After Facebook’s latest shenanigans, the Timeline stuff, and the possibility that they may ‘lock’ access to past files, so that, for instance, if you loaded a picture in 2011, you might not be able to remove it—a situation hinted at in the letter they gave Jane about the ability to remove anything you don’t want displayed— That could simply mean that things will show up on your Timeline you don’t want revealed; or it could mean you can edit up to mid August, and then past mid-August might not be so accessible.
All of which is a debatable interpretation, and will be proven in a few days one way or the other. But do you know? I’ve stopped caring. I’ve stopped trying to figure out what they’re up to now. For us, we have been through just one Facebook upheaval too many, and Jane and I made the decision to pull our presence out of FB for all but the most commercial of purposes.
We are ‘content creators.’ IE, our income comes from creating content. I’ll contribute freebie writing to truly fannish or friendly places I like, and my area on Facebook tried to be that, but looming over the whole affair is a very mercenary operation that I’m not sure I want to support, or pose myself as an ‘attraction’ for the benefit of Facebook’s bottom line. Facebook encourages people, with their pretense of warm-fuzzies and benefit to the user, to reveal their politics, their religion, their family members, their pets, their sexual preferences, for gosh sake! their relationships, their friends AND their friends’ email addresses, things you would NEVER post on line…and then they have, along with Amazon, apparently subscribed to the novel legal concept that if they insert a clause stating they have the right to change the agreement they make with you to their advantage without notice—[I can’t wait til that concept comes before the Supreme Court, but it’s going to take a lawsuit by somebody with funds to carry it through]—it’s legal.
The agreement used to say that they don’t sell certain information. Now, if you look carefully, they’ve modified that statement in the personal options section to read that they don’t sell that now, but may in future. And think about it! getting you to update and recheck those little blanks that they’ve voided with a ‘software update’ is also a way of resetting the legal clock and getting you to ‘sign’ their new terms with that pernicious statement in it.
I don’t appreciate such goings-on. It would be bad enough if it were social-only and a bit of fun.
But our livelihood depends on our income from what we create in words and image, and we are giving them no way to claim any ownership of what we write or paint or photograph, and we are not going to sit there attracting more members into their sticky spiderweb.
So I went through and very carefully swept our backtrail, removing images and information and doing everything but closing out the account. I had to ask myself what to do about ‘friend’ requests, and after a little soul-searching, I decided to go ahead granting them until I hit the 5000-friend wall and can’t take any more.
Interestingly in today’s news Facebook is worried about its nearly 10% of ‘fake’ accounts, accounts of duplicate name, accounts for pets, and alternate identities. Facebook is always up to something. I weary of trying to figure what, precisely, but I very much doubt this new concern portends anything of advantage to their users, and something much more of advantage to the marketability of the information they are finagling out out their members.
Some people say, oh, get one of the ‘cleaner’ programs that reverts your display to pre-Timeline format, or that cleans out your ‘like’ list. Reports from one user says that her computer now locks every time she attempts to view a Timeline-style account, a condition that will only get worse as Facebook puts everyone on Timeline, perhaps as early as mid-August; and other users say that people who think they’ve cleaned out their ‘likes’ with such programs are mistaken: the ‘likes’ are masked from view, but not masked from Facebook admin level, so they can still be sold—and these, in my own opinion, are about as good as flying a “Spam Accepted!” flag. They call it ‘tailoring ads to what a viewer will like.” I don’t like ads at all, even for what I like. So I erased each and every one of them. Jane has left a little more of her stuff there than I have, by choice, but we are through with the site, except for what commercial use we can derive from it for ourselves.
So if you need us, find us here. I did get used to doing a little science and writing commentary while ‘there.’ And I’m going to try it out here. Which may or may not last, depending on my mood, or just what comes to my attention.
For our new folk on the blog, if you wish to de-lurk and comment, welcome. You have to join to comment—which keeps spam out of this site—and if you want an avatar that isn’t a space alien, go to gravatar.com and set up your avatar there. That avatar will then appear on this site, on Jane’s site, and on Lynn’s, or any other WordPress site, all for the one entry. We don’t sell lists, don’t spam, and don’t flame. The only rule is—be courteous and don’t talk politics. This is, in effect, my living room, and I defend its tranquility. Sit back, have a cuppa, be welcome, and enjoy the company.
