PDA

View Full Version : Taking a close look at Facebook



Magda Hassan
04-26-2009, 08:02 AM
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/603.html

Dawn Meredith
05-01-2009, 08:10 PM
Well this certainly does give one pause. Nothing is what it seems these days, all is sinister, deeper. Too late for me, I have had FB for awhile. But I also refuse to live a life of fear or self -censorship. I started to assume my phone was tapped soon's I became friends with Carl Oglesby in 1973. C'est la vie. Thouhg it does get maddening. Big Brother is everywhere.

Myra Bronstein
05-25-2010, 02:25 AM
Yet another strong link between the Washington Post (crown jewel in the CIA/Mockingbird propaganda tower) and Facebook (CIA data mining operation). Emphasis in article mine.


http://gawker.com/5546687/why-is-facebooks-propaganda-in-the-washington-post

"Why is Facebook's Propaganda in the Washington Post? (http://gawker.com/5546687/why-is-facebooks-propaganda-in-the-washington-post)

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/05/340x_grahamzuck_01.jpg

The Washington Post (http://gawker.com/tag/washingtonpost/) ran a de facto Facebook press release in its op-ed section today. It was a bizarre decision; the newspaper's already embroiled in one ethics scandal, so why cuddle up to a close, public friend of the paper?

It's hard to dispute that Mark Zuckerberg (http://gawker.com/tag/markzuckerberg/)'s op-ed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/23/AR2010052303828.html) was a softball, long on propaganda and short on news. As we reported earlier (http://gawker.com/5546067/facebook-ceo-is-sorry-youre-so-dumb), the Facebook CEO sidestepped many of the recent, news-making controversies his company has sparked. Instead, he said the social network should do a better job of organizing privacy settings and would get to work on some unspecified changes to the settings. He didn't address Facebook's recent accidental privacy breaches, or the numerous instances in which Facebook has pushed (http://gawker.com/5521194/facebook-crushes-privacy-with-impunity), and in some cases forced (http://gawker.com/5423421/facebook-wants-to-steal-your-friends), users to take some of their personal information public.

But don't take our word for it. Here's what some other commentators said: "Nonapology" was how Peter Kafka at All Things D described (http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100524/mark-zuckebergs-non-apology-facebooks-privacy-policy-missed-the-mark-but-not/) the piece. "What's more important is what's not being said," said Sarah Perez at ReadWriteWeb (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_addresses_privacy_issues_new_settings_com ing.php). "Something's amiss," said Jared Newman at PC World (http://www.pcworld.com/article/197017/facebook_ceos_privacy_promises_whats_missing.html) . TechCrunch noticed a decided lack of meat. "More of an acknowledgment that Facebook has heard the criticism and will be responding to it," was Jason Kincaid's verdict there (http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/24/mark-zuckerberg-on-facebooks-privacy-controls-we-just-missed-the-mark). "PR-speaky," said Rachel Sklar at Mediaite (http://www.mediaite.com/online/mark-zuckerbergs-weird-pr-speak-facebook-op-ed-in-the-washington-post/).
Sure, Zuckerberg's piece had a few fans, like former Valleywagger Paul Boutin at VentureBeat, who said (http://venturebeat.com/2010/05/24/zuckerberg-shows-ceos-how-to-overshare/) Post editors got Zuckerberg to "whittle" his thoughts "down to one breath."

But even by the partisan standards of the Washington, DC Beltway, where mutual back-scratching and puffed-up propaganda are par for the course, the piece seemed awfully empty.

While the op-ed might not have done much for Washington Post readers, it certainly helped Facebook. An opinion piece in one of the nation's most prestigious newspapers carries more moral authority than a blog post on Facebook.com. And Facebook doesn't want for anything so much as moral authority these days.

