EU Justice Commissioner Quits Facebook, Describing Her Experience as 'Channel of Dirt' (washingtonpost.com)

The European Commissioner for justice, consumers and gender equality shut down her Facebook account, describing her experience on the social network as a "channel of dirt." From a report: At a news conference Thursday in Brussels, Vera Jourova said that she received an "influx of hatred" on the popular platform and decided to cancel her account as a result. "I don't want to avoid communication with people, even with critical people," she said, noting her decision to leave Facebook was not to avoid public criticism. Her mailbox is filled with critical comments, she said, and she responds to those people who don't use vulgar language. "This is my nature, I speak to everybody who wants normal, honest, descent communication." Euractiv earlier reported on Jourova's remarks. At the same news conference, Jourova warned Facebook that it faces the prospect of sanctions from European member states if the company does not comply with consumer protection rules.

Comments

Nothing New

[amiga3D]

I remember the flame and channel wars on IRC and FidoNet. When a friend of mine signed up with his ISP (HomeNet) back in the 90s he laughed about their description of IRC in their brochure. "If you don't like being harassed, attacked, hacked and otherwise subjected to hate and vile behavior, stay off IRC. It's the Wild, Wild, West of the Internet." And that summed it up perfectly. I loved it!

Re:Nothing New

[Solandri]

IRC was that way because of the anonymity (other services like Usenet required an email address, which back then was almost always based on your real name).. The Wild West was tamed as civilization and the rule of law rolled out. But this sort of bad behavior on the Internet will persist as long as people can interact anonymously.

I firmly believe anonymity has benefits for democracy, but it has this unfortunate drawback as well. We need to come up with ideas for how to keep those advantages while discouraging the disadvantages. The real problems are the people who think this is justification for eliminating anonymity entirely, and the absolutists who defend anonymity to the point where they won't accept any compromise.

Re:Nothing New

[lgw]

The real problems are the people who think this is justification for eliminating anonymity entirely, and the absolutists who defend anonymity to the point where they won't accept any compromise.

I agree with you in general, though I've never used my legal name online in any way publicly visible, and I don't understand why anyone would. I like the Slashdot middle ground, when we're effectively anonymous, but there are at least some incentives to not pseudonymously be an ass.
 

Re:Nothing New

[Luckyo]

Not to even mention servers. I've never seen this sort of stuff on IRC in significant numbers, largely because mods in major channels I frequented usually had direct talking line to server admins, who really weren't interested in tolerating pointless trolling. You didn't just get banned from the channel, you got thrown off the server.

When nickservs became a norm, this became even easier to enforce. Want to go into those good channels with interesting stuff? Register with nickserv and be registered for a certain minimum amount of time. That killed something like 99% or so of trolls, because trolling is rarely something you are willing to create an account and then come back to it in a week just to troll. The rage has long cooled off by that time.

Now artful trolling, that was generally appreciated. But that's nothing like the description given.

The important part of this article:

[DogDude]

"I want #Facebook to be extremely clear to its users about how their service operates and makes money. Not many people know that #Facebook has made available their data to third parties or that for instance it holds full copyright about any picture or content you put on it."
— Vra Jourová

Too bad we don't have anybody looking out for regular people in the US.

anger at authoritarianism

[ooloorie]

"This is my nature, I speak to everybody who wants normal, honest, descent communication.

I don't think people who send her nasty messages want to "speak" with her or debate her, they want to express their outrage at her policies. After all, she has all the power.

At the same news conference, Jourova warned Facebook that it faces the prospect of sanctions from European member states if the company does not comply with consumer protection rules.

And right on cue, she threatens to use that power to hurt people and companies she doesn't like, in the guise of "consumer protection rules".

Re:anger at authoritarianism

[ArchieBunker]

This is the neck beard in you talking. Let me lay this out from a normal persons perspective. You can disagree or complain about her policies, but try to present your statements in a civilized adult manner. If you start off as a screaming lunatic of course she isn't going to listen to you. I'm guessing the majority of messages she received was the typical internet outrage and death threats.

She's not wrong, but...

[nitehawk214]

I fully support someone that thinks "Facebook is dirt, I want nothing to do with it."

But when a politician says this, they mean "Facebook is dirt, nobody should be allowed to use it." Especially if those somebodies have something mean about the politician.

Re: Qhy quit when you can ban it?

[nitehawk214]

"I don't like something, it should be banned."

Brilliant logic there.

Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it?

[ArchieBunker]

I'd argue that Facebook and Twitter do more overall harm than good.

Re: Qhy quit when you can ban it?

[datavirtue]

Yeah... If you want "normal, honest, descent communication" then you should definitely leave Facebook.

Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it?

[lgw]

Maybe she should just grow a little skin over those nerve endings.

If only. TFA just goes to show that no matter how hard you work not to offend a "diversity leader", you will fail and offend them unacceptably. The right answer is to not set a foot down that path, and tell them to GTFO and come back when they have, as you say, grown a thicker skin.

It's not like Facebook lacks controls on who gets to talk to you (other than advertisers). If you're constantly offended by people you've chosen to associate with, or people you must associate with, chances are in this century the problem is you. "If everyone you see is an asshole, look in the mirror."

Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it?

[Darinbob]

She is not banning anything, she just unsubscribed. People need to grow thicker skins and not freak out every time someone criticizes socila media.

Re: Qhy quit when you can ban it?

[registrations_suck]

"I don't like something, it should be banned."

Brilliant logic there.

Well, it seems to be the EU motto.

That's odd

[GrumpySteen]

There sure are a lot of posts here defending Facebook and blaming the woman for not enjoying the experience, despite the many, many, many previous posts on /. where people said nobody should use Facebook because it's trash.

When did /. fall in love with the privacy invading trash fire that is Facebook?