToS page to my local drive, added a <BASE HREF> tag at the top so everything would still point to Facebook's servers, added a clause that states "by continuing to provide you with this service, Facebook grants you the right to change its Terms of Service whenever you want without its consent," reloaded the page and clicked Agree. Isn't that what everyone else does? End users, I mean, not Facebook. Perhaps I missed the point of this game. Does Facebook not want to play anymore?

Sounds a lot like the credit card guy:

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/updated-russian-man-turns-tables-on-bank-changes-fine-print-in-credit-card-agreement-then-sues-now-settles-cm267708

Re:Terms of Use

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but what about those of us that don't have an account with them? From what I'm reading, if somebody has tagged us in a photo, they're claiming they can use the likeness. And don't forget about all the spying they do on random third parties via those damned like buttons.

Re:Terms of Use

[Todd Knarr]

That's why I put that part in about this agreement superseding any and all prior agreements, and about any agreement needing to be in writing to supersede it. That's to make it so if they use my likeness they agree that this agreement, not their TOS, controls (one of the terms they agreed to is that my terms supersede the TOS). And they can't claim my future use restored the TOS since they agreed they couldn't do that unless it was done in writing (their TOS isn't agreed to in writing).

They probably wouldn't pay voluntarily, but I think it'd be one of those things that'd be interesting to argue in court. Especially seeing as they can't argue that implicit agreement to my terms by use of my likeness is invalid without admitting that implicit agreement to their terms of use by use of their site is also invalid. That, of course, isn't a problem for me because if both are invalid Facebook still lacks a legal right to use my likeness. And I don't have to argue that I never agreed to their TOS, I can argue that I did (and thus have a right to access their site) but that my agreement with them superseded and modified that TOS without invalidating it. They could get around that by not using my image, in which case my terms wouldn't apply and their TOS would be in force, but in that case I still win since they have to filter me out of their advertising use.

Re:Terms of Use

[Zontar The Mindless]

Makes me wish I still worked in radio. Back then, I had a clause in my contract stating that I could not allow my name, voice, or likeness to be used for promotion of any product, service, or organisation without the station's prior approval. Now *that* would be interesting to see FB's legal department deal with.

I'm sure there are lots of folks with FB pages who have similar, existing contractual agreements.

Cue the lawsuits in 3... 2... 1...

*places bag of popcorn in m-wave*

Re:Terms of Use

[Sir Holo]

...You forget, you don't control their ToS. If you don't agree, don't use it, period...

Define "use."

If you formerly had a profile, or have not logged in even once in a few years, are you still using their service (to host the profile)?

Re:Terms of Use

[Virtucon]

Oh agreed. Once you have a profile these sites never let go and sometimes it can crop up in ways you least expect.

I recently had a problem with a third party payment processor for a product I use, and have used for the past few years. Every year I pay for a new subscription for this service and have ever since I started using it. They just use this third party to handle payment processing/fulfillment. Anyway, last month I get this e-mail notification that my software will be automatically renewed by this third party, AvanGate.

I didn't tell this third party I wanted to renew and they just handled the money and the processing when I did renew with the Software Vendor in the past. Going through the website I find that I do indeed have profile with them, and they kept my credit card information, without my consent. While I don't go over every single line in a T&C statement I do remember 1) Not giving them the authority to store my credit card info 2) Not giving them permission to auto-renew my software. After figuring out how to disable auto-renew I then couldn't find a way to delete my profile because I'm not renewing this product any longer. There's no way to delete the profile with these idiots and after sending a message to customer service and their reply is "You still have software assets and we can't delete you're profile." They deliver software keys or CDs on behalf of the software vendor, that's it. They're worse than the old Time-Life books or CBS Records subscriptions. Once you sign up you never can stop!

Re:Terms of Use

[Virtucon]

Well there is such a thing as a unilateral agreement such as "This is a final binding agreement and supersedes all others..."
It's a weasel clause and invalidates your premise because you agreed to their terms when you signed up or keep a profile/account. It also keeps them in complete control of the agreement unless it's superseded by any local laws that may override what they put in there.

And if we look at Facebook's Terms Here: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

We find under Section 19 Other.

