Talk:Social networking websites/Archive1

Why?
Is there any point to this page? Nothing of any any consequence links here, and it seem off mission. It isn't funny, doesn't provoke flamewars, and it lacks goat. Delete or at best move to fun. --JeevesMkII 11:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It doesn't seem to do much for us, and I can't see any easy way of getting an RW angle to it either. Do these sites promote anti-science?  Are they mostly fundamentalists?--Bobbing up 11:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
 * They promote stupidity, but not of the aggressive sort that we're most concerned about. More of the juvenile dick joke type. --JeevesMkII 11:59, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Well it rounds up the former Myspace and facebook articles - there's probably stuff to be said about the corpoartisation of long-distance communication and friendship, and there's also the matter of facebook's harvesting of personal details for commercial gain, which is in the article already. So RWify, but keep. Totnesmartin 12:14, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Seeing as the mission template's been added, we should keep the article if it can be expanded to include something about privacy and the hysteria around it. Though I'd argue against them being totally stupid, there's a lot of Facebook groups that discuss evolution and various other things, although that's more of a minority and there's nothing newsworthy to come out of that yet. 93.97.125.111 14:27, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Ummmmm ... why should "privacy and the hysteria around it" bring it on topic? Or am I missing something again? :-( --Bobbing up 14:33, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I feel I should clarify, I think the hysteria around paedophiles and identity stealers using social networking sites is highly exaggerated. People get paranoid and wierd about it, but overall, they're being irrational. Basically, if you don't want your info on the internet, don't upload it to Facebook. Even then, facebook has a pretty good security setting which means your data doesn't necessarily even need to be seen. Therefore, the problems that the media projects onto the sites themselves, are completely unjustified because it's the user's own fault.
 * Oh, then there's any breech of freedom of speech, infomation or whatever resulting from the other controversies. I think it's within the mission statement if the article is slanted towards this kind of thing. Armondikov 18:21, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh, well. I think corporations like Facebook, Amazon, and Google, and even nonprofits pretending to some kind of public service like Wikipedia and the Wayback Machine, have a cavalier attitude toward both privacy and copyright that would never have been tolerated 30 years ago among the print media.  They aren't just cavalier toward privacy and copyright, they actively seek to undermine it and change what is legally acceptable.  One problem is we as a society failed to foresee what was coming with the Internet and we failed to pass the necessary legislation establishing that absolute copyright and ownership of the work rests in the author of electronically published works (and not in the company hosting that work online).  Facebook isn't even the worst offender (that would be the Wayback Machine, which archives old versions of web pages, including versions which the authors have taken down for a good reason, without even obtaining express written consent first, which to me makes them criminals hiding behind the tired old "information should be free" mantra), but they are pretty far up on the offender list.  Secret Squirrel 19:14, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Considering the ephemeral nature of webpages, I personally think sites like Google and Wayback are doing a useful service. (Without Google cacheing, I couldn't have found the full text of that "Bush for EMPEROR!" guy's screed, for example.) --Gulik 01:08, 24 January 2009 (EST)

UD - Have you found the wayback machine yet? (Maybe Google's is better, but...)  ħ uman  01:48, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Moving to Fun?
1. The original riff on Myspace is funny, so it could live at "fun". 2. However, if we describe the "normal" ones a bit then discuss the fundy versions of them (there are some, right?) that could bring it on-mission.  ħ uman  19:08, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Interesting idea about looking up fundy versions. I'm not aware of any unless CP and other wikis and websites count as social networks. There are a few religion based "social networks" but nothing espeically aimed at fundies. Armondikov 18:21, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The 90/10 bollocks/sense talk rule would kibosh CP as social networking. What about political sites? Totnesmartin 18:25, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

14 Christian alternatives to Myspace. I particularly like the sound of Big Baptist - The World's Largest Fellowship Hall. First up in their Rules section:
 * 1) If you post a picture on this site, everyone in the picture must be modestly dressed (by our standards), not promoting any sinful activity (drinking, smoking, tatoos, gambling, etc), and not crude in any way (sodomites, abortion pics, etc). --Robledo 19:52, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Tattoos - so much for Todd Bentley. Secret Squirrel 20:03, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

It gets better. I'll not link directly to the profile page, but check this from here:

TURN ON'S
 * God
 * 1) TIM TEBOW
 * 2) Florida Gators
 * 3) Hanging out with my friends
 * 4) Swimming
 * 5) Being with my family
 * 6) Monkeys
 * 7) Horses
 * 8) Mashed Taters!!!!!
 * 9) Crab Legs
 * 10) Going muddin

TURN OFF'S
 * 1) The Devil
 * 2) Liers
 * 3) Cheaters
 * 4) Backstabbers
 * 5) Rushing into a relationship
 * 6) Tomatoes
 * 7) Frogs(Just when they're alive)
 * 8) Snakes
 * 9) Bugs

