Facebook is more annoying than not...

**helen****helen** Mod malarkistPosts: 9,236 Boards Champion

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeeeeeeeeees!! Have noticed the trendy new app that tells you that you look like J.Lo because you happen to be standing up and have dark hair. It's funny.

    It can make things awkward though. Especially when it pops up in the newsfeed that a 'friend' is posting in the Dead Baby Jokes group and it keeps popping up on my newsfeed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm regretting ever beginning to use it, but I agree that people can be very absent-minded when they use it, or they think that nobody else will know what they're doing, or that nothing negative could happen as a result of their actions. But I've seen some really awful things, like other people uploading photographs of peoples identity documents, thinking it's hilarious, without the person's knowledge, abusing people, taking photographs of people and abusing them.

    It's a disaster, people don't think, don't realise the harm they can cause, which can often have fatal consequences and think that it's just for something to do. Of course, Mark Zuckerberg committed crimes when he made it, and so many people seem to trust it blindly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've always been a bit picky, so don't have most of those problems.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unflithen wrote: »
    Of course, Mark Zuckerberg committed crimes when he made it, and so many people seem to trust it blindly.


    Do you have any basis for that comment?

    Yes, facebook can be annoying, but in general only as annoying as the same people on it are in the rest of life. It's much like pretty much every other irritant out there - if you don't like it, avoid it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mark Zuckerberg committed crimes against fashion but beyond that I have no idea what Unflithen is on about.

    As with anything in life, if you don't like something, don't use it. "friends" on Facebook are no more annoying than "friends" anywhere else. Why, if you don't like what they say or how they say it, do you keep them as "friends"?

    It depends what you mean by "trust" with Facebook, Twitter, LiveJournal and the like. I don't think Mark Zuckerberg is some evil genius who's going to use photos of me running to bring about the New World Order. I don't really think he gives a shit what I put on his website. But of course he's going to use the knowledge that I run to sell advertising space on my part of his website to running shoe manufacturers rather than Dunkin Donuts. Big deal, I just wish he'd get his algorthims a bit better; I mention Wayne Rooney only to call him a bald Scouse wanker, so trying to sell a Manchester United credit card to me is a teensy bit foolish.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you have any basis for that comment?

    Yes, facebook can be annoying, but in general only as annoying as the same people on it are in the rest of life. It's much like pretty much every other irritant out there - if you don't like it, avoid it.

    He illegally accessed databases containing personal information of other people studying at Harvard University, including photographs and use as a basic sample of users of what was initially known as Facemash, not Facebook. I think some of their information was available on the University's Intranet, not that Intranets are publicly accessible. The Social Network dramatises it somewhat, but the fact is, he accessed it despite not being authorised to. I wouldn't usually cite Wikipedia, but information is available in Facebook's entry too.

    Initially, Facemash was only available to people studying at Harvard University, people studying at Oxford University and University of Cambridge were allowed in 2005.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If Harvard are as good at security as UK universities, the "hacking" probably related to nothing more than typing "password" into the password field on an Access database...

    ETA: Read a bit more. Harvard didn't take any punishment against him. hardly criminal is it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You still seem to be somewhat lacking in evidence of an actual crime.

    The early version had restrictions on who it was available to - but you still had to sign up and provide all your personal information for it. It wasn't built using data obtained from the university networks.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You still seem to be somewhat lacking in evidence of an actual crime.

    The early version had restrictions on who it was available to - but you still had to sign up and provide all your personal information for it. It wasn't built using data obtained from the university networks.

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creator-survives-ad-board-the/

    I couldn't find a more authoritative source. But anyway, I think something everybody can agree with is the unannounced user interface changes that are sometimes made and the discussions about whether or not people like it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    accused, complaint.

    No punishment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think we all have niggles and nags about what has become 'the facebook culture' and has become quite fun to poke fun at. It's easy to suggest leaving but it's become the main way me and my friends communicate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have to deal with a lot of facebook stuff at work. It all has to be taken seriously, ie threats etc because I work with kids and you can never be too sure if they will act on them or not. At the moment for every 10 baseless childish threats, at least one ends in tears. Most recent involved knives :-S

    Then ive got all the grooming ones as well, and ones where people have been sending rude pics around.

    All in all it's a nightmare, I can't stand the fucking thing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I have to deal with a lot of facebook stuff at work. It all has to be taken seriously, ie threats etc because I work with kids and you can never be too sure if they will act on them or not. At the moment for every 10 baseless childish threats, at least one ends in tears. Most recent involved knives :-S

    Then ive got all the grooming ones as well, and ones where people have been sending rude pics around.

    All in all it's a nightmare, I can't stand the fucking thing.

    Do you think the age limit should be higher than 13 or would that make no difference?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you think the age limit should be higher than 13 or would that make no difference?

    How would you go about enforcing it though? Most people I knew had myspace and bebo a lot before the age of 13.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I have to deal with a lot of facebook stuff at work. It all has to be taken seriously, ie threats etc because I work with kids and you can never be too sure if they will act on them or not. At the moment for every 10 baseless childish threats, at least one ends in tears. Most recent involved knives :-S

    Then ive got all the grooming ones as well, and ones where people have been sending rude pics around.

    All in all it's a nightmare, I can't stand the fucking thing.