2. This Statement makes up the entire agreement between the parties regarding Facebook, and supersedes any prior agreements.

And then there's the old special weasel clauses about invalidation and your rights.

3. If any portion of this Statement is found to be unenforceable, the remaining portion will remain in full force and effect.
4. If we fail to enforce any of this Statement, it will not be considered a waiver.
5. Any amendment to or waiver of this Statement must be made in writing and signed by us.

Typical for a unilateral agreement and any lawyer worth their salt won't let an online service company not have these kinds of things in their ToS, meaning you're fucked. If you don't agree, don't use it, you have no rights other than to use their services, they way they say you can as defined under terms and conditions that they can change, when they want and how they want.

Re:Terms of Use

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the bank actually agreed to that guy's modified terms. The person you're replying to has never sent the modified TOS to Facebook, much less gotten any sort of agreement from them and doesn't understand the difference.

Re:Terms of Use

[Anonymous Coward]

More over, if I have never signed up on facebook but posts a picture of me. What rights do they have to try and post it? Don't I have the right to have myself removed from both, their pictures and face recognition database?

Re:Terms of Use

[Todd Knarr]

That's why I say it'd be interesting to argue. If it were just my use of their site, those clauses would make them safe from modification of the TOS. But it's not just my use of their site, it's their use of my likeness for commercial purposes. Normally, absent some agreement with me, they don't have that right, and it was them acting by using my likeness and not me. If they argue that implicit agreement is valid, then regardless of their TOS they agreed to my terms and agreed to modify the terms of their TOS accordingly in this case. If they argue that implicit agreement is invalid, then they have to admit that they can't rely on my implicit agreement to their TOS and they were using my likeness without permission and owe me compensation for that. And since I've got proof they received my letter, they were aware of this situation before they acted and acted in a way consistent with accepting my terms and modifying their TOS, since they a) used my likeness knowing that I did not agree to the portions of their TOS that would give them permission and b) continued to act as if I had authorization to use their service rather than rejecting such access for failure to agree to the TOS.

The equivalent would be a merchant with a "no checks, no exceptions" policy hearing me say "All I have is a check.", going "That's OK." and accepting my check and ringing me up anyway, and then not cashing my check and trying to claim I hadn't paid because he doesn't accept checks in payment. Even though I knew he didn't accept checks, I have the receipt showing he did accept it in payment and I think there's a winning argument that if he weren't going to accept it he had an obligation to actually refuse to accept it and not ring me up.

Re:Terms of Use

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse still, sometimes it isn't even your profile. Someone recenlty booked a trip via Priceline.com, apparently entering my email address in error (their name is similar, I believe they missed one letter). Now I get all the advertising crap Priceline sends out (there's a lot of it) as well as the itinerary for the trip.

I tried calling Priceline. They don't care: "that's the email address they entered". I tried emailling Priceline. No response. I tried to log on as the customer so I could change the email address but I needed a piece of information I couldn't access (at least Priceline got that bit right) to discover the password.

So, I'm receiving lots of email from Priceline which is of absolutely no value or interest to me. All I can do is block it, and the company has no desire to help in any way.

FWIW I am not a US resident, so I have never and will never use Priceline. This experience guarantees it.

Oh, and as far as Facebook is concerned, I don't use them either. No need. Never have. Never will. The summary presents just one more reason why.

That's not entirely accurate...

[runeghost]

The Facebook users beware. Nobody forced you to use it.

That's the end of USEFUL discussion.

Facebook is reported to have been creating profiles for peoplel who have never signed up. http://www.zdnet.com/anger-mounts-after-facebooks-shadow-profiles-leak-in-bug-7000017167/

Re:That's not entirely accurate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pump up the stock price!

List of alternatives to facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

And by that I mean anti-NSA-spying alternatives, so don't even bother listing google+
I also don't mean other social networks in general. I mean an alternative that is fairly similar to Facebook.
Thanks.

Re:List of alternatives to facebook?

[AHuxley]

Hi AC try http://prism-break.org/
Under Social networking the site lists https:buddycloud.com, https://diasporafoundation.org/ http://friendica.com/ http://movim.eu/ http://pump.io/ and the https://tent.io/ protocol.

