Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Apologizes For 'Year In Review' Photos
Facebook this year showed users a compilation of photos drawn from their own gallery of uploaded images, but the automatic nature of the collation and display of those photos inspired the need for an apology on Facebook's part to at least one reader who was upset by the compiled pictures. That may sound silly, but even innocent data-mashing can touch real nerves.
"Eric Meyer, a web design consultant and writer, is one of those people. Earlier this year, he lost his daughter to brain cancer on her sixth birthday. For that reason, Meyer wrote in a blog post, he had actively avoided looking at previews of his own automatically generated summary post.
But Facebook put a personalized prompt advertising the feature in his newsfeed, he wrote, prominently featuring the face of his dead daughter -- surrounded by what appears to be clip art figures having a party."
Is this seriously how we want our lives run?
Or do we want Facebook even deeper into our personal tish so their algorithm can "get it right" next time?
Terrible that these things happen...
Yet another example that living in online world, you must be ready to always face what you leave behind.
My hopes are that ppl really understood this really simple thing.
It may not make a difference now what you post or do, yet in 5-10-20 years, it might be a huge thing in individuals life.
will they make money from it?
You voluntarily hand over your privacy to a group with a long history of treating your life as their product. And then you act shocked when they take liberties with what they feel is theirs....
I find it hard to feel sorry for people who complain. Welcome to the flipside of being able to tell people that you passed gas while lunching at Starbucks with the press of a button. *yawn*
Mine showed a photo that someone (or maybe even Facebook's automatic tagging thingie) had tagged me in, even though I was not in it. I'd just posted the thing without previewing it because I figured what the hell.
Anyway, that photo was one that some girl had taken at a party I was not even at, where she was dressed pretty provocatively and making a lustful gesture. I don't even remember having seen the notification that I was tagged. In any case, my wife saw this and went into orbit, thinking I had been cheating on her and was boasting about it on facebook. Now I've been sued for divorce and have lawyers demanding I turn over my hard drives. Add to that, all of my Facebook friends saw it and were like "what the hell?" It has been a total embarrassment and has basically ruined my life.
Thanks a lot, Mr. Fuckerberg.
Facebook keeps showing me one of those also, for mine they picked a photo I took of a flood at our lake home. Images of our docks under water, tree limbs floating by, with a happy party border. I laugh each time I see it, but I can see not wanting some photos being revived onto my feed.
Elected not to participate?
I purposely haven't touched my year in review thing, but it's constantly up the top of my facebook news feed - with a recent picture I took on a trip.
I dare say the same thing has happened to him, except with a picture of his dead daughter.
I can't hide it ("I don't want to see this" hides it until the page refreshes), I didn't ask for it, but personally I don't care.
The difference is, he's being taunted by facebook with his dead daughter against his will.
My "year in review" prominently displayed a picture of the back of my car having been crushed in when I got rear ended by a giant truck. My obvious response was "gee, thanks Facebook." Obviously that doesn't have anything on a picture of someone's deceased daughter, but it shows how poorly conceived the feature is.
I am looking at pictures of dead babies now.
this would make a nice t-shirt or bumper sticker.
lucm, indeed.
This should not have been 'automatic'. I was greeted by an image of a pet i lost.
Actually I didn't click on it, Facebook conveniently placed a simulation of the year in review for me to see on my feed.
With Facebook being all about making sense of data for advertising purpose you would expect they would come up with some smart algorithm that would figure out the actual context behind posts. I'd expect Facebook to know when people are happy, sad, angry, drunk, silly etc. when they post and use that information not only for targeted advertising but for the benefit of their users.
This is how adults resolve things. There were no lawsuits. There were no mass protests. There was a guy who said "Yeah, that picture the algorithm picked? It hurt." And Facebook said "Wow, we can see that would hurt, and we're sorry it did. We will try to do better."
WTF is wrong with this exchange?
WTF is wrong with this exchange?
Using Facebook in the first place is what's wrong.