    I suppose it's just the tip of a very large iceberg though? And to think about it, that's just the issues you can actually do something about. As to proving your age, it's impossible, or at least very difficult to do without it becoming too complex, I think there were attempts to try to do it in about 1999 or 2000, but it didn't gain popularity.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    grace wrote: »
    How would you go about enforcing it though? Most people I knew had myspace and bebo a lot before the age of 13.

    true but I guess it's supposed to be a deterrent- Just not very effective
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    About proving age, I think the only safe way would be to require a passport number or something like that which they'd check with a proper authority. Of course, people would complain about that, including myself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere that's basically blaming the medium not the user. People sext or make threats without Facebook and were doing it even before the internet. Although modern anonymous death threats do lack the elegance of ones made from cut up newspapers
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Arctic, you're not wrong, however what facebook does do is facilitate a lot of the problems that would never have occurred when I was at school. Yep, bullies existed, not in the numbers I'm seeing now. It's enabling people who could never have had the guts to do anything in the past and giving them an opportunity that they never had.
    Basically, when I was at school to be a bully you had to be bigger than people or you'd fget you teeth kicked in. Now all you need is an internet connection.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Now I know the above is a relatively simplistic view, there are always exceptions. Things are a lot worse now, lots of kids are becoming victims to vitriol and abuse from people over the internet. An enforced age rating would be ideal, having to verify your true identity would be the best way. Paypal use a small bank deposit for instance. Cutting out the anonymity would at the least mitigate the threat of adults posing as children, another issue I investigate regularly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't know, generally it seems to be the same people it always was. The big difference is that the bullies can also follow you home now. That's worse, I completely agree, but it remains an issue with the people not the medium. The reason they do it is the same reason as it always has been: because they can get away with it. Schools still don't take internet bullying seriously, it's not in school time so it isn't their problem.

    Having to verify your true identity would be wonderful...for the police and intelligence services who want to shut down political debate. As has been proven time and again, people who want to sexually abuse children will abuse the most vulnerable or accessible ones: usually kids in care or kids within the family. And the former is more to do with systematic failings within local authority care, as in Rochdale. I wouldn't ever want to see identity verification for online accounts because of the way filth like FACT will manipulate that information to get people sent to prison for years on trumped-up decisions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The schools I work in have begun taking it seriously, referring cases to me, expulsions etc. But there is a lot of it going on, and they are playing catchup, as are we. I did successfully prosecute someone a few weeks ago for it, although prosecution is a last resort.

    I see where you're coming from in terms of identity, it's semantics though, we can still trace people fairly easily, I don't suppose I could convince you that i've got no interest in political activists, I'm just looking for something to make it easier to track down internet bullies/groomers without so much paperwork ;-)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I see where you're coming from in terms of identity, it's semantics though, we can still trace people fairly easily,

    I suppose it depends upon various different factors, but I'm going to be cruel and suggest that it isn't as easy as it would seem.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I see where you're coming from in terms of identity, it's semantics though, we can still trace people fairly easily, I don't suppose I could convince you that i've got no interest in political activists, I'm just looking for something to make it easier to track down internet bullies/groomers without so much paperwork ;-)

    I'm sure you, along with most other low level police officers, have no interest in political activists. They just want to go catch some muggers and internet sex abusers.

    The same can't be said for your bosses though. Look at the expense the Met have gone to in recent years to infiltrate "green" groups who commit the cardinal sin of complaining about closing the Greenway in east London.

    Most people who use social media can be traced fairly easily; they leave geo-locate on, they use their real name, they post pictures of the cat. But there's a difference between that and demanding that someone proves to Facebook who they are before they're allowed to go on the website, especially given how easy it is, even now, to commit debit or credit card fraud. It isn't so much in this country that it would be a massive issue, but in other countries it would be. The Chinese can still use social media by using Tor or Freenet, but the whole point of that is undermined if they have to give the website their home address and phone number...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fair point. Unflithen, yes there are ways of delaying a police trace, using proxies etc but they aren't fool proof. You only need to see how many 'hackers' find their doors being smashed down by the police .....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The hackers don't usually get caught by police traces though, or at least not in the way you mean. Any communication is only as secure as the weakest link. The members of anonymous in the UK who were arrested were caught because someone in the US turned informer for the FBI. The police didn't catch using a trace on the internet, they just sat at the informer's computer and waited for them to say hello. The police would have found it very difficult to get in without that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Could be worse, could be G4S doing it instead! I have no doubt that there are honest, caring, genuine people, doing what they're meant to do and protect peoples lives, unfortunately it's corrupt colleagues that ruin it. Or there are those who think that they're somehow invincible becuase of their job. Could we please return to common sense nowadays? People feel oppressed enough as it is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The police are not generally corrupt, they're just doing what their job is and doing what their paymasters tell them to do.

    The real corruption much higher up the food chain.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The hackers don't usually get caught by police traces though, or at least not in the way you mean. Any communication is only as secure as the weakest link. The members of anonymous in the UK who were arrested were caught because someone in the US turned informer for the FBI. The police didn't catch using a trace on the internet, they just sat at the informer's computer and waited for them to say hello. The police would have found it very difficult to get in without that.

    Luckily the most I have to contend with is usually a malcontent who likes abusing people over the internet. Even the people who are careful, make mistakes. Nobody can cover their tracks completely.

    Anyway, back to the topic. Facebook is the work of satan.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unflithen wrote: »
    Could be worse, could be G4S doing it instead! I have no doubt that there are honest, caring, genuine people, doing what they're meant to do and protect peoples lives, unfortunately it's corrupt colleagues that ruin it. Or there are those who think that they're somehow invincible becuase of their job. Could we please return to common sense nowadays? People feel oppressed enough as it is.

    I sort of agree. I've yet to meet a corrupt colleague (or at least recognise I've met one). Our nick is quite small, and we all joined and continue to do the job because we want to help. I ended up working in schools, trying to stop kids coming into contact with the rest of the justice system.
Sign In or Register to comment.