Re:List of alternatives to facebook?

[SuricouRaven]

Can't say anything about social networking, but I do endorse Retroshare as an IM/mail program.

Re:List of alternatives to facebook?

[cloudmaster]

Anything big enough to be a relevant general-use competitor will have a difficult time resisting the "suggestions" made by the NSA that "it would be for the best" if the data were made available to the government. You could easily set up a restricted access Word Press blog on your own server and give your friends author access, though. Then you can all write about your days on your own site, get emails when new posts are made, and generally keep in touch without everything being logged.

Or set up Majordomo and email each other. Or whatever else. ...Assuming you can set up good enough encryption, anyway. Otherwise, Prism has your number anyway. :)

I win

[slashmydots]

I'm not on Facebook, I never have been, and I never will be. I also have the magic ability to translate their legal garbage. Let me see...I think it's pronounced "We want to provide you with the best opportunity to MONEEEEYYYY!!!!!!" but that might be a letter or two off. Considering all circumstances, I believe that means I've done it. I win at Facebook! That's right, it was all an elaborate game that over a hundred million people lost at by being gullible and in denial. But nope, winner here!

In other words...

[FuzzNugget]

All your face are belong to us

this is the final straw for me

[Anonymous Coward]

deleted my account. gbye facebook.

Re:this is the final straw for me

[Anonymous Coward]

deleted my account.

You think so?

Face recongnition

[ExCEPTION]

I uploaded 34 pictures of my two kids to Picassaweb yesterday. As soon as the pictures were uploaded, google extracted all the faces from those pictures and arranged them into three groups. One is my son's faces, one is my daughter's, the third one is two faces of my daughter which is in a slightly different angle and a little fuzzy. It asked what their names were, and scared the hell out of me.
I didn't answer the questions.

Re:Face recongnition

[muridae]

Picasa itself will do that same thing locally. I have all my photos taken from my DSLR in folders that Picasa can sort (yeah, it sucks for editing some of the multiple exposure, but it's nice for sorting the finished ones). The local app recognized family members from several angles, but if I filled in any of that information (by relation, ooo, google knows that guy's name is 'dad', scary!) it didn't do anything with it. It just let me sort the pictures in a different way. I could pull just pictures of certain people, I could get rid of certain faces (who cares which photos my art professor showed up in when I was taking photos for a behind the scenes look at an exhibit, sort those by folder/date instead) and I could merge certain faces (yup, those two faces are the same person, get smarter please).

At no point did it suddenly start adding public tags to photos I uploaded to PicasaWeb, or send skynet to kill my family.

Re:Face recongnition

[Anonymous Coward]

Picasa has been doing this for a long time. I installed version 2 or 3 back in 2010 to help some older friends, and noticed that feature. I had personally stayed away from it because of the google ties, but Windows Photo Gallery also does this with the pictures you put in, although the image recognition is pretty aweful (till 2012, it only recognized head on shots and still hates eyewear and hats.) FB has been doing it recognition a long time, and I know my mother keeps tagging me and mentioning my name, signalling my date of birth, etc even though I'm not a member... If I ever do cave in, just from her FB will have a great shadow profile. It's disgusting.
This is without contemplating the real possibility that based on Google plus' example, FB probably does PLACE recognition to some extent. They are already in tag-heaven, so it doesn't take millions of matches or NSA-level neural nets to get "John's house" or "Louvre Museum" down to pretty accurate levels

The app now asks to import non-member data

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

When I had my mother's phone download the Facebook app and set it up for her yesterday, the first thing it did upon login was pop up a screen with three choices -- to not import any contact info from her phone (synced with a Google account), to import all contact data she has for Facebook friends, or import all contact data to Facebook, period. It was quite clearly not offering to merely see which contacts were on Facebook or send out invites to those that weren't.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure it didn't offer to collect all data from her Google/Gmail contacts list when I last set it up for her several months ago... If I'm reading those choices correctly, it would mean that even if Facebook doesn't visibly plug the data into people's profiles, it would still be there for them to use behind the scenes. Obviously I told it to not import anything, but I really hope I misunderstood and leapt to the wrong conclusion.