The year in review is just a summary of what you yourself have posted. "Don't show me my own photos" seems like an unrealistic request for a mainstream service. I think the most that can be done is have a preference that people can check if they don't want their year in review. Facebook has plenty of ethical flaws, but this is not one of them.
The mass protests are about people being killed and are happening because authorities aren't listening.
No, actually the mass protests are happening because various rabble-rousers like Al Sharpton
colluded with irresponsible media outlets to manipulate people into feeling outrage despite the
harsh truth that the facts relevant to the events in which the people were killed clearly indicate
that those who were killed acted in a manner which brought them serious trouble. Attack a cop
and you can and SHOULD expect a counter attack.
This is not rocket science and I am god damned tired of fuckwits like you parroting bullshit
which make people who asked for trouble appear to be innocent victims.
What you need to do us shut the fuck up and educate yourself on the events as they
really happened and quit spewing childish fantasy bullshit. However I have to point
out that your user ID is spot on.
can someone explain to me why it's so important to have a Facebook account?
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
I quite liked my year in review. The pictures were from some of my favorite events of the year. Whatever algorithm they used came up with a very nice collection of pictures.
Some commenters are ridiculing how people were 'outraged' from the year in review. But if you look at the actual article by Eric (http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2014/12/24/inadvertent-algorithmic-cruelty/) - and note the title -'inadvertent algorithmic cruelty' it is much more an analysis of the design of the feature and applying human sensitivity to software design. His closing statement is 'If I could fix one thing about our industry, just one thing, it would be that: to increase awareness of and consideration for the failure modes, the edge cases, the worst-case scenarios.'
It wasn't a rant against Facebook. It wasn't a 'woe is me, Facebook ruined my life'. It was a post about how Facebook's design has an affect on him that they probably weren't going for.
Had it not been Eric Meyer, I would imagine there would have been no public apology, though perhaps just a rethink of the design.
There wasn't really even a demand that Facebook change anything. But if you're Facebook, you might consider how many others are in a similar situation that Eric is in and are confronted by uncomfortable images. It isn't good business to have people made uncomfortable, unhappy or pained by your product.
Similar to if they had accidentally had Goatse show up in everybody's feed. Even if nobody complained, you are still going to lose at least some customers because it makes the experience unpleasant.
yeah almost like a REAL friend FACEBOOK! I was shocked to see my beets and greens I ate last spring! Kind of a weird idea 'injecting' what you supposedly want to see. remember; All 'your pictures' are 'our pictures' in Soviet Facebook.
The dimwits at fb came up with yet another "Great Idea", did a half-assed implementation without thinking it through, and wound up hurting and pissing off people.
No one, and I mean literally not one single person old enough to know anything about computers and social media should be surprised by this latest screw up.
I don't expect companies or individuals to be perfect. But I do expect them to learn from their mistakes; when they shoot themselves in the foot and then reload and keep pulling the trigger, I have no sympathy for them.
I lost my three year old daughter early this year, and I certainly understand how this person feels. I've been avoiding looking at my Facebook photo albums as well. I think it's a kind gesture from Facebook to acknowledge that their user base contains people in every situation imaginable, and for many, a photo retrospective is inappropriate. The only person who should be curating personal photos in Facebook is the profile owner.
When you invite Mr Corporate into your life, it is much the same as inviting a vampire into your home, they never leave and do what they will. Mr Corporate has a tendency to be overly politically correct in pursuit of his profits and because of that correctness lamerfies everything he touches. Now Mr Corporate is not a bad guy and he'll do something nice if he thinks it will make him some money, but usually, he ends up having to apologize for it because when he does things like that they always lack sincerity.
It's like apologizing after facefucking someone, you still did it and the act of apologizing doesn't make the errant facefuck any more sincere so you will continue to enjoy facefucking others.
The thing is, if you don't like being facefucked, you shouldn't agree to the terms of a facefucking service and be surprised when you get a sincere facefuck.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Let's see, we have Mike Brown, who MIGHT have "attacked," though the witnesses are starting to be questionable..
