War with Facebook

[mrcash2009 0]

No it was just a site I no longer wanted to be a part of so I chose to go out with style. Nothing implied on here.

Cant say I would do that myself, but I guess if your wanting to go out in style :)

I deleted my facebook once over concerns of the real world but I don't worry anymore. Those were job related. Privacy has never been a concern of mine.

Well I think general privacy is something to balance but you mention the work side of things and I would agree that this is an area that highlights facebook on whether it helps or hinders you online.

I suppose asking about privacy concerns is a bit open to interpretation, probably the best question is where Facbook isn't being very "social" and is beyond simply networking and helping.

[HyperU2 11]

I didn't want to just log off, I've talked crap about that forum on related forums. Better that anyone visits sees that HyperU2 is banned. lol That's another thing, I may have this silly name but it's consistent on ever forum I use. Can't say I'm hiding much on those either.

We had a number of employees at a local hospital (I work in healthcare) get fired over some postings, even those who liked the statuses. I think you can set the privacy options fairly restrictive now, so that only your friends can see what you post. I have found simply updating my status to "at the pub" brings out a lot of friends without the need for multiple text messages. It's convenient.

Edited October 18, 2011 by HyperU2

[mrcash2009 0]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20123919-93/facebook-ireland-accused-of-creating-shadow-profiles-on-users-nonusers/

Facebook Ireland is under fire for allegedly creating "shadow profiles" on both users and nonusers alike.

Interesting to say the least.

[mrcash2009 0]

cqggW08BWO0#!

Blurring the lines :Oo:

[Tonci87 163]

I thought the Onion reported FAKE news?

Well....

[mrcash2009 0]

If you thought I posted it as it was real then dear me.

I posted "blurring the lines" because tongue in cheek its not far of the mark in many ways, you know, satire imitating reality and visa versa. It has a good point to make underneath the humour.

[mrcash2009 0]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15692542

Facebook 'to seek consent for privacy changes'

Privacy campaigners have welcomed a report that Facebook is to ask users to opt into any changes in the way it uses their personal information.

I wonder how this will be implemented and how much people will still click into it blindly from their mobile phones Icon out the box.

[nutrition 1]

i also don't have any problems with facebook, it's cool... ;)

[ACPL Jon 68]

Well it was one big scam, judging from "official" Anonymus Twitter. And well, nothing happened.

Milions or at least few nice thousands got fooled, meh.

[mrcash2009 0]

i also don't have any problems with facebook, it's cool... ;)

First post? :p

Well it was one big scam, judging from "official" Anonymus Twitter. And well, nothing happened.

Milions or at least few nice thousands got fooled, meh.

Posting for reference mainly, there are so many more that could be posted.

[mrcash2009 0]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2062840/Father-cleared-inciting-looting-posting-Facebook-Lets-start-riot-Hastings-Whos-it.html

Father cleared of inciting looting after posting on Facebook: ‘Let’s start a riot in Hastings. Who’s on it?’

Joking between friends and a near jail term, only through Facebook.

[Tonci87 163]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2062840/Father-cleared-inciting-looting-posting-Facebook-Lets-start-riot-Hastings-Whos-it.html

Father cleared of inciting looting after posting on Facebook: ‘Let’s start a riot in Hastings. Who’s on it?’

Joking between friends and a near jail term, only through Facebook.

LOL, no way that something like this happens in Hastings...well maybe during their anual Beerfest.

[mrcash2009 0]

Effectively a complete waste of time for all concerned and a man in court being up for "joking on a website". I would have though the judge or whoever should have highlighted the waste of time and money taking that further.

I do remember the BBC and other suggesting "man arrest for in-sighting rioting through face book" and no one even rioted in the "physical world" at all (no one turned up) yet they still went through with it.

You had someone online being a bit of a prat (lets face it youtube comments are chock full of everything let alone jokes as an example) up for prison :confused:.

Just a excersize in trying to show hardline attitude but was just a poor reaction to it. Also it shows how facebook is the place to be monitored for views and how authorities are trying to take that into the real world scenarios as "offences" blurring the lines more. If you do that with facebook you would have to do that everywhere else, you would have to hire a small country to house all the "offenders" ... pathetic really.

Point is ... "only on facebook".

[MF_Washburn 1]

500 million users...with at least (??) kb of info. And add the dummy profiles too.

