back to article Facebook deleted my post and made me confirm pics of my kids weren't sexually explicit

Usually when you read about Facebook blocking accounts or taking down videos it's because something serious has happened: like a woman filming her boyfriend dying at the hands of traffic cops; or someone going on a racist rant. But this morning it happened to me. Facebook informed this lowly reporter that it has removed one …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Enough

    Note to the author:

    That "shooting victim" was a well-known black thug with a long rap sheet who fit the description of a local armed robber to a tee. Then when stopped (by a real cop, not a "traffic" cop), he tried to out-draw said cop and lost. The cop is alive and the thug is dead, and that's what's supposed to happen when thugs try to kill cops.

    Why is so hard for you not to inject your ignorant biases into supposedly tech-based articles?

    1. James O'Shea Silver badge

      Interesting

      So, Big John, if it's true that the 'thug' tried to 'outdraw the cop' and lost, then why did the police try to kill the video showing this? Could it be that the video shows something different? Inquiring minds wanna know.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Interesting

        These days when a thug is killed trying to shoot their way out of custody, very often he has friends who then start videoing the blood and screaming after the fact. That kind of video is guaranteed to make the cops look bad no matter who is at fault. That is what's is driving much of the cop-hatred within the black community.

        The cops know this, and greatly dislike being portrayed in such a light with no way to fight against it. I'd be sorely tempted to shove that phone down the videographer's throat, but that's just me.

        BTW, 3/4ths of the people killed by cops in the US are white, but the blacks commit about half of the violent crime, You do the math, and please don't attempt to excuse black-on-white violence as somehow "justified," because it isn't. Besides nearly all black shooting victims are shot by other blacks, and that rate is far higher than for any other race.

        1. James O'Shea Silver badge

          Re: Interesting

          In this particular case the video in question does not appear to show anything near to what you say. It appears to show a (white) cop putting four into the chest of a (black) man sitting in a car. A (black) man who has been asked to provide his license and registration. A (black) man who had a license to carry a firearm, something usually difficult for 'thugs' with long rap sheets to get. This long rap sheet would be a public record. Could you please point to where I can get to see it? It should be, for example, available at the county sheriff's site for his county, or at the Minnesota state justice people's site, or both. You wouldn't happen to have a link to either, now would you?

          Perhaps that vid was edited. It doesn't look that way to me, but I could be wrong. And it seems that you have considerably more info on this than I do. Please, be a dear, and share where you got that info from.

          1. Mephistro Silver badge
            Angel

            Re: Interesting

            " ...share where you got that info from."

            God told him, obviously.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            The cop wasn't white, but is a Hispanic officer named Jeronimo Yanez.

            If these facts were omitted from the news reports you've read, you've been reading propaganda, not news.

            As for the suspect having 86 traffic violations over the prior 14 years (all minor), looking like a an armed robbery suspect, etc.

            American Bar Association:

            http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/black_man_shot_by_white_officer_in_minnesota_had_been_pulled_over_52_times

            Minneapolis StarTribume

            http://www.startribune.com/lawyer-castile-pulled-over-because-he-matched-robbery-suspect/386221031/

            Photo of robbery suspect Officer Jeronimo Yanez thought Philando Castile looked like:

            http://bluelivesmatter.blue/philando-castile-robbery-suspect/

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: The cop wasn't white, but is a Hispanic officer named Jeronimo Yanez.

              As for the suspect having 86 traffic violations

              Photo of robbery suspect Officer Jeronimo Yanez thought Philando Castile looked like:

              One or the other. It is like listening the BrExiter racist drivel about the Eastern Europeans taking the benefits and taking jobs. You cannot do both at the same time. One or the other.

        2. ckdizz

          Re: Interesting

          "Besides nearly all black shooting victims are shot by other blacks, and that rate is far higher than for any other race."

          Cool, okay. When those black people shooting other black people are also responsible for the protection of the community at large, and paid for by the taxpayer to do that job, then I guess we'll have a fair comparison. Otherwise you just compared the actions of criminals to the actions of people who are supposed to protect the rest of society from criminals.

          "It's okay for police to shoot a black guy because some of them are criminals, and black people shoot each other all the time anyway" is a stupid argument. It suggests that because some black people commit more than their fair share of crime, it's fair to say all black people should expect to be shot by cops when they meet them. That's almost the dictionary definition of prejudice.

          I don't normally participate in these kinds of discussions, but that line of reasoning needs to be shot down. Maybe if we give it a driving licence and put it in a car with a busted tail light the police can help us out.

          1. lone_wolf

            Re: Interesting

            i believe the point he is trying to make is the main issue has a much larger scope than the narrow scope which is contained in the one news article.