You conveniently choose to leave out the reality of the closed circuit video of Brown physically attacking the convenience store owner. That was the reason the cop was called to the scene. Brown then attacked the cop ( Brown had powder burns on his own hands, which indicates Brown's hands were within inches of the gun when it was fired ). Brown attacked the cop and the cop did what was necessary to neutralize the threat.
The guy selling cigarettes illegally was engaged in criminal activity. If he had not rested arrest he would still be alive. When you resist arrest the police ARE entitled under the law to use force if necessary to arrest you. That's how the REAL WORLD works. I've been arrested, and I did NOT resist because I knew that if I did resist I'd get my ass beat down by the cops. If you are being arrested the smart move is to cooperate and act in a respectful manner. It will work in your favor during the arrest and in court as well.
By the way, genius, you guessed wrong about my ethnicity. I am African-American. I have a law degree and I worked my ass off to get where I am in life. And I know that the system we live in is imperfect but it is better than any reasonably available alternative. I know that fucking with a cop who
is trying to do his job is a losing game and I advise all my clients to cooperate fully if they are stopped by the police. If Brown and the cigarette seller
had cooperated with the cops they would both still be alive. There is a lesson here, whether you are too damned stupid in your third-person righteous
indignation to grasp the lesson or not.
You conveniently choose to leave out the reality of the closed circuit video of Brown physically attacking the convenience store owner. That was the reason the cop was called to the scene.
You seem to be engaging in some erroneous statements. For one thing, the story from the Ferguson PD has been that the officer knew nothing of that event, and that Michael Brown wasn't in or near that convenience store, that it was another officer investigating that crime, which was not near where Michael Brown was shot.
http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/ferguson-chief-officer-didnt-know-about-robbery/14124259/
In any case, theft of a few dollars worth of tobacco products doesn't constitute a crime that warrants execution in any state.
The issue was resolved. Good. Facebook is still an asshole for using an algorithm not adequately tested to make sure it didn't produce stupid hurtful images like this.
That is terrible. You have the sympathies of a least one Anonymous Coward.
I can't imagine what you are going through.
As good as algorithms get, they still can't detect sarcasm or irony (including trolling). There's enough of that happening on the melodramatic Facebook feeds that it's probably wise not to attempt to auto-detect emotions too much.
It's a shitty algorithm - and you wouldn't understand. It did the exact same thing to me. My mother went through a long illness and passed away, and facebook decided to take me back through that and say it was a great year.
I don't give a shit about other people's happy shitty thoughtless posts, but it showed me a picture of my dead mother and said "It was a great year, thanks for being a part of it."
I didn't ask to see that shit. They should learn something from this fucking shit. Really pissed me off and hurt. Good vibes for the holidays. Screw facebook, I'm leaving soon. Sorry I'm not being eloquent, but seriously, fuck them for doing that. You don't show people pictures of their recently deceased loved ones and wish them a happy holidays.
So, no it's not that one guy. I'm pissed at your attitude and that you're getting modded up. It wasn't a cool mistake and really makes me despise facebook a lot more. Ironically one the reasons I think I don't want to kill my facebook account is because even if everyone moves on, there are still a significant amount of dead people in my friend list whose profiles are of more value than that of the living people on there.
I just wanted to say this argument isn't articulate, but you're an insensitive clod imho.
Ever consider the case that he probably posted the photo of his daughter while she was still alive? And that he either forgot about it or couldn't bring himself to retroactively delete it?
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
I've always disagreed with most of the premises behind facebook.
I would use a service that:
1. Didn't share any of my data with anyone
2. Didn't try to make my comments on other sites visible
3. Didn't try to mix my family with my friends or my work or assume that I have only one set of friends.
4. Didn't make me read every inane utterance of everyone I've ever come in contact with
5. Didn't try to sell me anything
6. Didn't try to sell me social games, I need social games like I need a long term illness
Also I'd be willing to pay for a service if that meant no f'n adds.