[MF_Washburn 1]

This to top off all your own enemies on Facebook.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Lolz .. why armarriffic ? i think you had a worst experience with facebook .. try it , i am sure you,ll have a great fun

Lots of folks are like that. They barely have time to game, much less frequent forums and/or have a social life. We have a few in our group like that.

[mrcash2009 0]

Lolz .. why armarriffic ? i think you had a worst experience with facebook .. try it , i am sure you,ll have a great fun

I actually assumed this was a bot.

[mrcash2009 0]

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16187397

Teen Charged Over Dead Soldiers Facebook Post

Azhar Ahmed, 19, is said to have posted the comments on his profile page and has been charged with a racially aggravated public order offence.

A West Yorkshire Police spokesman said Ahmed, of Fir Avenue, Ravensthorpe, was criticising the level of attention the British soldiers who died in a bomb blast received compared to Afghan civilians who have died in the war.

So, who thinks what he said is completely out of the norm as is an arrestable offence from a website (not a public place per-se)? And who think he got what he deserved?

An exercise in blurring the law/lines in terms of physical real world and a website. Last time I checked facebook isnt like a public announcement in a public place, you have to "go to" it to read or listen, so how is that a public order offence? Well, its not, what you actualy have is a push for acceptance by example to clamp down through facebook with "agencies" montoring 24/7.

Edited March 14, 2012 by mrcash2009

[Tonci87 163]

I believe this is pretty stupid, isn´t the UK supposed to be a state where you can freely express yourself? And the boy does have a valid point, we get absolutely no figures how many civilians have been killed during the war.

[st_dux 26]

... racially aggravated public order offence

I'm very happy that such bullshit restrictions on free speech do not exist in my country. As long as you're peaceful about it, you can publicly hate whoever you want here, as it should be.

[PELHAM 10]

I believe this is pretty stupid, isn´t the UK supposed to be a state where you can freely express yourself? And the boy does have a valid point, we get absolutely no figures how many civilians have been killed during the war.

Well the 1st half of what he said is a political view and no one would have a problem with that. The 2nd part could be perceived as hostility and harassment directed at soldiers and at the families of soldiers living and deceased. That is a crime in the UK on many levels. Firstly you cannot harass or cause alarm and distress to officials or families of officials engaged in public service. You also cannot cause alarm/distress or harassment in a public place. Facebook and other websites are considered public places under the law. It can be defined as racial because he is referring to soldiers of a particular nationality but also parts of what he said are religious.

So express your political views and opinions as freely as you wish. Become hostile (mention harm or death) and direct them at individuals or bereaved families and you will find yourself in trouble with the police and facing the courts. I don't have a problem with the 1st part of what he says. The 2nd part is not acceptable public behaviour.

[Tonci87 163]

I still think its quite irritating to put him on trial for this. Wouldn´t it be better to simply ignore him instead of giving him a plattform and making his claims known?

[Beagle 684]

Harassment of soldiers? Funny! We in germany are free to state anytime that soldiers in general are murderers there had been a lawsuit about it and the statement was given consent by the constitutional court...Why...because we know its true from our history...other nations have to learn that still.

Soldaten sind Mörder

[PELHAM 10]

Harassment of soldiers? Funny! We in germany are free to state anytime that soldiers in general are murderers there had been a lawsuit about it and the statement was given consent by the constitutional court...Why...because we know its true from our history...other nations have to learn that still.

In the UK he would also be free to say that. Have you actually read what he posted? Read the 2nd half from the word 'All', that's what is illegal.

[Beagle 684]

Yes I did and it's interesting because the same statement was writen and published by a Jounalist here without any juristical consequences

„An der Berliner Mauer starben 136 Menschen eines gewaltsamen Todes, das ist unmenschlich und verbrecherisch, aber in Afghanistan haben von SPD und Grüne geschickte Mördersoldaten schon deutlich mehr Menschen umgebracht."

Thies Gleiss: „Rat zur Bescheidenheit“, in: junge Welt, 20. Mai 2010

Translation: (Live search does not translate the message right)

At the Berlin wall 136 people died by force, that is inhuman and criminal, but the (german) murderer-soldiers send by SPD and Green Party (2 of the four main german political parties) have killed a lot more people in afghanistan already.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Beagle