            " It suggests that because some black people commit more than their fair share of crime" the problem is the stats show that to be the case.

            https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl06.xls (2010)

            https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2014.xls

            (2014)

            You can see the disparity stays the same year after year compared to the percentage of the population it is disproportional.

            But sure lecture US on racism when your own Prime Minister stated that the reason for leaving the EU was racism/zenophobia. The national news media over here showed James Cameron saying that line over and over again.

        3. h4rm0ny

          Re: Interesting

          >>"You do the math, and please don't attempt to excuse black-on-white violence as somehow "justified," because it isn't. Besides nearly all black shooting victims are shot by other blacks, and that rate is far higher than for any other race."

          Have you correlated for poverty and education? Because those two (linked) factors seem to be far more significant than race, to me.

          1. Naughtyhorse

            Re:correlated for poverty and education

            you are looking at the data all wrong!

            what you need to do, is take a bed sheet, cut two holes in it, then look at the data through the holes.

            all will become clear.

      2. Adrian Tawse

        Re: Interesting

        Before anyone in the UK starts to feel a bit superior I would like to draw their attention to the following case.

        A man left a pub carrying a table leg in a sack. Some wag, presumable in the pub, and presumably also as a joke, 'phoned the police to report a man carrying a loaded shotgun in a sack. Up screamed the SWAT squad in the form of two armed cops in one car. They seem to have got out of the car and put themselves in a position of danger, if the man they were accosting had a loaded shotgun in the sack they could see, and could have reached the trigger through the sack. The man they were accosting was facing away. When he heard behind him "Armed Police, Halt", he started to turn round, as one would. He had turned about 30 degrees when the police oped fire, killing him immediately. Now I could see no reason why the two officers should not be found guilty of manslaughter at least. Not a bit of it. The jury was instructed that if a policeman believed that his life was in danger, no matter how fanciful and ludicrous the belief, he had the right to shoot.

        So, before anyone in the UK gets feelings of superiority the police in the US are subject to stricter legal control than in the UK. If only that control could be applied. The problem is not with the law, it is with the juries.

        1. Graham Marsden

          @Adrian Tawse - Re: Interesting

          > Before anyone in the UK starts to feel a bit superior I would like to draw their attention to the following case.

          Yes, the shooting of Harry Stanley in 1999

          And it was the High Court, on Appeal, that decided that there wasn't enough evidence for a verdict of Unlawful Killing.

    2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: Enough

      That "shooting victim" was a well-known black thug with a long rap sheet

      Citation needed.

      who fit the description of a local armed robber to a tee

      Citation needed

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Windows

        Re: Enough

        Let's go rather non-PC/non-SJW regarding this discussion with a valid point:

        After Dallas, Time to Accept the Reality of Race

        Here, for example, is Mark Dayton, the Governor of Minnesota, a former Senator from that state, a Democrat, and the living, breathing embodiment of the Midwestern Nice style—a style which, as I have opined before, may one day be the death of us all. He was holding a news conference Thursday, before the Dallas killings, about the Philando Castile shooting. Quote:

        "Would this had happened if those passengers were white? I don’t think it would’ve. So I’m forced to confront, and I think all of us in Minnesota are forced to confront, [that] this kind of racism exists."

        [Minnesota Governor On Philando Castile’s Death: He’d Still Be Alive Had He Been White, ThinkProgress, July 7, 2016]

        The Governor is surely right: If Philando Castile had been white, he would most likely not have been shot. Listen to the cop’s voice on the post-shooting video. He’s scared. Probably he was scared when he looked in and saw he’d pulled over a young black guy.

        He was right to be scared: Young black guys are far more dangerous than any other kind of driver—more impulsive, more aggressive, more likely to be armed. Again, just look at the crime stats.

        Cops live with those stats. They know them. They know to be scared of young black men.

        Governor Dayton calls that “racism.” Use any word you like, Gov. But for a cop to be extra scared, extra nervous, and yes, extra error-prone when confronting a young black man is ordinary common sense and self-preservation.

        You would be too if you were a cop…which of course you’re not. You’re a career politician.

        1. Sirius Lee

          Re: Enough

          Your points may all be valid, correct even, But the solution is not to tacitly accept the shooting of innocent people of any stripe.

          A better approach is to ask why the police are put in a situation that is believed by the police to be life threatening. Surely a better approach is for police to travel in pairs and make sure that citizens who are pulled over know there is a second officer lurking. A better approach will be to change the stop procedure, for example to have the occupants get out of the car while the officers are less in harms way.

