What Else Can We Blame On Facebook? How About Helping The Mob?

from the any-other-conspiracy-theories dept

Thu, Oct 25th 2007 11:37pm — Mike Masnick

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

17 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mike F.M, 26 Oct 2007 @ 12:05am

But they won't
They won't look for "a second, less biased, source for confirmation" because it might not make a good a story.

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 thread ]
Mitch Graves, 26 Oct 2007 @ 1:27am

Surely no one is surprised the media would do this?
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 thread ]
R Chapman, 26 Oct 2007 @ 2:52am

Re:
I entirely agree with your sentiments regarding the media, but acid rain a hoax?? please see the wiki entry regarding this,

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 thread ]
Max Powers at http://ConsumerFight.com, 26 Oct 2007 @ 2:57am

Media Hype
If it is written, it must be true.

This is still believed by millions of people each day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wolff000, 26 Oct 2007 @ 5:42am

No News Is Good News
I love how people rant about liberal media. Last I checked one of the main news sources in the US was so slanted to the "conservative" side that some politicians refuse to even interview or give a comment. I don't like any of the news organizations since they all do the spin thing. People should think for themselves and do their own research not believe what they read or hear from any one news source. No one has the whole story or an unbiased opinion anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2007 @ 5:57am

Listen up Of course we are having an effect there we have that stupid stuff out of the way now get off you silly agenda and look at the reality. The argument is not if we are having an effect it is how much....Duh !!!!!
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2007 @ 5:59am

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 thread ]
Danny, 26 Oct 2007 @ 6:12am

Re: No News Is Good News
Doing your own reasearch, while probably the most effective method of looking for news, is difficult at best. I'm still trying to find a good set of news sources but like you say it is so hard to find one without political slant. For now I just try to pull hard facts from mainstream sites like CNN and Fox News.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 26 Oct 2007 @ 6:23am

Re: Re:
Yeah, acid rain exists. In Canada, where they mine nickel for Toyota Prius batteries, the land is scorched from acid rain. Take that greenies!
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 thread ]
Dave Vick, 26 Oct 2007 @ 6:25am

Re: Re:
I can't believe you used a wikipedia article as an argument for the truth about something....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 26 Oct 2007 @ 6:27am

Re:
Yeah! What is wrong with CO2? I thought plants love that stuff. Yet it is the thing they are fighting to control the most...and the most pointless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 26 Oct 2007 @ 6:31am

Re: No News Is Good News
Oh my! There is one conservative news source! At least give the conservatives one thing to watch instead of the rest of the liberal slanted news sources out there. I love how liberals hate an actual argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sambamamma, 26 Oct 2007 @ 6:34am

Mitch is Inhaling Too Much Exhaust.
"They won't give the hundreds of top scientists who can disprove humans cause global warming the time of day."

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 thread ]
Dylan, 26 Oct 2007 @ 7:28am

Hmmmm.....
Maybe what we need to do is give the news companies an ultimatum and tell them that unless they start reporting honest and unbiased news we will just ignore them (not quite sure how well that will work), but In any event we just need to recognize the fact that the media is lying to us and take action. Either that, or just start getting out news from the onion.com, America’s Finest News Source!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KAZ (profile), 26 Oct 2007 @ 7:56am

Re: Re: Re:
It is even more foolish to fall for the anti-wikipedia propoganda as the anti-facebook.

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 thread ]
Facebook.com, Myspace.com, Youtube.com, Linkedin.c, 27 Oct 2007 @ 8:47pm

What Else Can We Blame On Facebook
Facebook.com, Myspace.com, Youtube.com, Linkedin.com are the new darlings of the internet and it would be absurd if they didn't get their own shares of trashy and negative publicity from the jealous media.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just Wondering, 30 Oct 2007 @ 8:15am

Re: Re:
Thosands of scientists claim global warming is caused by humans. Millions of people claim Jesus is God. At one time, anyone who said the world revolved around the sun was laughed at. Do the number of voices really prove a point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]