Re:The app now asks to import non-member data

[hedwards]

I'm curious as to how that doesn't violate any sort of anti-spamming regulation. Doesn't matter if your mother gives them permission to send me an email, they still aren't any more permitted to do so than if I were a complete stranger. Seems like some BS from FB to try and get away with sending unsolicited emails.

Seriously? Fuck those guys

[Anonymous Coward]

I never have and never will give any information to Facebook.
Seriously, fuck those guys.
Choke on a dick, Zuckerberg.

Android App

[Anonymous Coward]

I can only assume that the iOS app is similar, but the Android app uploads not just your phone number (which is scraped without your explicit permission), but also your call history every time you log in.

Let me repeat that: Facebook uploads your entire call history every time you open their Android app.

Re:Android App

[FireFury03]

I can only assume that the iOS app is similar, but the Android app uploads not just your phone number (which is scraped without your explicit permission), but also your call history every time you log in.

Let me repeat that: Facebook uploads your entire call history every time you open their Android app.

I switched to the Atrium app a few months ago, having got fed up with the intrusive ads on the official app and knowing that I could never upgrade the official app because they had massively expanded the permissions it required (there was no way I was going to give it permission to do things like see what apps were running, etc). I've been pretty please with it so far - a couple of slightly niggley bugs, but on the whole its good.

Re:Android App

[hedwards]

I use LBE, it prevents applications from accessing that information without your say so. You can bar them from doing it each time or you can permanently bar them from doing. It's been quite enlightening as to which apps think they need to know where I am, or to access my contacts. Sometimes it's benign, but unexpected, like when Swype wants to see my contacts, presumably to add those names and addresses to it's library for my convenience. But, I don't let it anyways, just because they're already in my contacts, and I'll just cut and copy them in the rare case that I need to.

And that is also not entirely accurate...

[BrokenHalo]

Thanks for the (interesting and scary) link - but that isn't quite what that article says. According to that article, Facebook is compiling shadow profiles of signed-up users to accumulate information they expressly did not add to their public profile, such as phone numbers and email addresses. (And who knows what else...)

Another reason not to do Facebook, though, so I won't. I do maintain an interest, however, because my wife is an active FB user, on the grounds that she says she never posts anything that could be useful for any kind of miscreant. She is not a techie, though, and I have trouble explaining to her that it isn't as simple as that.

Re:And that is also not entirely accurate...

[Antonovich]

While the article doesn't state that they are compiling profiles on people that have never signed up, it would be foolish not to. The expectation is surely that everyone will sign up at some stage, so why not get a head start and compile info now? In any case, it is only logical to attempt to aggregate data that you know is related to a person, even if you can't yet associate that to an "official" user now. And do you think they aren't doing it for people who have "closed" their accounts? When they come back they'll have all this lovely extra info!

So you are certainly right that the article doesn't say they are doing that but I'd wager a fair amount they are.

Re:And that is also not entirely accurate...

[Anonymous Coward]

facebook's data retention and profile compiling is right up there with google and phone companies in their scope and scariness. even if you don't do facebook yourself, it's a safe bet that they know who you are anyway.

Re:And that is also not entirely accurate...

[corran__horn]

Has she ever posted about your upcoming vacation? And has she posted pictures of her garden exploits? Between the two of those, I am guessing that miscreants can find you when you least want them to.

It's good that it's finally out in the open

[OhANameWhatName]

Our goal is to deliver advertising and other commercial or sponsored content

Plain speaking is such a wonderful thing isn't it?

Re:It's good that it's finally out in the open

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats how they make money. You want a free service, you put up with advertising.

Re:It's good that it's finally out in the open

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats how they make money. You want a free service, you put up with advertising.

Fuck that shit. You use firefox with adblock plus and noscript and ghostery to disable all the fucking ads.

Re:It's good that it's finally out in the open

[Anne Thwacks]

What about the selling of souls to the devil? Surely that is their biggest business area?

Re:It's good that it's finally out in the open

[Somebody Is Using My]

There's a difference between selling advertising and selling user information.