That you keep arguing the facts of specific cases seems to indicate that you are missing the point. People aren't in the streets protesting - let alone rioting - because one, or even 5, guys were killed by the police. There is a long, long history of police not being terribly respectful of the community that they "serve". These recent cases are the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. The cases are not perfect - there is no Rosa Parks - but you can't necessarily plan exactly when the powder keg will explode. While your advice to cooperate with the police is sound, it is a bit terrifying. Local cops are supposed to be serving the community, not doing a bunch of crap that the community doesn't want. Why is a beat cop enforcing a state cigarette tax? Is that really what the local community is clamoring for?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Adults shouldn't post their photos to any company where they are the PRODUCT then bitch about it.
Facebook Sucks
Why is a beat cop enforcing a state cigarette tax? Is that really what the local community is clamoring for?
Why wouldn't a police officer enforce the law? I do not get this. Or are you saying that the police should obey the popular opinion on what constitutes a crime and what should be enforced instead of the actual local law? If the "community" does not like the law, then try to get i changed.
Then again, I live in a country that is not so fragmented.
And if they guy selling cigarettes resisted arrest or even tried to pick a fight with the cop (always a very bad idea) instead of just paying the fine then he is really stupid. Resisting arrest or even trying to run away will make the cop think that you have committed a more serious crime (well, he wouldn't run away just for the cigarettes, I bet he has some crack too or there is an active warrant for his arrest) and the cop will be that much more interested in arresting you.
hi friends
I agree. But fucking with a cop when you're a huge black dude certainly does warrant execution. I say this as a decently sized white dude who grew up in a black neighborhood, don't make any aggressive moves towards a guy who's job makes them paranoid and anxious (cops, soldiers, etc)
I've had cops grab their holster in my presence just because I'm bigger. The reason I'm alive isn't because I'm white. It's because I slowed my roll, ya feel me?
I really wish the brown case would fall off the face of the earth. Their entire family is trashy as fuck.
Michael brown isn't rosa parks. Rosa parks pretty calmly did what she wanted to do and people around her later realized "oh shit we were wrong". The Michael brown case is an overblown "free my cousin Tyrone, he's innocent!".
I know police brutality exists, but if you want to get it fixed you have to pick your martyrs more carefully.
No, actually the mass protests are happening because various rabble-rousers like Al Sharpton colluded with irresponsible media outlets to manipulate people into feeling outrage despite the harsh truth that the facts relevant to the events in which the people were killed clearly indicate that those who were killed acted in a manner which brought them serious trouble. Attack a cop and you can and SHOULD expect a counter attack.
Yeah, a cop should be able violate his his own department rules and use a choke hold on someone that kills them ignoring pleas from that person that he can't breath and then stand around doing nothing when he stops breating. Note his level of resistence consisted of raising his arms up. There should be no problems with a cop summarily executing a kid running around with a pellet gun without any form of interaction with the kid before killing him even after they were told it was probably a toy gun. Any less than outright execution might have put an officer at risk. And there should be absolutely no issues with a cop shooting someone walking up stairway with his girlfriend and then taking no action to render aid to the person he just shot but rather call his union representive so they can start the spin machine going. There shoud be no problem with a mob of cops shooting hundreds of rounds at 2 unarmed people in a car including one cop jumping on the hood of the car and putting several rounds into them through the windsheild. There shouls be no issues with cops making no knock raids on wrong houses that results in innocent people being killed. Not cop people. If you shoot at the unknown black masked thugs invading your house you'd go to jail. Mind you I can go on all night listing crap police have done and gotten away with that would have resulted in serious incarceration for anyone not a cop.
And lets talk about the one your defending. At the grand jury hearing to decide if charges were justified apperently the prime witness supporting the cops account of what happened that the DA brought in to testify was outright lying and couldn't have possibly been near where the shooting happened. And no one should have an issue that the DA admitted he knew that she was lying before he brought her to testify at the hearing. The DA did everything he could to make certain no charges were brought. To paraphrase one expert normally a DA can get charges brought on a sandwich. Whatever the truth was there was more than enough question that there should have been a trial.
This is not rocket science and I am god damned tired of fuckwits like you parroting bullshit which make people who asked for trouble appear to be innocent victims.
