Thread: Facebook Is Losing Users In The Countries Where It Took Off First

In addition to the Weiner Scandal another impact of negative imapct of social media is the McDonald's hoax.

Ginger Lee. A porn star who made movies like “Legal At Last 4” and “Sweet As Candy,” Weiner once had a short Twitter exchange with Ginger, after which she called him “Mr. Sexy Congressman” on her blog. “I want to have sexual relations with Anthony Weiner,” she wrote.

Ginger Lee, Meagan Broussard & The Other Women Of The Anthony Weiner Scandal
Ginger Lee, Meagan Broussard & The Other Women Of The Anthony Weiner Scandal | The Frisky

McDonald's issues Twitter denial after hoax poster saying blacks will be charged extra goes viral



Read more: McDonald's Twitter denial after 'blacks will be charged extra' hoax poster goes viral | Mail Online

last few day, our online media found out, one of our minister spend RM 1.8 million (USD 600k) to create an 6 FB fans page(cuti cuti Malaysia means Holiday in Malaysia) + some simple game, in a month time they gain 24k local fans like .......

yesterday local boy created another fans page (curi curi malaysia means stealing malaysia) to complaint abt the minister misuse our money, in less then 24 hour he gain 48k fans like, best, one of the comment ask us to click on official page then report as scam .... yup face book take down our gov site in 6 hour time, so can our GOV sue FB ? hehhehehehhe but i really love to see ppl power on internet

The time will come finally. Personally I don't like giant websites. I don't like mess, and Facebook became a BIG mess. Privacy issues will get more and more serious, it's not only politicians that suffer, it's also teenage girls for example who get hacked and all their private information being posted to their wall for all their "friends" to see - and that's only one example. Sadly it will become more and more common, and Facebook is to blame for this.

Facebook has lost the coolness for me, I'm really waiting for an alternative (https://joindiaspora.com/ perhaps). I don't post much anymore, because my "friend" list is such a mix of people, that it should be divided into groups to be able to post things that are appropriate to each of these groups. I mean, you don't want to post the same to your family, to your pals and to your business contacts. It's just stupid. I know it's possible to set up somehow, but it's still a mess. Diaspora offers such a better view on your contacts, such a better layout, that I would switch within a second if it was live. Let alone that Diaspora will not claim copyrights over the content (text, images, videos) that you post.

http://blog.adictiz.com/wp-content/u...183_05320d.jpg

I don't wanna defend Facebook wholesale, but I think the privacy issues are overblown. You have pretty much total control over what gets to be public and what gets to be private, and anything in between (visible to friends only or friends of friends etc.). Some people just don't bother to check before turning this thing into some kind of a holy cause, as if Facebook is forcing them to use it.

That said, competition is always good, and ideally I'd like to see social media evolve into something fully decentralized, with a social networking protocol that can be implemented between multiple "host" sites that share data with each other. You can friend someone or post something with an account on one site, and it will get propagated instantly through all the others. IIRC Diaspora allows for something like this, so I guess it's a good step forward, if they just weren't full of initial security bugs and slow to develop. Their marketing probably wont be best either.

You have to realize that most people are stupid. They are not only stupid, but they also have no clue about all the possible settings at FB, or they are just lazy to check the constant updates (like me) that FB is pulling like every day. Obviously you don't shot people down for being stupid, you also shouldn't put them by default in a situation where all their sensitive data can be used. For example their photos in advertisements on their friends FB pages. The solution is a clean platform, which is not there to make the most penny out of each and every person, but to provide similar features to FB without all the risks involved.

Well, there's a lot between shooting them down for being stupid and giving them arguably insensitive defaults. I agree it's sneaky for Facebook to do this, but how much more can they do than display an announcement of changes? Should we expect Facebook to sacrifice their business interests because people don't read their messages?

Trouble is, no system which offers any level of control and sophistication will be completely stupidity-proof. You may have locked down defaults, but if someone doesn't bother to check these settings they might end up whining about something else, like "nobody" seeing their status updates. All too many people expect others to be responsible for them, even when such an outsourcing of responsibility is nowhere being advertised as a service.

I don't expect Facebook to change, I expect people to move on, to something cooler and less business oriented platform. Personally I don't like FB anymore. I just had an incident that my post on FB got copied over to a public forum by some guy who is on my contact list, but I don't have much to do with him. It's just too much now. I'm not sure how many contacts does one person have on the average, but I guess it's in the hundreds.

The big privacy issue with Facebook is that they automatically enable features and you need to disable them. So, basically the default is "no privacy". On top of that, they sell your data. Ha ha! That said, it's on you should you post your data to Facebook.

Facebook in new privacy row over facial recognition feature
Internet security consultancy Sophos noted that many Facebook users had seen the facial recognition option turned on without any notice in the last few days.

"Yet again, it feels like Facebook is eroding the online privacy of its users by stealth," commented Graham Cluley, a senior technology consultant at Sophos.

Facebook in new privacy row over facial recognition feature | Technology | guardian.co.uk

Buried in FB's TOS, etc. is something that says in effect:
you agree that everything you post, including pictures, is the property of fb and can be used by fb for any purpose.

Originally Posted by memenode

Well, there's a lot between shooting them down for being stupid and giving them arguably insensitive defaults. I agree it's sneaky for Facebook to do this, but how much more can they do than display an announcement of changes? Should we expect Facebook to sacrifice their business interests because people don't read their messages?

Trouble is, no system which offers any level of control and sophistication will be completely stupidity-proof. You may have locked down defaults, but if someone doesn't bother to check these settings they might end up whining about something else, like "nobody" seeing their status updates. All too many people expect others to be responsible for them, even when such an outsourcing of responsibility is nowhere being advertised as a service.

actually a lot user join internet wagon cause of facebook, especially on mobile .......
Baiscally 0 knowledge on other's net related stuff ...