And until around the turn of the century companies were able to get along quite well doing just the former (yes, some companies made a business of collecting and reselling information about people - "business intelligence" - but these were uncommon and spent their own money collecting that data, rather than tricking their users into giving it away for free).

The world - and the Internet - can get along quite well without the business tactics practiced by Facebook, Google, the NSA and other such privacy-invading agencies. Marketing and advertising was /not/ a cost-center prior to 2000. It doesn't /need/ these tactics to remain profitable. They saw how easy the Internet made things for them and got greedy.

And while I know I'm in the minority, I would be /quite/ willing to go back to the web of 1995 where advertising was not only exceedingly uncommon, but also not welcome on the net. The services is has "bought" us have not changed the Internet for the better. Even without advertising, companies would still put content on the web (the content itself would be the product, or their webpage would be a consumer portal) and hobbyists would still share the efforts with the world. Or at the very least, let's go back to 1999 when there were obnoxious banner adverts but no organized attempt to track everything a user did on every website into one giant marketing database.

And maybe those god-damn kids FINALLY get off my lawn too!

Lovely arrogance there...

[denzacar]

What you need to remember is this : half the population has an I.Q. of 100 or lower. This means that half the population is not very smart, to express it in charitable terms. A lot of behavior which doesn't seem to "make sense" can be therefore explained by the fact that a very large number of people are just plain idiots.

Your understanding of IQ, social interactions and your purported hiring practices match up really well.

First off... That 100 average IQ is a normalized value.
It will never change, no matter how many "stupid" people or geniuses are out there. 100 will always be average.
Now, thing with bell-shaped curves is, they have this nasty habit of being evenly distributed on both sides.
Also, there's this thing of them having 95% of all values within 2 sigma - which are in this case conveniently situated around that 100 IQ average.

What that means in real life is that 95% of people in the world fall within 2 sigma from 100 IQ.
I.e. Almost everyone is within IQ 70 and IQ 130.
Leaving ~2.5% people with IQ over 130, and just as much of those with the IQ of under 70.

Now here's the fun part. It's a bit counter intuitive, so try to keep up.
First of all, those with IQ below 70 don't really count. We're talking "definite feeble-mindedness" there.
Those people are not what you can in any way call active members of the society.

Then comes that second sigma - those falling in that group between 70 and 85.
Within those 15 IQ points falls 14.591% of humanity. And guess what? Most of those don't count either!
Cause those ranging from 70 to 85 IQ points are what we call "borderline deficient", "borderline impaired or delayed", "well below average" or "borderline mentally retarded".
Again... this being the place on the scale where those number really count, about two thirds of those people are closer to retarded than to plain old "stupid".
You're pretty much not interacting with them online, and very likely not in real life either.

Which leaves us with 95 - 9.7 - 47.5 = 37.5% of humanity that falls within 80 - 100 IQ range, which you might call "stupid people".
In all fairness, actual number of "stupid people" is closer to 30%, as the closer you get to that average of 100 IQ, the more people there are and there is a greater chance that many of them are closer to 100 than measured.

Now, one third of humanity MAY seem like a "very large number of people" - but they are actually a MINORITY compared to the 50% of humans who are of ABOVE AVERAGE intelligence.

So... umm... yeah... Your "arguments" about all those idiots? More like arrogance.
And that's more dangerous than plain old low intelligence cause it masquerades as wisdom creating that warm feeling of being right - even when you're completely clueless.
BTW, love the way you managed to weave in a (completely meaningless and valueless) comparison of YOUR company with those on F500 list though nobody asked for it AND though you're posting anonymously.

Arrogance will also leave you safely inside your cocoon of cluelessness regarding human interactions beyond those that you can hire out or were born into.
Or you would have figured out or guessed by know that people tend to have these groups of people called families, friends, acquaintances, school friends etc.
None of whose IQ or personal preferences or simply lack of paranoia regarding privacy they can't control nor can they just cut out those persons from their life or ignore them when they reappear in their life.
And many of those people just happen to find social media like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr etc. as highly useful/entertaining/practical/fun.