Sorry to hear about your “fun” with Facebook. I have an account, but generally only use it to post about my dogs, and to keep in contact with my dog-training group, so I am not too concerned about things. On the other hand, I can’t imagine posting some of the stuff that I’ve seen from other people! Political opinions, etc., out in cyberspace forever, available to anyone with a minimal amount of knowledge? No thanks! I am boring and benign. And so late to Facebook that I never even thought about looking to see if you had a page!
Can you give some advice about the advisability of a water feature? I have a spot in my yard, where I used to have a tree that grew too big way too fast, and I am now contemplating putting a water feature there instead. This one, too be specific: http://penningtonaquagarden.com/index.php?id=3 The issue is that the location is not ideal, since it’s tucked into a reverse corner (a backwards L, if that makes sense), and will only get filtered morning light during the summer. More light in the winter since the tree to the east will lose its leaves. I know that most pond plants like lots of light, so I am wondering what you might recommend for this situation. I live down by Los Angeles, so no concern about winter freezes. I might get a skim of ice a few days a year, but it’s the kind of thing that will melt by noon. Advice on non-koi/non-goldfish also appreciated!
Oh, that’s fun. Limiting light for a pond is not too bad unless you want waterlilies. Koi grow up to 3′ long, (usually max out at a foot and a half) so you may want to consider goldfish, which are just a shade smaller, as a rule. Still, with a large one, a couple of koi, maybe. You will need one accessory, besides the regular circulating pump, and you might be able to make it in a plastic trash can: a fairly potent pump to suck water through filter medium and let it flow back in: that’s not for ordinary use, but if you get murky water, it’ll clean it out. You MIGHT need an aerator because of the limited water surface: this is a submerged pump that sucks air and bubbles away to put oxygen into the water for fish. I’d suggest an underwater light, when you want to see your fish. 😉 Your alternative is to stack some railroad ties in a rectangle, level it, line it with HPDM (rubber sheet liner), install a waterfall somewhere ( a stack of rocks with a hidden filter involved somewhere, and that way you get more size, and you can sit on the edge and feed your fish. HPDM is easier than those predone plastic forms you’re supposed to sink into the lawn…that bob right out of the lawn as soil creeps. They don’t work in all soils. But hpdm lines a hole—either in the ground, or a built-up area with an edging, and railroad ties, spiked together, make a nice stable border. Some also do it with landscape timbers (those rounded things, or with those big WIndsor wedge-shaped landscaping stones, but both of those are not as stable IMHO, as the railroad ties. WHich are heavy as sin, but determination can get them into place, a level can get them leveled, and once they’re pegged to each other with spikes, they’re stable, even if your earth rocks and rolls occasionally (better than landscape timbers in that regard.) Any one of these things will work. The build it yourself ones are the cheapest. The brand of equipment I use is Savio, which has some drawbacks, but they make a good product; and you might also visit pondliner.com which has a lot of info on pond products and how to. I can certainly help with advice no matter which system you choose. Just remember that surface area and exposure of the water to air, be it bubbler or waterfall, determine fish health re oxygen, and that you will need to filter the water somehow, if you have fish or plants, because they are real poo producers. We had koi in a 3×5 pie wedge about 2′ deep that thrived and did very well, with a little waterfall.
Koi, especially as they grow large, have some commercial value, they can and should be sold to other koi fanciers.
But if anybody decides on goldfish in a pond or aquarium, PULLEEZE do the right thing–kill them rather than flushing them or releasing them in the wild. When you bought them, you accepted responsibility for them! Oregon’s DFW has an ongoing program of poisoning ponds, lakes, and reservoirs where people have “kindly” released unwanted goldfish into the wild as an invasive species! How “kindly” are these irresponsible people being in the final analysis?
Good for you! I have steadfastly and with heels firmly dug in, resisted signing up for Facebook. Quite frankly, I was leery of it from the get-go, especially when I saw the “required information” they wanted on their applications — not so much “who wants to know?” as “Why do they want to know?”. Facebook does nothing I need done that I can’t do better someplace else. That “data mining” think is also what keeps me off Pandora and other music sites like it.
I have a gmail account, and they datamine my emails, producing an ad that is just one line across the top of my inbox. now I use adblocker, and get no ads on fb, and on my laptop this little ad thing is taken away by adblocker, but not on the new imac – weird …. and very annoying, since this really seems to threaten my privacy …
don’t you have facebook pages, rather than the normal fb accounts? they are best to give yourself a presence on fb for the books. I have one for the pots, and I don’t keep befriending madly, even though there is a wonderful potters network on fb, I am trying to get the page to do most of that. and who would be so silly as to give fb their phone number! or publish anything private ……..