And I'm tired of dipshits who too stupid to realize that there are serious systematic issues with the policing in this country. I was in the Infantry stationed in Germany at the peak of the cold war. Our sector was dead center in the Fulda Gap which was the prime Soviet invasion route into central Germany. Those cops on the streets in Ferguson were better equiped then we were. And they weren't at all hesitant to point their assault rifles at anyone and everone violating the first rule of gun safety. You have to be turnip level of stupid not to see any of this as being an issue.
What you need to do us shut the fuck up and educate yourself on the events as they really happened and quit spewing childish fantasy bullshit. However I have to point out that your user ID is spot on.
What you need to do us shut the fuck up and educate yourself on the events as they are really happening and quit spewing childish fantasy bullshit. However I have to point out that your user ID is spot on.
Who is John Galt?
No, he uploaded the photos and he's the one that keeps going back to Facebook to see them on display.
I think it's great that Facebook is altering the behaviour of their system to avoid problems like this, but lets not pretend that they're purposely causing their users harm. This is the kind of shit that can and does happen when you broadcast your personal life to the entire world. If you don't want things like this to happen to you don't use these kinds of services.
Not only that but resisting arrest is a crime in the first place in overwhelming majority of the countries.
A reasonable course of action is to allow police officer to arrest you and then figure out if he had grounds to do so with his higher ups at the station.
This is how adults resolve things. There were no lawsuits. There were no mass protests. There was a guy who said "Yeah, that picture the algorithm picked? It hurt." And Facebook said "Wow, we can see that would hurt, and we're sorry it did. We will try to do better."
WTF is wrong with this exchange?
The problem is that the web designer's situation should be irrelevant to our evaluation of the choice Facebook made. Sure, it makes it easier for unreasonable people to draw emotional conclusions. What if the web designer was lying, and completely fabricating the complaint? Most people's opinion would change.
If Facebook posted aggregate pictures to their server, then there are 2 questions: do they break any (reasonable) law, and did they do something to upset their customers or users? "My child died of cancer" is not relevant. This is why courtrooms have to throw out "evidence", because only a small percentile of a small percentile of people can actually forcefully ignore such things in their considerations.
Let's see.
User's daughter is alive. He takes pictures of her and posts them on facebook like a proud parent.
User's daughter dies. User grieves.
User starts to get over his grief. Facebook tosses the images right in his face.
Reaction of a third party: "well you shouldn't have posted them in the first place!"
Tell me AC. Are you this sociopathic in life outside slashdot too? Because if you are, you should seek psychiatric help.
Problem is I'm reading about it. But there's nothing to read about. The guy would be sad about his daughter dying no matter what, no need for other people to change algorithms etc.
I've clicked "I don't want to see this" several dozen times and these annoyances still keep appearing.....
How is suffocating in a chokehold "resisting arrest"? He was not actually being arrested, by the way. But this kind of "if police kills you, you probably deserved it" logic really needs to go. This sort of uniform-bearer worship leads to Grand Juries not even handing out an indictment. That makes it impossible to actually do a proper trial in order to figure out truth and justice, and that in turn exacerbates the police stance that they are attack dogs, trained to attack and kill on a whim, with any resulting casualties being the victim's problem.
The idea of police is to make it less not more dangerous to go out on the street. Killing people selling unregistered cigarettes is not exactly improving the statistics.
The only person who should be curating personal photos in Facebook is the profile owner.
You mean the person who clicked through the ToS that grant Facebook a perpetual, commercial, sublicenceable, license to use the photos however they wish? Including (as they've done in the last) licensing them to third parties to use in adverts?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What on earth are you talking about?
I was talking about specific problem - resisting arrest as a way to protest police action. It's stupid in both potential cases:
1. You're guilty. You just add resisting arrest to the case, making it worse for you in the court.
2. You're innocent. You could have walked, but now you're going to get criminal record for resisting arrest.
You lose in both cases.
Again, I know this is hard for a lot of people, but "legally allowed" != "should"
If you had something hurtful happen this year then don't click on a big photo thing that says "year in review"?!
I haven't clicked on mine because I usually hate that crap from Facebook so I just ignore it... I wouldn't know if there was something hurtful in it or not....