But why did WaPo play along? Well, the most obvious answer is the least polite one: Donald Graham (http://gawker.com/tag/donaldgraham/), the CEO of the Washington Post Company, enjoys an awfully close relationship with Zuckerberg. He sits on Facebook's board. But more than that, he's been a mentor to the 26-year-old CEO, as documented repeatedly in Facebook news articles and books, including, most recently, David Kirkpatrick's The Facebook Effect. That book has a passage in which Zuckerberg breaks down on a bathroom floor at the thought of turning down an investment from Graham, whom he idolizes (the scene is quoted here (http://gawker.com/5532724/facebook-ceos-bathroom-breakdown))

And it appears Graham has been plenty eager to help Zuckerberg's company. Reading press clippings last year, one could even get the impression the WaPo honcho was a sort of press consigliere for the startup founder. There he was last year in Fortune (http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/26/technology/facebook_investment.fortune/index.htm), accompanying Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg and investor Alexander Tamas on an interview with Jessi Hempel. There he was accompanying the same duo to a meeting with PaidContent (http://paidcontent.org/article/419-facebooks-sandberg-dsts-tamas/). And why not? As Kirkpatrick has reported in Fortune, Zuckerberg "counts Washington Post Co. CEO Don Graham as a friend (http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/24/technology/facebook.fortune/)."
Fair enough. But wouldn't Zuckerberg's op-ed have all the more credibility in another newspaper, then? And wouldn't the Washington Post, which just emerged from another ethical scandal (http://gawker.com/5313146/wapo-ombudsman-calls-his-newspaper-a-dirty-whore-basically), have all the more credibility if that had happened as well?

Yes, the Post tacked a small disclosure underneath Zuckerberg's op-ed, mentioning that Graham sat on the Facebook board. But disclosing a conflict of interest that's plain as day doesn't make it any less disturbing, especially by the WaPo's historically high editorial standards (longtime editor Len Downie was famous for refusing to even vote, lest it sully his objectivity). The conflict looks especially egregious wrapped around such puffy content.

Of course, Don Graham is free to run whatever content he wants in his family's newspaper. But if he's going to advise Zuckerberg on how to beat an ethical path into the future, he might consider setting a better example.

Send an email to Ryan Tate, the author of this post, at ryan@gawker.com.

Myra Bronstein
06-29-2010, 08:17 AM
Looks like Facebook is tipping their hand. It's a mistake to organize there and give them the power to shut the organization down. We need a legit (non CIA) alternative to FB.


Is Facebook trying to silence the BP Boycott?
June 29, 2010 by Joe Newman (http://citizenvox.org/author/joenewman/)

A few hours ago, (http://citizenvox.org/author/joenewman/)Facebook censors removed the Boycott BP fan page (http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-466703), which had almost 800,000 members. It’s unclear why Facebook took the boycott page down. The page’s creator Lee Perkins, who goes by the moniker “Bayou Lee,” immediately created a new page, calling it Boycott bp/Arco. Bayou Lee wrote:
I can’t believe they shut us down with no explanation. I could not even say goodbye to my friends. We must have been doing something right.
Bayou Lee’s page was the largest of many Facebook campaigns aimed against BP for its role in causing the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The question many people were asking Monday night was whether this was a deliberate effort by Facebook to silence BP’s biggest critic.

Magda Hassan
06-29-2010, 08:40 AM
PLFP a Palestinian solidarity group had their Facebook page shut down the other day also. Here is their press release:
Press Release: Workers Party of New Zealand

Facebook Shuts Down Palestinian Solidarity Group

The US-based social networking site Facebook has shut down a New Zealand based PFLP Solidarity group, as well as permanently closing the accounts of all four group administrators with no right of appeal. The group, which had approximately 500 members, was established after the recent Flotilla attacks to show solidarity with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and raise awareness of the solidarity campaign led by the Workers Party of New Zealand, who are fundraising for the PFLP.

None of the administrators of the PFLP Solidarity group were given any notice from Facebook that they had violated terms or conditions, and were given no direct reason as to why they had had their accounts disabled. “They did not even send an email to me explaining why my account was disabled”, said one of the group’s administrators.

Marika Pratley, PFLP Solidarity Campaign coordinator and group administrator in Wellington said, “This was clearly a political attack against the PFLP and an attempt by Facebook to censor and shut down the solidarity campaign”.

The PFLP advocates a single secular state in all of Palestine, with equal rights for all, regardless of race or religion, and is the second largest group in the PLO. Facebook have deemed that support for the PFLP violates its terms and conditions while allowing many blatantly racist anti-Palestinian groups to continue to exist without such censorship.