It’s wise decision!
Besides the fake accounts on Facebook, there is now a growing scandal about fake clicks on Facebook ads.
If you search on Google News you’ll find a large number of articles about this. Here’s one:
Questions mount as Facebook advertisers lose to clickbots
It started when a small startup company who was paying Facebook for clicks on their ad determined, in a very rigorous way, that 80% of the clicks were fake, coming from bots. The only response so far from Facebook, after four days, has been “We haven’t received any data yet to support these claims.”
Many other companies are now telling similar stories.
Now the real question is, who set up the bots? Facebook is benefiting financially.
The same small startup company also changed their name from ‘Limited Pressing’ to ‘Limited Run’. So they wanted to change the name on their Facebook page. After many attempts to contact Facebook, they finally got a response. Facebook would change the name… but only if they agreed to spend $2000/month on advertising. Needless to say, they are now out of Facebook.
couldn’t they just start another fb page? but fake clicks … oh dear!
Not only that, but you don’t get sole title to install the ‘likes’ on your own page… Jane and others who went in to look at their likes found there were things they had never ‘liked’ nor would, and my own suspicion is that some ads install a ‘like’ if you click on them, so they’re in there, assuring you get more such that you didn’t ‘like’ in the first place. I don’t tend to click on things of a commercial nature and I don’t follow links except for news feeds, so I didn’t have many I couldn’t account for, but some people of different habits were quite shocked at what they found, especially people who thought that a social fixer program had stripped this stuff out. There’s no mass delete. YOu have to get in there and specifically unlike each one of these little gifts. Jane had hundreds, guiding the appearance of spam on her page.
I don’t know Mr. Zuckerberg, the founder of FB, who is supposed to be an sf fan and allround good guy, but I am not so sure he is behind every decision that is taken on FB. He probably hasn’t been hands-on in some time. And just allowing holes so that ‘bots can run amok through the ads would make sure your ‘department’ would have a nice activity report for Mr. Zuckerberg. We ran one experimental ad for Closed Circle, and as far as we can determine, got no actual site visit from that ad. Knowing the constant technological battle to keep ‘bots out of the site, I could believe that it was an accidental vulnerability. But my studies of law (Roman) always make me ask ‘cui bono’ (who benefits?) when there is an apparent accident. When an accident benefits someone on a grand scale, I really ask it. And a department head that wanted a lot of clicks could easily arrange that by leaving a gate unlocked. No ‘theft’ in the normal sense, except that the advertisers buy, say, 100 clicks, at a dollar a click. So—3 curious people and 97 ‘bots come in and click, and the ad is ‘expired,’ the owner of the ad has already handed FB 100 dollars, FB has the money, the ‘bots don’t care, and the 3 curious people weren’t interested after all. The shopowner gets nothing, and thinks he composed an ineffective ad.
Apparently some companies are getting suspicious.
FB is now ‘aware’ that 10% of FB is false accounts? Come on. Mr. Zuckerman is a geek. He understands geeks will do this sort of thing. Why are they suddenly concerned that 10% of their database is a spoof, or belongs to dogs or cats or little companies and not people? I have a feeling the company’s stats are being challenged by some beancounters with sharp pencils, when it comes to charges for advertising. It’s even possible that now that he’s a publicly traded stock, that the feds are asking question about the stats the company puts forward to attract investors—when you start dealing with the federal regulators, the questions can’t be put off, and the feds take a dim view of investors being given false stats.
hmmm .. well it’s a commercial site after all. I block all ads, and I wonder how many do? if all did it fb would have closed long ago I suppose …
Heartily approve. I follow you on twitter and come to this site regularly. Though, I admit, I hardly ever post. I am just shy.
I believe that Facebook and other social media sites often overstep acceptable community norms with regards to safety and privacy, among other issues. If as you say, you carefully read all the fine print you can protect yourself. But it is quite alot of overhead and you may still find yourself on the losing end of the battle. The absolute last straw for me was the Girls Around Me app. If you haven’t read about that you can see the one of the first post about the app here.
http://www.cultofmac.com/157641/this-creepy-app-isnt-just-stalking-women-without-their-knowledge-its-a-wake-up-call-about-facebook-privacy/
I believe the app has been pulled from the app store, but I expect you can still get directly from the developers site….