And if you're really limiting your own pool of potential talent by adding such an arbitrary limitation as you say you do - you might as well be chucking out all people who's favorite color is blue.
Or green. Or whatever.

But hey... Do keep up with that.
I'm certain your competition has nothing against the idea of you limiting your own options.
I sure love it.

Battle of the forms

[Animats]

Read up on the legal issue of a "battle of the forms".

The product

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not paying for a product, you ARE the product. I'm quitting today.

Re:The product

[drkim]

If you're not paying for a product, you ARE the product. I'm quitting today.

"I'm not in the business. I am the business."

FTFY

It's Identity Theft

[Anonymous Coward]

12-24 year olds define themselves (by their) peer groups... It is just what one (does).

FB's new PP: All your profile belong to us.

Suckerberg is the new PT Barnum

That's it.. I'm switching to Google Plus

[Anonymous Coward]

Good old Google. They respect my data privacy and wouldn't misuse my private data for financial gain.

How blatant can you get?

[aggles]

...and FB's NSA overlords sit back smiling

The word you were looking for was "Keelhaul"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not "overhauling" a "data use policy". I really get the impression that Facebook is paid by the NSA for figuring out the LD50 rate of privacy violations where half the users prefer quitting a service.

And they are fascinated by the ongoing experiment: "man, would you have thought that so many fat old fogeys have it in them to bend over that much!"

Do you go outside?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because EVERYBODY outside can see what you are doing, and if you wear/use/carry any branded product YOU are a COMMERCIAL for that corporation.

Get the fuck over yourself. You're really (and I mean REALLY) not that fucking important. Quit being such a pussy and get on with your life.
Did you know that the police can listen on your phone calls? Did you know that the FBI can read your emails (even your encrypted ones if the NSA helps out)?

I do realize that you probably have no life, and therefore no reason to connect with people on Facebook - and that's okay. If you want to complain about how hard it is to communicate with people on your own terms and in the privacy of your own world, please, *please*, shut the fuck up about it on public forums.

We are too

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook - keeping Luddites and Losers off social networks.

Care to pastebin your list?

[Anonymous Coward]

And some ideas on how you are keeping it up-to-date?

care to pastebin your list?

[Anonymous Coward]

And some ideas as to how you keep it up-to-date?

sorry if this is a repost.

Location, Location, Location

[smith6174]

Am I the only one that notices that the Facebook iPhone app reads your location every time you use it too? Why wasn't this mentioned? Presumably they are just innocently trying to give me the best location-specific advertising, but their reasons don't concern me. They know where you are whenever you use the app.

Re:Location, Location, Location

[hedwards]

A lot of applications do that without warning you that they're doing it, or giving a plausible explanation for it. I don't use iOS, so I'm not sure what apps there are, but for Android, I use LBE that prevents the applications from accessing the GPS or various parts of the handheld that they don't need. If it doesn't have a reasonable reason for requiring my location, I decline, and even if it does, I make it ask for permission before it does it.

Why this is even legal is beyond me. There is no informed consent going on here. People are not being given the information necessary to consent and as such. I think most people would be shocked at how much of their information is being collected without their knowing about it.

it's the business model, stupid.

[Rob Y.]

For all the kneejerk 'Google is Evil' memes that flare up whenever it is revealed how they read your email, etc., Google has been pretty consistent about their business model. They gather info on your habits and use it to present targeted ads *to you*. This has proven to be an effective form of advertisement (in search, at least), and has made Google lots of dough without selling your info directly to anyone - or even getting too intrusive with their advertising (and you can use AdBlock, if that's too much). Creepy? Kind of. But it's an acceptable tradeoff for most people in exchange for the free services.

Facebook's model has some similarities, but they are much freer with direct publication of your info. Some of that is inherent to their service - after all, you're putting the stuff up there to be public to some extent at least. But their means of monetizing your info are less clear than Google's. The idea that they would use your image to endorse products to other people without your express permission is way over the line. I suspect that inline ads on the facebook page (a la Google) just aren't cutting it as a business model, since those ads probably aren't very effective. Google has the advantage of presenting ads when you're actually looking to buy something. This can even be helpful at times, though you're obviously not getting a neutral selection of results - in the paid ones, at least.

