What Else Can We Blame On Facebook? How About Helping The Mob?
from the any-other-conspiracy-theories dept
Constantine von Hoffman has been doing a nice job tracking both how security firms are blaming Facebook (or any other popular social network) for just about anything, but also how the press keeps falling for it. His latest find is to trash an Australian news organization for writing up a whole article on how Facebook, Linkedin and MySpace are popular feeding grounds for organized criminals without bothering to talk to a single other source than a security firm who has a vested interest in generating headlines and making people worried about security. As Constantine notes, he has no reason to doubt that the claim true, but it seems like the press should at least look for a second, less biased, source for confirmation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: organized crime, security, social networks
Companies: facebook, linkedin, messagelabs, myspace
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But they won't
It's not as dramatic if you have the other side of the story saying that it's all rubbish. It makes it a more reliable article, true, but won't sell as many.
The main problem is that as people look to these sources for reliable news and information, and trust them to deliver, they are less likely to question the information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The media puts the worst possible spin on everything except immorality.
They won't give the hundreds of top scientists who can disprove humans cause global warming the time of day. When the big hoax was acid rain they ignored all the science for a decade until 60 Minutes shocked trhe world by calling it a hoax.
The media goes out of it's way to put the worst possible spin on everything and when they touch something the leftists like the libs are just amazed at the dishonesty of the media. It's really funny.
Too bad the libs are not honest enough to read Accuracy in Media or mediaresearch.org. That much truth might kill them! LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain.
also, your claim of 'hundreds' of scientists saying that mankind is not having an affect on the environment, yet thousands of scientists claim we are....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
also, your claim of 'hundreds' of scientists saying that mankind is not having an affect on the environment, yet thousands of scientists claim we are....
That's not undeniable evidence. Being in the minority in a scientific theory does not guarantee said theory is false...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The thousands of scientists only mention man may be a cause of global warming in their papers so they can still get funding to do their research. Hoax indeed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wikipedia is already the best single source of information in (human) existence. The complaint that "anyone can edit it" speaks to a gross ignorance of how it works.
It also ignores the fact that the /problem/ with most information sources is that a more monolithic entity edits them. Each other source, ultimately, is irresponsible, speaking only to the agenda of its controller.
In any significant article on wikipedia, ONLY well-sourced information will survive for any length of time, regardless of the agenda of its author. But, likewise, any truth that someone decides to add cannot easily be kept out. As long as they can footnote it correctly, it will likely end up remaining.
The reason that mainstream media and academia attack it is that they HATE the idea of information that they cannot censor and control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media Hype
This is still believed by millions of people each day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No News Is Good News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No News Is Good News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No News Is Good News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not nearly the effect the radical environmentalists want us to believe. Did you know that bio-diesel causes more damage to atmosphere ("The green house affect") then petroleum based diesel... Nitrogen oxide ring a bell anywhere ..... Don't be a dupe think and learn before making even bigger mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mitch is Inhaling Too Much Exhaust.
What are you an SUV salesman??? You actually are right though, it's not people, it's factories, automobiles, cattle, and the like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmmm.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Else Can We Blame On Facebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]