--Robledo 20:14, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Kind of pointless note but interesting anyway
With the "pirate" language setting on Facebook, it changes "religion" to "superstitions"... Well, it made me giggle for a second or two.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 15:53, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Mission
I say keep this in mainspace. It's not directly on mission but I think enough people here are interested in internet culture for it to be a viable exception, & it's a decent length of fairly reasonable article. 20:15, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 * I say to keep it as well. I was also reading this recently that makes social networking sites quite interesting to RW's mission. I'll remove the template since there's no other comments and no one seems serious about deleting it.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 07:55, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Security purposes
My only question about these "security purposes" on Facebook are 1. where did you get this information from and 2. can we trust these sources. Information from Facebook itself is not applicable as my company lies all the time about security. Do we have any real information on how not taking down information leads to better security? Z3ro talk  12:24, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * The issue isn't so much not taking down information, but that deleting accounts is the second most common action when an account is hacked (using it for spam is the most common in case you were wondering) Facebook (and all social networking sites) have steps that have to be completed to delete an account. For example, when deleting your Myspace account, you have to take a picture that shows you with a handwritten sign containing your account information and the words delete my account.  My larger point is that this is not like Facebook just wants to keep information, they have a legit reason. SirChuckB  13:17, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * There are two issues; is it a security concern, and is the security concern the reason for the policy. While it seems it is a valid security concern, I'm not convinced it is the reason for the policy.  Do we have any information that this is (or was) a widespread problem the policy has fixed?  Z3ro  talk  13:28, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'll continue looking, but my work filter blocks out anything remotely related to social networking sites, so It'll have to be from home or school.... As for the other part, I really don't think Facebook is gaining that much from having the information, so what other reasons are there for such a difficult policy? SirChuckB  13:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * That's what you think. 14:10, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I understand about work filters. As far as what Facebook gains, they're a data mine, they want as much info as possible (why, I don't know).  Z3ro  talk  14:28, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * And there is the difficulty. I don't think Facebook is any more of a data mine than any other groups that require personal information to sign up.  I've posted this before, and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me exactly what good this data does for them outside of Facebook related business? SirChuckB  14:53, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Selling it to advertisers? 14:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Who doesn't do that these days? Even the so called respectable sites still sell emailing lists.... It's part of capitalism, and if it worries you that much, make shit up. SirChuckB  15:14, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Could we agree on security and profit. How would you word that? Neveruse513 15:17, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * (EC)I was merely responding to your question of "what good does this data do for them outside of Facebook related business?". 15:18, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I would be happy with security and profit. Z3ro  talk  15:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Oh I see, when I typed that, I assumed that selling to advertising was implied, as everybody does it..... But I don't think it's very reliable... I signed up with Facebook a year ago, and I haven't received any spam email at either address I've had listed with them.... And like I said before, they really don't collect much information... Aside from the Beacon issue, which was a huge mistake by the company, I don't see any real problems other than person X doesn't like it so they trash it. SirChuckB  15:31, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * The issue I have with it (as do many people) is they are just collecting data because it's cheap and easy to do so. They don't really have a plan for it, they're like the underpants gnomes.  The problem comes when someone (like the government) uses this data for a nefarious purpose.  Z3ro  talk  15:35, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * It's cheap and easy, and they don't have to resort to spamming you to use the data - having a giant database is still useful to marketers, if for no other reason than figuring out how and who to market to - take "I love Stargate and emo music" (random dumb example) - if those two are heavily associated, it makes sense to advertise an emo band on Stargate. And that is valuable information.  ħ uman  16:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I think that's some serious conspiracy combined with a smattering or paranoia.... The Government does not care about our mundane little lives, they would have no use for any information from Facebook... There's nothing comprimising... It's not like you enter social security numbers or anything sensative. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  15:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Fear about giving information to the government is valid; look how AT&T cooperated, giving millions of phone records to the government after 9/11. Using the information is more out there, but it's not like there isn't historical precedence for governments doing these kind of things.  <font color="black" face="georgia">Z3ro  talk  15:49, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * But there's a fundamental difference in the two: One has the right to reasonable believe that their personal phone records are private and there is potential comprimising material in them. Facebook, to the best of my knowledge records name, address (if you give it), phone number (if you give it), email and location.... And then martial status, schools attended, religion and a few others (all of those are optional) What possible use do they have? and does one really have a reasonable beleif of privacy? <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  16:04, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Uses is where you have to get into paranoid delusions; suppose a new government wanted to silence all outspoken critics of gay marriage? It could get such a list from Facebook.  As far as right to privacy, that is why I don't use sites like Facebook.  The problem is too many people think they DO have a right to privacy of their information, regardless of whether they do or don't.  <font color="black" face="georgia">Z3ro  talk  16:10, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * It's funny how we trust Trent more than Facebook. 16:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * To Zero, I understand everything you're saying, and it's your right, I just think the article sounds like a bunch of internet users trashing Social Networking because they don't like them. As to your bit about not using them, I always use the phone book test... Namely, is there anything I'm revealing that wouldn't be available through a basic phone book search. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  16:19, 10 February 2009 (EST)

On a slightly related note, do any of you guys know what is the copyright status of photos posted on Facebook or Myspace? - I.E. do they remain your own property, or have you released them into the public domain by posting them, or made them property of the site? I've scanned through the terms & privacy policies at both sites & can't find anything about it. 16:29, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Basic rule is, you own the copyright to your photo, but good luck enforcing it.... Facebook makes you check a little box saying you have the right to upload this picture, so to deflect issues that come up when people post their favorite movie posters and such, but you have to go out and enforce your own copyright protections. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  16:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thanks Chuck.  10:13, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * No problem, I was a big MySpace junkie, until the god awful pages and fourteen year old hooker pictures drove me to Facebook, and I did a lot of research on them for a Political Science class. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  11:59, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Facebook causes cancer
Figured this might be interesting in adding to the article. Anyone else want to look over it too? It's getting a bit old now but we have the article, now we have the pseudoscience to go with it, it was inevitable that this would happen as when anything gets big people start wondering if it's actually harmful. 18:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)