For most 'free' internet services, we're still in the phase where venture capital is filling in for a viable business model. And for the ones relying purely on advertising, most of them will never pan out. Then what? Another wave of over-hyped services, or a less appealing (or less free) internet that is actually self-sustaining.

Re:it's the business model, stupid.

[Omestes]

Google's terms are still a bit wonkey, though. They are vague enough to do the same things as Facebook.

I've pretty much given up though. It is a losing battle, and I'm resigned to the fact that pretty much everything I do online isn't mine the second I hit "submit". I can either completely abstain from the internet; put in a inordinate amount of time and work to perhaps secure a small bit of myself, or just accept it and proceed with a touch of vigilance. I'm not endorsing this as everyone's choice, but it is the one the works for me, given that none of them are particularly good.

I don't post anything that matters, or that is personal, or that could come and bite me in the butt. Pretty much nothing that you couldn't gather from sitting in a room with me for 15 minutes. The more personal things never hit the internet. If I wouldn't share it with a temporary bar pal, I won't share it online. As for my "IP" (that terms makes me feel dirty, but its the best I got), I only post limited versions for others to see, versions that are watermarked, cropped, and generally inferior in quality. This isn't to keep pirates at bay (I don't really care, at least not at this point), but to keep corporations like Google and Facebook from using it for profit. Having a letter of marque doesn't make you any less a pirate, in my book.

I am a minority, most people don't care. I knew a guy who was on probation, who continually posted pictures of him drinking alcohol on Facebook. I pondered the stupidity of this for a long time. People post their full sex lives, their really personal bits (STDs, Abortions, criminal acts, drug use, etc...) without even thinking about it. Hell, last weekend me and my girlfriend were on vacation, and I almost "checked in" to a location 400 miles from home, advertising the fact that our house was empty, and our stuff was ripe for the picking. And to make matters worse, or more entertaining, no one even cares about the shit we share (at least the people we want to care).

Quitting is Pointless for Me

[Jarmihi]

I know there are several alternatives to Facebook. The only problem is: no one I know uses them. The reason I stay on Facebook is because my friends and acquaintances are all there. If there was some mass exodus to another social network, I'd be happy to join it. Until then, however, my leaving by myself will only leave me feeling isolated online.

Not all of my friends are computer savvy and really only know what the mainstream Internet has, and aren't really able or willing to understand the rest of the social networking platforms out there, and so I'm socially stuck with Facebook. It's easy for a Forever-alone Nerd-troll to tell me what I think and should do regarding Facebook, but honestly, I'm able to have friends who don't know their HTTP from their FTP and don't particularly care about the hip new social networking platforms.

Aside: you know what there isn't? A public service campaign to introduce the masses to Facebook alternatives. THAT would be more effective than wasting time telling other people what they should do with their social network on an Internet forum.

Re:Quitting is Pointless for Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Until then, however, my leaving by myself will only leave me feeling isolated online.

Not to make fun of you or anyone else with personality disorders, but dude...seek help. If your sense of self-worth is that tied up with Facebook (or any other Internet playground) then you need professional help. I swear I don't mean that in a mean or hateful way, I'm being serious.

Yes, I'm back...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Facebook.

You. Shall. Learn.

Fucknut Company

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be very exciting watching this company disappear.

Re: Current Directory

[bbsalem]

As usual, the replies have missed the point ..... slash-dot!

Face Book shut down the Social Fixer page accsuing it of being spam. Could it be that they didn't pay the troll? FB can change its revenue strategy and start charging more and more people to promote their pages, and shoot themselves in the foot.

Social fixer is a Javascript and CSS app that tried to fix the numerous flaws of FB's default UI. It is based on quicksand provided by FB jerking everybody around. That can be fixed by defunding FB and forcing unbundling of the UI and CMS from the friend's list, and negating FB's business strategy.

I think that the recent changes at FB show that they are struggling with their business model, and that possibly it will fail soon. We can hope, as it will allow someone else to do it better.

Facebook is over

[Anonymous Coward]

It just doesn't know it yet.