...hooked up to an EEG machine.
The backstory is that I had gone to roust him out of bed because he's chronically late but found him in the bathroom, unconscious and not breathing. Somehow he had passed out, fell, and landed on a trash bin and the bin liner had blocked his airway.
He spent four days in the ICU, the first day in a propofol-induced coma with an EEG connected. It was a horrifying experience and my wife posted the image two days later basically as a way of letting people know what had happened and why we had gone silent to everyone for a few days.
She was annoyed by the image of him presented as "what a great year" but I don't think much more than annoyed.
I think the entire feature is lame and I've marked all of them (my own suggested one and every other I've been presented) as "I don't want to see this". Trying to block my own suggested one in the Facebook IOS app consistently crashed the app.
My takeaway on this is that Facebook's image analytics suck. As good as they seem to be at identifying faces for tagging you might think they would be able to train their system to identify smiling faces so that when they suggested images they would tend to show ones more likely to be positive and reject others.
Also, those "Year in Review" things don't get posted to your timeline until you click the "Share" button. He openly admitted that he didn't look at the preview and then clicked Share anyway? And he blames Facebook?
My heart feels for him and his loss, and I respect Facebook Administration for their apology, but this guy never should have shared his year in review.
Mai Bad. I think I may have misunderstood. It's unclear that he shared it at all. It was just the prompt to share it that was offensive, and that makes the offence a lot more understandable.
Perhaps you should educate yourself to Eric Garner's situation. Even comes with video proof. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... This officer was not charged with a crime.
You and everyone else are missing the point here. As far as Michael Brown was concerned he was a thug participating in a thug lifestyle. Regardless of whether or not he was near said store, what he stole, or what he did he was leading a lifestyle that eventually would end with him in jail or shot. It just happened sooner than later. I am not saying whether or not what happened was justified at the time, but eventually what happened was going to happen. When you play thug games your life will end as all thug lives do, in jail or dead! In my opinion both parties were guilty here. The cop for unnecessary use of force, but if kids had manners and discipline these days Michael Brown might not have smarted off to the police officer to begin with which is what started the confrontation. One of my favorite quotes from Forest Gump fits here: "Stupid is as stupid does." One can't expect to live a lifestyle like this and not have any repercussions.
"To protect and serve"
The assumption is that this means you.
Requiem for the American Dream
Why arrest someone who's innocent?
Requiem for the American Dream
Stop using Facebook.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I see titties nearly every night and morning. If that's warping me in some horrid fashion, I say "Bring it on".
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I agree with you that the "It was a great year" line was going way to far.
On the other hand, compiling a slideshow of uploaded pics is ok, because viewing them and have them bring back memories is what photos usually are for. Until everyone started to post their food as before and after pictures, you'd take pictures of those special moments you want to remember. So bringing them up in a year review is completly legit.
And if someone beloved died, that's part of that year, too. But this is where the picture-pick-algorithm ends. Slapping a thoughtless "oh what a great year it was" just because market research says that it fits the happy-holidays-mood is stupid and thoughtless. And it somehow shows that even the guys at facebook have lost of what they're actually doing. Half of them is seing their service from the single-average-user-viewpoint, and the other half only sees their data as a source of targeted -advertising data. No one ever thought how many users will see the assumption that they had a fantastic year. And it's a bit of common sense that with millions of facebook users, not everyone possibly could have had a fantastic year.
bickerdyke
He's got a point, though. Facebook is the creepy guy in the van trading pictures of your kids for candy. They're not exactly shy about sharing the fact that they want to monetize every bit of information you give them.
You're just playing the "Don't blame the victim!" card... I can feel sorry for the guy while still hoping that he (and others) learns from this incident.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Any number of reasons ranging from mistaken identity to improperly acting police officer?
Why are you asking questions wholly irrelevant to the topic?
So you grab the extreme edge case and peddle it as norm.
Why?