          Of course this costs money so would not be popular and maybe this is the real reason innocent people are being shot and killed: the richest nation on earth is unwilling to spend enough to protect its citizens at home.

        2. Naughtyhorse

          Re: Enough

          meanwhile across town...

          whitey goes apeshit starts throwing stuff at neighbours

          neighbourd call cops

          cops

          show up

          whitey starts shooting at them with a shotgun

          1 cop injured

          swat show up

          knockout whitey with gas

          everyone lives happily ever after.

          I think personally that 'white guys with shotguns who have already shot a cop' are even more dangerous than young black men driving in a car with his partner and child.

          please explain the different response, without acknowledging the fundamentally racist policing that happens in the land of the free?

      2. Graham Marsden
        Unhappy

        @Voland's right hand - Re: Enough

        >> That "shooting victim" was a well-known black thug with a long rap sheet

        > Citation needed.

        >> who fit the description of a local armed robber to a tee>

        > Citation needed

        Ask Constable Savage

      3. Naughtyhorse

        Re: Citation needed

        pointless blind racism don't need no steenkin citation.

        </master race>

    3. alain williams Silver badge

      Re: Enough

      That "shooting victim" was a well-known black thug with a long rap sheet ...

      Evidence please.

    4. Lusty Silver badge

      Re: Enough

      "black thug"

      Curious why the need to specify race when describing a thug?

      1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: Enough

        Curious why the need to specify race when describing a thug?

        Dunno, probably racial stereotyping. Here is an example of a black thug and peaceful, non-aggressive police which are just doing their day to day business in the USA. Not that other countries are different: swedish black thug accosting law abiding non-racist peaceful white demonstrators.

        That is what happens when Big Johns post before they forget to take their white hood off.

        Yeah, I know - I should have put the sarcasm tags

      2. Phil.T.Tipp

        Re: Enough

        Accuracy.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Enough

      If what you say it true then why are the police not demanding body cameras?

      I also note that in the two recent cases the police have not released any statements stating that they are innocent of the accusations.

      1. Graham Marsden
        Meh

        @AC - Re: Enough

        > why are the police not demanding body cameras?

        Because the technology keeps "breaking down"

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Enough

        "why are the police not demanding body cameras?"

        More to the point, why are cops actively disabling their body cameras if they have nothing to hide?

        This should be regarded as malfeasance and treated accordingly.

        "The violence has always been there. What's new is the cameras"

        As for "black on black" crime: The reality is that it's "poor on poor" crime and the stats are much the same across racial boundaries in any given socio-economic stratum. Black americans are disproportionately in the lower groups due to centuries of discrimination and the Jim Crow laws that never entirely went away.

        1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

          Re: Enough @BigJohn

          "I'm not sorry I'm a racist, I'm only sorry you found out about it."

          One of your earlier posts. Guess you're not sorry anymore.

      3. Naughtyhorse

        Re: body cams.

        They do have body cams, although, amazingly they always break down just before a black man dies.

        Hence they have to lean on FB to get access to bystander video.

        go figure!

    6. DavCrav Silver badge

      Re: Enough

      "who fit the description of a local armed robber to a tee"

      I suspect here that your version of a description of this armed robber is 'black man'. Just guessing.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Enough

      You forgot to mention that the cop wasn't white, but is a Hispanic officer named Jeronimo Yanez.

      If these facts were omitted from the news reports you've read, you've been reading propaganda, not news.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Enough

        but is a Hispanic officer

        And that somehow magically prevents him from having any racial prejudice against another ethnic group?

        Example: All the parts of UK with significantly above average population of Indian, Pakistani or Banladeshi ethnic origin voted for "Kick the Polish Out" at rates in excess of 60% - way above the national average. When you look at the referendum map for London you can literally read which boroughs are the ones with a population coming predominantly from the Indian subcontinent.

      2. h4rm0ny
        Facepalm

        Re: Enough

        >>"You forgot to mention that the cop wasn't white, but is a Hispanic officer named Jeronimo Yanez."

        Only in the USA are Spanish people not White. :/

        1. WolfFan Silver badge
          Holmes

          Re: Enough

          Only in the USA are Spanish people not White. :/

          That's 'cause they're Mexicans, and should be heaved over the wall Donnie the Orange wants to build. And yes, all of 'em are Mexicans, even the Guatemalans, Hondurans, Costa Ricans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians, Venezuelans, Panamanians, Argentinians, Brazilians, Peruvians, Bolivians, and Chileans. And any Spanish or Portuguese who happen by. And Mexicans are all Indians, and all Indians should be either back in Mexico or locked up on reservations. And the ones on reservations shouldn't be allowed to scalp palefaces using casinos, that kind of thing is reserved for orange-haired grandsons of German immigrants. (Prince Harry counts.)

    8. Triggerfish

      Re: Enough Rap sheet

      Right Big Joh here's some facts because well I think your last point on your rant will out why.

      That "shooting victim" was a well-known black thug with a long rap sheet who fit the description of a local armed robber to a tee.

      *Actually traffic violations, driving without a muffler, no seatbelt etc, not criminal convictions, but about 6K in fines. Not enough IMO to be a reason for the law to slot him.

      Then when stopped (by a real cop, not a "traffic" cop), he tried to out-draw said cop and lost. The cop is alive and the thug is dead, and that's what's supposed to happen when thugs try to kill cops.

      *Identifed himself as carrying a concleaed weapon, (not btw the first thing you do if you are going to try and outdraw someone, especially if you are in a sitting position doesn't give you any advantage to warn the opposition), then after identifying this fact was asked to reach for license and registration.

      Why is so hard for you not to inject your ignorant biases into supposedly tech-based articles?

      *And thats where we come to why I am writing this, ever thought yours is biased?

      Also btw wtf

      The cops know this, and greatly dislike being portrayed in such a light with no way to fight against it. I'd be sorely tempted to shove that phone down the videographer's throat, but that's just me.

      Please tell me the reason you avoided law enforcement (to the greater good for everyone else), is because they wouldn't let you wear jackboots. :)

  2. Ole Juul Silver badge

    Topic

    Facebook sucks.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Topic

      Exactly article quickly became TL;DR when I simply thought why the fsck do you willing upload your life to Farcebork for free and then whine about it?

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge

      Re: Topic

      exactly. who needs it? USENET is FREE. Or, if you were creative enough, you could set up your own web site on github and do 'whatever' with it. Or rent a space and NOT have to deal with `echo "FaceBook" | sed 's/ook/itch/'` policies.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Bitch, you is thinkin' about dis all wrong.

    Instead of thinking "Facebook took down MY photo", think "Does tributing my photo TO facebook add value for advertisers"?

  4. Gray
    Boffin

    Upgrade to Windows 10 for auto-telemetered Facebook activity reports back to MS; link MS auto-update activity to Facebook postings. Infinite loop? Exponential feedback expansion? Bloat bubble explosion? Anticipate probable 24/7 dump into NSA Utah data-center storage via auto-robotic MS-Facebook feed connect? Facebook auto-censorship algorithm vs. naked kittens vs. Win10 telemetry stutter vs. NSA WTF? hysteria. Brave new world!

    Or don't use Facebook. Ultimate rebellion. Adopt the penguin.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Guys! Gray's gone off his meds again

  5. Mark 85 Silver badge
    Holmes

    Facebook has very little regard for its users, or the content that they produce that has made it a corporate monster, at least at an individual level.

    The only privacy that's important is Zuck's. He's made that point clear a zillion times. The monster has grown because of his beliefs about users and how they they're just a bunch of stupid suckers. His interviews should be mandatory before anyone is allowed to sign up to the service. Then if they want to deal with his company, let the door be open.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Facebook has very little regard for its users, or the content that they produce that has made it a corporate monster, at least at an individual level."

      And yet the response is not to stop using their "Free" pervasive surveillance platform, it is generally to ignore the abuses of an unabashedly predatory company.

      Show some self respect and dump the abusive "Partner" you don't need. If you don't, nobody else will either. Life got along fine before Facebook, life will be fine after it. Besides, what do they do that you really need anyway?

    2. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Mark 85, if you have a copy of a video (or a link) with Zuck blatantly admitting that FB's business is the collection and sale of personal data, I'd love to get a copy again. He was much more open about the reality of FB's core business before the IPO.

      Most ppl have no idea just how invasive they are and even if you create a pseudonymous account, your real ID will be known within hours to a few days.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Windows

        I only have this (when The Zuck was 19):

        Well, These New Zuckerberg IMs Won't Help Facebook's Privacy Problems

        via this blogpost

        Logging Off by Anatoly Karlin

        where we also get this nice text:

        Finally, by rewiring so many first class brains from deep analytical mode to dopamine-seeking wisecrack mode – Charles Murray and even (ironically) N. N. Taleb himself might be in the early stages of that – social media might have ultimately retarded progress. This is not to even mention the considerable cognitive effort that has been expended directly to develop and maintain Facebook and its various clones and applications like Farmville, Mafia Wars, etc. as well as Twitter, Instagram, etc. It certainly pales besides the epochal misallocation of cognitive resources that is the modern financial sector, but it is probably quite considerable nonetheless.