Good grief! What mental midget thought THAT was a good idea?
And don’t be shy, nanderson. You’re perfectly welcome here.
Thank you, very nice of you to say so.
Afternoon all … I keep FB for 2 reasons.
Family – all 10,000 miles away and letter writing for all of them is a lost art. They will post on FB though.
Genealogy – some really nice people are there and we all help each other.
Re ads: I don’t use ad-blocker or anything and don’t notice them either. I’ve never, ever played any of the games or let any of the apps access me.
My regards to everybody in Genealogy, and regrets. I like the people. A lot.
I’m so glad I’m not on Facebook or MySpace. I haven’t joined Twitter either, but I might.
I was surprised a while back to find there’s someone else with my name, because my family name is unusual. I’d presume he’s some very distant cousin and that his legal name must be different.
I’m on the web and use a cell phone. Because of my eyesight, these are important equalizers, including social outlets. The downside of using all this tech is…absolutely anything I’ve ever written is probably out there, somewhere, online or in some old backup files. I’m occasionally outspoken and I have an opinion and emotions.
I figure the one saving grace is, I’m no better and no worse than most of the people out there. I hope we don’t ever see some dystopian technocracy or some ideology take over that takes such exception to people. But it exists in other parts of the world and it has existed throughout history. So what do I do? I can only be me, and try to make sure I can look at myself in the mirror in the morning. How others react to (or don’t react to) that “me” online or in person, I can’t help.
I post in forums and in a few blogs. But for some reason, Facebook and MySpace haven’t appealed to me. Maybe it’s just that I’m not that super-outgoing party animal. :shrugs:
I may start a blog at some point, either for business or personal or mixed.
That is one thing that I don’t understand about recent trends. Everyone has a business side and a personal side. Anyone may change things like company names, other interests and hobbies, heck, even the ideas and opinions they espouse, or family and friends and names (nicknames, surnames, etc.). Yet the “social networks” seem to be moving toward the idea that we only have one online “identity.” Yet there are many reasons one might want more than one online presence which have nothing to do with deception or duplicity or falsehood. I hope the big corporate critters don’t forget that. I don’t like that growing paranoia I see at times around the web. But then, I had to learn to be more cautious too.
I guess it’s the world we live in. I suppose it’s just as rough living with intellectual and emotional hazards as it is living with the physical risks in daily life. At least I haven’t had to dodge any ravening barbarian hordes bent on destruction lately. Hmm, I think the last time I did that was right before July 4th. Or perhaps a couple of Thanksgiving/Christmas holidays ago. Heheh. (The barbarians should take lessons from those crazed holiday shoppers!) 😀
I have a Facebook account for two reasons: one, to keep in touch with some people I don’t otherwise speak to at all. And two, to put a wall between my real name and my long-term pseudonym. It’s not 100% – my friends know both my online and my real name, and if I get an editing client through social media, they learn it, too – but it’s just an additional buffer.
I’ve just checked my likes, and they really were of the very few things I’ve liked myself. I am, however, quite strict about not staying logged into facebook when surfing and deleting flash cookies.
I have the impression, from what people say about FB, and what it says itself, that exists primarily to provide eyes for ‘targeted’ ads. That’s why I’ve been avoiding it.
Truthfully, I’ve never been bothered by ads. I just ignore anything on the right hand side of the screen, don’t even look at it.
I agree with Tulrose: I just ignore everything on that side of the screen. A lot of the spots I go (Yahoo, google, etc.) have ads, and I ignore those as well. It does help that for some reason a lot of them seem to be in Spanish, which I neither speak nor read. Not sure what makes them think that I am the appropriate target for those!
I’m not particularly bothered about seeing the ads, but I am bothered about FB collecting information about the websites I visit. (I’m a writer and I work as a copy editor, so I visit a wide range of sites, some of which I do *not* wish to be associated with my name. (FBs tracking happens in the background as long as you are logged in – it’s a real concern.) I am even more bothered about that information being sold to third parties, and while I personally won’t suffer from ‘this person is looking at gay interest sites of an adult nature’ (one of my jobs has included coding websites for market research – if someone else visited it, I would have to, and look at it long enough to verify the site) there are people more vulnerable for whom this could be extremely problematic. So it’s the business model much more than the visible effects that I protest against.