It's usually best to avoid smugly correcting others when you're clueless on the subject. In adversary justice system like that in US, the scenario #2 will usually warrant a long look from prosecutor to see if the case is worth bringing to court. Most cases of such nature will usually be either settled as is the case in US or straight up dropped with a slap on the wrist like a fine like happens in most of Europe with no going to court unless you contest prosecutor's decision.
In investigatory system like in France, you'll have magistrate look into the case, decide that there is likely no merit and that there is probably merit against the police and let you off with a slap on the wrist.
This function had a 'don't want to see' button/option/dropdown menu, a little triangle on the righ side you could choose not to see it, like most ads. You could get rid of it pretty easily.
I can say with great confidence that the algorithm indeed sucks since the stupid images didn't even load for me - I've tried with different browsers and all I see when I click on "My Year in Review" is a slightly darker viewport.
Facebook didn't apologize to me but chances are that they don't even know that I have a problem since I don't have a blog a lot of people follow, I didn't write on my wall about it and I only tried to inform them through the generic report a problem feature that nobody seemed to read.
Of course, my life won't be at loss because I've never seen what would be on "My Year in Review" (after all, I've seen all the images that are meant to be there before) so I didn't made a big deal out of it and I didn't care enough to try to figure out why the images aren't loading, or inform people who might want to that that.
But regardless, fuck you Facebook for not giving me an apology.
If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
Thanks, it's the worst pain a person can feel. I'm doing OK. I know what I'm giving up when using Facebook and I'm cool with that. There are classy, respectable ways to use peoples data, and I'm glad society is having this conversation on the finer points of net etiquette.
Selling loose cigarettes clearly requires the death penalty. Making millions of dollars growing tobacco and/or manufacturing cigarettes, however, makes you southern royalty. Extra points if the family made the money with slave labor.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Those darn negroes. If they're not killing their unborn children for birth control, they're making trouble because their born children are being killed over misdemeanors. Just no pleasing them. You never see white people complaining that a cop shot their 12 year old for playing with a toy gun, now do you? I swear, sometimes I think we should have kidnapped and enslaved a better class of people. One which would be grateful for the opportunity.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Improperly acting police officer -- this is the problem isn't it.
The idea that justice prevails doesn't work if the police don't follow the rules.
If I'm innocent - am I going to be screwed over if I submit and allow myself to be captured by the police. I'd say that in a certain town where they like to get funding for locking up black people, the answer is gonna be yes.
Requiem for the American Dream
No, that is just one of countless amount of problems, most of which are generally not on police side of things. You are presenting one edge case as a norm. Why?
So that I can receive a nonsensical reply from you :D
Requiem for the American Dream
I've had my "year in review" pop up several times in my Facebook feed, not just once. I haven't shared it, but I've seen it. Fortunately, the cover picture is one of my wife when we were having a very nice dinner, not something that hurts me when I see it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I didn't see anybody saying that Facebook was out to hurt anybody, just that that's what wound up happening, and that Facebook voluntarily did something about it. That's good.
He didn't go back to Facebook to see the photos, he went back because Facebook is useful in keeping in contact with people. Facebook showed him a picture of his dead child (probably repeatedly) without him doing anything else.
All services come with possible downsides. If you don't want to die in a traffic accident, never drive or cross the street. If you don't want to be shot, don't go to a movie theater. I eat food, despite the danger of fatal food poisoning. I'd rather do something with a risk than nothing at all.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Why wouldn't a police officer enforce the law? I do not get this.
An officer armed with a deadly weapon should be used to enforce a very narrow set of laws. People make terrible generalists - we are best when we specialize. We let the IRS handle tax problems, health inspectors handle food laws, and fire inspectors handle code violations. Your average local beat cop should not be expected to enforce every law - and yes, their mandate should be primarily focused on keeping the locals happy. Everyone needs to feel comfortable relying on the local cops or they fail to do their primary job. As an example, an illegal immigrant should be able to go to the cops if they are the victim of a violent crime. If they know that they will be thrown out of the country if they report a mugging, they will not report the mugging and we all suffer.
In this particular case, let the state/local tax board send over an investigator when someone calls in to complain that someone is selling cigarettes without paying their taxes.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.