        Finally, it would be remiss in an extended critique of social media not to touch upon its increasingly cataclysmic political aspects.

        In the past five years, social media have become ever more overt instruments of the globalist elites and their geopolitical and domestic agendas. Increasingly, they operate under the principle of “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.” For instance, Russian nationalists who still maintain active Facebook accounts are far likelier to get hit with bans than their Ukrainian counterparts and other assorted color revolutionaries (see above). Ergo for Twitter, even though there has never been a Russian or Novorossiyan equivalent of the #banderakaratel campaign. This goes in tandem with support for pro-Western revolutionary forces across Eurasia, China, and the Islamic world. Ultimately, the major information companies are almost all US based, so it is only natural that they would seek to cater to American geopolitical interests. And needless to say, the Chinese and Russian governments use the tools they have at their disposal, such as domestic alternatives (Vkontakte, Sina Weibo, etc) and a policy of either banning foreign companies entirely (China) or making them keep their data on their own territory (Russia). It might be pointless to rail against this state of affairs, but it is outright dishonest to pretend that geopolitically, social media is some sort of global kumbaya circle.

      2. fandom Silver badge

        "FB's business is the collection and sale of personal data"

        He can hardly admit that, they are not in the business of selling personal data, what they do sell is ad placement.

        The data they keep to themselves.

  6. Gene Cash Silver badge

    I dumped Facebook

    Now I don't have to fret over how they keep pushing other people's games into my timeline, deleting posts, not showing friend's posts, or complaining my name is not real and demanding ID.

    And I am much happier.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I dumped Facebook

      Welcome to the more sane world.

      I never felt the need to bare everything about myself and my life to the world by becoming a FB user.

      I've also refused LinkedIn, Twitter, WhatsApp, Pinterest etc etc.

      I actually have time to have a life. Not worrying about what others are posting about me is strangely theraputic.

      Just say No to social media. There is a fine line between social media and it becoming 'anti-social media'.

      With people being bullied into suicide on this meduim it has IMHO gone firmly into the 'anti-social' world.

      Just say No!

      1. Mark 85 Silver badge

        Re: I dumped Facebook

        I'd love to upvote that several times...

        1. Fatman Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: I dumped Facebook

          I threw one in on your behalf!

    2. roytrubshaw
      Pint

      Re: I dumped Facebook

      "And I am much happier."

      As a friend of my son said, "Life is what happens to other people while you're on Facebook."

      Personally I'm waiting for the announcement of the formation of GooFaceMicroTwApple which will then be followed immediately by "The Singularity".

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: I dumped Facebook

        >>"Personally I'm waiting for the announcement of the formation of GooFaceMicroTwApple which will then be followed immediately by "The Singularity"."

        I think in that eventuality, we might as well just use the more traditional "Black Hole".

    3. SImon Hobson Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: I dumped Facebook

      I wish I could. I don't have a FarceBork account, I don't go there, I don't use it - but "friends" and relatives keep posting stuff about me even when I've asked them not to.

      I'm really tempted to get a copy of their file, but I'm afraid it'll just lead to a "rant of the century" causing long term discord in the family (see icon).

  7. JeffyPoooh Silver badge
    Pint

    "...the company's automated idiocy ..."

    'A.I. is hard.'

    Humans figured out this fundamental truth many years ago.

    Then they forgot. Now they've caught hubris.

    Stupid.

  8. MachDiamond Silver badge

    Error #1

    You have a Facebook account. Fix that and you may yet survive the coming revolution.

  9. AustinTX

    The "Real Names Only" fad

    The "Real Names Only" fad that has taken over social media sites, some of which have technically retracted the policy while actually still enforcing it, is as bad as the autocensorship.

    Being forced to use real names does NOT quell misbehavior. Crazies are still crazy and don't care if they get their account banned. A-list elites don't need to fear punishment for being hostile to other members. What "Real Names Only" does is associate more accurate identification of who it is that has said what. You can't make as much selling info about an anonymous accounts. The cops and the feds, who are this company's customers, want to know who a person is, as much as they want to know what sort of threat to authority they act like.

    I've been a moderator/admin/sysop since the mid 80's. Being anonymous (using nicknames) is a non-issue. It protects member's privacy as well as their personal safety.

    Sites like Nextdoor.com force everyone to use their real names, display their real addresses, and keeps all that info on public display even after you've quit, or worse, been banned for not fitting in with the clique. Despite this, the site claims to protect your "security" and "privacy". Yes, by forcing you to expose yourself. Any wag can sign up with a fake account and then download the big directory of names, addresses, and often emails and phone numbers. They get pics of the kids, their names, what their hobbies are (they probably have kit for that in the garage), and everything else the members write about in public.

    And yeah, we do have a personal problem with Nextdoor. I wrote about it on ElReg last night here: http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/2914926

  10. TeacherMARK

    Stick to posting images of your food. You don't see the Japanese having all these problems, right?

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Taking down food porn is the logical next step...

    2. h4rm0ny

      Porn is a very subjective thing. A picture of a naked person might not be porn, but another person might view it and think it is. A baby breast-feeding shouldn't be porn, but some people freak out if they see it as some offensive thing. I wouldn't be the slightest surprised if some people viewed food in a sexual manner and created a "porn" website dedicated to sushi or somesuch.

      So what determines whether or not something is "pornographic" or "offensive". The person doing it / sharing it, or the person viewing it? Or a third party (Theresa May) deciding that both parties should think it is even if they haven't seen it themself?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    Well, obviously...

    Facebook has become a company which needs to make a profit out of its business model, whatever that is. You can't take a company onto the stock exchange without any plans of securing some revenue. And then you got to wonder: you don't expect that only advertisements is going to cut it here?

    Obviously there's more than advertisements alone, and that's also where it becomes a bit creepy in my opinion: where is the money coming from?

    Now, this is a conspiracy theory and probably far fetched. But I do think it could be food for thought: lets say a $company pays 'm for certain statistical information (the amount of times they've been mentioned for example). If the money is good then why wouldn't that same company be able to persuade 'm to make certain negative posts go away? Because can you really recall everything you posted last month? Would you notice if some things disappeared over time?

    Even so... if you want to express yourself then I think you're better off using a Wordpress blog than a social media site. Social media is only good for one thing IMO: providing some vague companies with extra revenue by giving up your privacy.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    It's not your platform and you are not a customer

    Kieren: It's not your platform and you are not a customer, you've paid nothing, you've agreed to this week's Facebook terms and conditions, you've willingly uploaded private family photos to the public domain, you're seemingly happy to make Zuckerberg and his equally cold cohorts just a bit richer by giving them free content, so you have no consumer or moral rights here. Stop complaining. Put your thousands of pictures of your kids on a hard drive and keep them at home - problem solved.

    I'm just sorry I've wasted 5 minutes of my life reading such a whingey article and even sorrier that I feel I have to write a comment on it.

    1. bazza Silver badge

      Re: It's not your platform and you are not a customer

      I think you're missing the point. Facebook is gradually discovering that it has responsibility (like real, corporate and ultimately financial responsibility) for what is published on its website.

      However, unlike a newspaper it has very poor editorial control, and its automated attempts to regulate content are unlikely to be 100% successful. The financial health of the company depends on them successfully limiting content without appearing (from the point of view of ordinary folk) to do so, otherwise people will simply stop using it.

      So the real question is, is Facebook a company worth owning shares in? Probably not in the long run. Same with Google, Twitter and the other freeloaders. Privacy regulators and competition authorities will one day catch up and make it effectively impossible to run such services anonymously for free through data mining.

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Re: It's not your platform and you are not a customer

        Of course Facebook has no long-term value.

        The history of social media is that a single one gets huge, then passes of its membership and they leave.

        People follow people, both in and out.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Down

        Re: It's not your platform and you are not a customer

        I think you're missing the point.

        No, I'm not.

      3. MonkeyCee Silver badge

        Re: It's not your platform and you are not a customer

        Really? Don't own shares in companies that make money hand over fist and are regarded as essential by a not insignificant chunk of the population?

        I've owned Google and Apple shares, and sold them for decent profits. They are perfectly good "valley tech" shares, in that they are from profitable, expanding companies (well, at the time) that have decided to not pay dividends* because fuck you. The money is now in far more boring and traditional companies that pay dividends and deal in stuff that I understand.

        Google is probably the most successful advertising company *ever* since compared to a newspaper, radio or TV, they pay sweet FA for content but have a huge (and highly targetable) market. Alas, due to their "valley tech" styles, they are not happy simply having a company that does it's thing well, and sit on that, but need to go play with other exciting tech instead of paying back their investors.

        * while I owned them, Apple have started since

        1. DavCrav Silver badge

          Re: It's not your platform and you are not a customer

          "Really? Don't own shares in companies that make money hand over fist and are regarded as essential by a not insignificant chunk of the population?"

          You're right! I should snap me up some shares in essential search engines like Lycos, Yahoo or AltaVista, and essential social media websites like MySpace.

  13. ckdizz

    Idiocy...

    ...is still using Facebook knowing everything you knew before, and still know now.

    You're an informed consumer, right? More than that - you're a technology journalist. And you know you have no intrinsic right to Facebook other than what they allow. And you know they ride roughshod over the definitions of fair and reasonable by taking action before they take review that action. And while they're doing that they sell your information, your friends' and family's information, and even information from people who aren't on Facebook but who still associate with you, to third parties of all kinds, mostly likely without proper vetting procedures. Because they don't have to do any of that stuff, because you have no right to use that service other than they allow.

    And still, you use Facebook, mostly for the reasons everyone else uses Facebook, and the other services: because it's convenient and you actually get some benefit out of it. But when these things that happen to other people happen to you, you then complain like it's unexpected and unfair.

    So who's actually the idiot here? Facebook, for announcing in policy what they do and how they do it, and then following up that policy with actions on the network that they own and that you are allowed to use? Or you, for knowing all this, balancing it against the convenience you get from Facebook in terms of communication and exposure, using Facebook, and then getting bitten on the bum when the stuff that happens to Facebook users all the damn time happens to you?

  14. Oengus Silver badge

    Easy answer

    "This is of course very, very far from the only time the company's automated idiocy has caused offense. Even within my peer group, there have been frequent reports of insensitive automatic actions shoved in their face; one of the worst being pictures of a parent's funeral flashed up in a joyful end-of-year message from "your friends at Facebook."

    As insensitive as that was, however, it was not disturbing. Censoring content, however, is."

    Easy answer - Vote with your feet and tell everyone else why you are leaving.

    Automated censorship will never work. There should always be an arbiter in the process.

    1. Conundrum1885

      Re: Easy answer

      "To a dark place this line of reasoning leads." Yoda, ROTS

      The problem as far as I can see is that if merely linking to an image is an offense then the system is broken beyond repair.

    2. Seajay#

      Re: Easy answer

      Voting with your feet sounds like the answer but Facebook is just too convenient as an address book and an announcement service for weddings and babies to leave entirely. The answer is to stop providing them with free content.

      I've found that as time goes on I've uploaded less and less to facebook. While I was living abroad I used a self-hosted blog to keep family supplied with a feed of baby pictures which worked well and remained entirely in my control. These days I don't even need to do that because we live close enough to the Grandparents.

      If you think Facebook displaying a photo from a funeral is insensitive, maybe the person you should really be upset with is the one who published that photo to Facebook?

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Cloud...

    Other people's computers you have no control over

  16. werdsmith Silver badge

    Yes, vote with your feet and dump faecebook, stop making excuses. There are alternatives ways to stay in touch. Better ways.

    If all the social media alternatives could cross-share content in the same way that any mail service will talk to any other on the standard, then people could choose where to run their accounts. But no, Faecebook wants to own everything.and become the de-facto Web, I don't believe this is good for anyone but Faecebook.

    If you would not eat foie gras, veal or battery hen eggs on principal, then you would not use Faecebook.

    Problem is there are enough thickos to keep it strong. :(

  17. Gideon 1

    Kurds

    Try posting anything Kurdish to Facebook, especially flags, and see how long your account stays up. Facebook even censors an entire race/culture on behalf of another race/country.

  18. scrubber
    FAIL

    "the age of Facebook-approved censorship"

    I think I see the problem here - you're mistaking a bulletin board with a news site run by journalists.

  19. Paul Shirley

    monkeywrench it

    Next time try marking randomly chosen images as porn when they ask. See how long the filters last if everyone mistrains them.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You used their service, their rules, stop whining.

    Obviously not enough thought was given to your reliance of their service.

  21. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    I've thought of setting up a social media service called Prattle. I already have a slogan for it: "Why be a twit when with a little less effort you can be a complete pratt?".

  22. Yugguy

    Dictatorship

    That's what FB is. Why are you surprised?

  23. Haefen

    Sell your soul and then complain about how it is used?

    Facebook is evil, they don't hide that. Facebook is not worth more than Exxon because they sell you ad's. They are worth billions because they sell you, you are the product being sold. Their product is people!

    Users selling themselves into such slavery should not complain how tight the chains are, otherwise those chains may get replaced by even tighter ones.

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: Sell your soul and then complain about how it is used?

      What we need then, is an Open Source equivalent to Facebook.

      1. Elf
        Pint

        Re: Sell your soul and then complain about how it is used?

        There is an OpenSores (I work in it, can call it as I wish) Social Media thing called Diaspora...I ran the first release on a vanity domain for a bit. I liked it (even thought it's Ruby) and many of you, here, would too...maaaaaking it `eff-all worthless for The Unwashed.

        * Mission https://diasporafoundation.org/

        * Code https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora

        * A Convenient Article Why It Doesn't Work http://tinyurl.com/oc64sfy (Slate)

        There's some great technical stuff there. There's great words like Freedom and Decentralized right there called out. (*Sigh*, yes it's in Ruby, I said that already.) Users don't give two shits about any of that (and I point TO FaceBook as irefutable proof). What they want is to talk to GrandMa, and their ex-squeeze from University (who happens to have moved to, say, McMurdo Base some decade ago...what?) and there they are! It was said above that feet will follow feet. Changing some two Billion people's mind and getting them to jump to a new ship turns out to be a right pain in the ass.

        Apropos to both Corporate Giants and Alternative Social Media, dunno about you cats but I had very high hopes for Google+ as did Every Single Technical friend and colleague. And we got there for the party, arrived early Booze and Snacks, came through the door And! *Crickets*. Some silly technical tripe hurt (what do you mean I can't *write* to the API?...that seems like something I might very much like to do) but mostly G+ suffered from one of the Seven Deadly Sins: Sloth. And this is what I heard:

        "Yes, you tell me that G+ is technically superior and that there are less ads and such, I hear you. But Everyone™ (I care about) is already on FaceBook so why should I move? Google is *also* an evil corporation so I don't see any change there. There's some borked shit here, it's not quite done baking is it? I don't want to maintain two separate Social Site things, it seems messy and close to Too Much input. And how am I going to migrate my profile, do I have to type all that shit in again?" <- My own Female Parental Unit

        Yes, my Mother justified staying on FaceBook with five *Perfectly Valid* points that I can't argue against. (Ok, I *can* ... but the arguments are weak.)

        Personally I still like USENET and IRC. I've got my own XMPP server and that covers chat. I use Twitter because I can play it as Output Only, and it forces me to be succinct...and I damned well know that my every blather is public, it was part of The Deal. (Also I can write to the API).

        I have both FB and LinkedIn accounts that are almost completely empty. FB I *scrubbed* years back (and yes, they caught my damned scraper bot and tossed my login out, it was quite brilliant really...bastards) when they did their first massive Permissions SNAFU. I "Like" nothing. It makes a *Fantastic White Pages. Equally, LI is great for finding some really great people I've worked with in the past so Yellow Pages I guess? (I will now completely Skip my LinkedIn/Micrsoft Rant, you're welcome.)

        FaceBook has the momentum, and polish, that Users want. It's shiny, it's "Fun", Eeeeeeveryoooone that's Anyone is already there, and it has Endless Mindless Distraction™.

        Circling back around to the point (I get there), we in OpenSource are fantastically good at building technically neat things but not all that great at the Bright Shiny that gets users all hot and bothered. Diaspora is pretty neat (even though it's Ruby) but it's Not FaceBook, and that's the first thing users are going to notice.

        So, Open Source Social Media, we got one. Already. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.

        P.S. - I haven't looked at Diaspora in a while, might pop up a Pod for kicks. If I do, I'll let you nuts know. This crowd might not *use* it, but derive great entertainment from tearing it apart while bitching the whole time, and I'd derive great entertainment from that. See? Social Media.

  24. Alistair Silver badge
    Holmes

    Facebook. The descent of humanity

    Sadly - amongst many folks it is the most convenient method of collating and associating.

    Doesn't make it the best way - we all have to recall that we are the product, not the customer. I post bugger all there. I do use it to keep family connections and some long distance friendships that have lasted years but that is all that connection is for.

    Automated Censorship.

    You just have to read that as a technologically inclined individual. Don't know about anyone else around these parts, but it makes portions of my (male) anatomy retreat to locations they aren't supposed to be anywhere near at this age.

    And since the good ship facebook is US based media for US based Advertisers driven by US based corporate media framework, one can safely assume that the censorship is there, has been for some time and is driven by the utterly screwed up moralist, egotistical, self centred, buy the shiny, bigger is better, fluffy bunny bullshit that the global media empire that is owned by wall street wants you to feel is the way the world works.

    Now, dammit, where's my coffee.

    < No, actually, despite the social, moral and ethical issues raised in the article, I quite literally could not care LESS what facebook does, to my account, or anyone else's for that matter. It is *NOT* the water delivery infrastructure. It is a crap tool. >

  25. Stifler

    Fire fazebook

    Why use the book of faces? It's a big privacy spy scam. Use e-mail, Google docs, your own website, etc.

  26. Bucky 2
    Coat

    Difference between a whiskey bottle and....

    If memory serves, Facebook periodically has links to articles about emergency room hijinks where just such mistakes had been made.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019