The Workers Party believes that all political ideas and discussion should be free of censorship on the internet, but wishes to expose this hypocrisy, which often surrounds debate of the Palestine issue. Palestinian groups are frequently censored and branded as terrorists while supporters of the racist state of Israel are not.

The PFLP Solidarity Campaign is determined to continue on, despite Facebook's censorship. “We have already raised over $1000 through selling T Shirts. Deleting a Facebook group is not going to stop us showing solidarity with Palestine or the PFLP”, said Christchurch administrator Mike Walker.

http://wpnz-pflp-solidarity.blogspot...lestinian.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://wpnz-pflp-solidarity.blogspot.com/2010/06/facebook-shuts-down-palestinian.html)

Magda Hassan
06-29-2010, 08:41 AM
What is a good alternative to Facebook?

Myra Bronstein
06-29-2010, 08:43 AM
I thought I read something the other day about Google starting a social network as an alternative to FB. Now I can't find info. Hope it's true.

Magda Hassan
06-29-2010, 08:46 AM
Yes, I think that is correct. Thanks for reminding me.

Myra Bronstein
06-29-2010, 08:48 AM
More and more I think massive boycotts are the way to go. And this reinforces it.

Magda Hassan
06-29-2010, 08:49 AM
http://www.google.com/buzz

Myra Bronstein
06-29-2010, 09:13 AM
http://www.google.com/buzz

Thanks!

So step one would be to grow the google ("don't be evil") social network at the expense of FB. Absolutely use FB to guide people to the google buzz pages.

And implement massive strategic boycotts of companies like bp, Walmart, Monsanto, etc. Facebook has shown, by removing the 'boycott bp' page, that boycotts scare the pee out of the big bad.

Magda Hassan
08-27-2010, 01:41 PM
Some one is listening. I wonder how this will turn out?

Facebook alternative Diaspora eyes launch date

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48890000/jpg/_48890172_48890173.jpg Many believe that it will be difficult to challenge Facebook
An open alternative to Facebook will be launched on 15 September, the developers of the project have said.
Diaspora describes itself as a "privacy-aware, personally-controlled" social network.
The open-source project made headlines earlier this year when Facebook was forced to simplify its privacy settings, after they were criticised for being overly complex and confusing.
The project, developed by four US students, raised $200,000 (£140,000).
"We have Diaspora working, we like it, and it will be open-sourced on September 15th," the team wrote on their blog.
The team said they had spent the summer "building clear, contextual sharing".
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11108891#story_continues_1) “Start Quote


I think there will be a lot of people watching to see just what the team come up with”
End Quote Maggie Shiels Technology reporter

Read Maggie's thoughts in full (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/maggieshiels/2010/08/the_anti-facebook_update.html)


"That means an intuitive way for users to decide, and not notice deciding, what content goes to their co-workers and what goes to their drinking buddies. We know that's a hard [user interface] problem and we take it seriously."
The project was started by three computer scientists and one mathematician from New York.
Their idea of building it gained momentum earlier this year during an intense period of criticism of Facebook, the world's largest social network
"We want to put users back in control of what they share," Max Salzberg, one of the founders, told BBC News at the time.
The team turned to the fundraising site Kickstarter to raise the $10,000 they thought they would need to build the network.
In the end the team raised $200,642 from nearly 6,500 people.
Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, reportedly donated to the project.
The initial release on 15 September will be to "open-source" Diaspora, meaning that the team will make the underlying code available for anyone to see and modify.
Many believe that it will be difficult to challenge Facebook, which now has 500 million users and is currently estimated to be worth $33bn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11108891

Keith Millea
08-27-2010, 03:02 PM
Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, reportedly donated to the project.


OK,this makes me suspicious.Why would Zuckerberg donate to a rival?Maybe I've just become to distrusting of EVERYTHING........

Jan Klimkowski
08-27-2010, 04:01 PM
Maybe I've just become to distrusting of EVERYTHING........

Trust is good.

But one does of course have to be insightful about who to trust.

When men on the chessboard
Get up and tell you where to go
And you've just had some kind of mushroom
And your mind is moving low
Go ask Alice
I think she'll know

It's a form of epiphany as I know you know.... :bandit: