Yakko, That isn't a realistic assessment of Facebook versus alternatives. Facebook: Long history of repeatedly violating users' trust and privacy by selling their information, ceasing to do so when caught, then doing it again, AND
Arbitrary censorship e.g. recently removing the anti-Obama caricature as described here... yet banning a woman for posting images of herself breastfeeding her child, but protecting the rights of Facebook users to post (lots and lots of) tragic, graphic historical photographs of naked, living, starving, tortured victims of the Axis countries in World War 2. THAT is so inconsistent, absurd. The WW 2 photos weren't posted for any clear purpose, not that I recall.
versus Twitter: Selective censorship under duress, content accessible regardless of whether or not one is a registered user (I can view very little on FB, as I am not a user). Blogs/ websites: Far fewer incidents of permanent content removal and loss than on FB, even considering ICS and government action as you allude to. Yes, you might lose access temporarily to your website due to the collateral damage effect, or Wordpress blog (if Wordpress is DDoS'd or otherwise taken offline). In most instances, you'll get things back when the over-anxious host calms down, or Wordpress service is restored. FB is like a black hole: Weird dot php URLs, everything transitory. Email and cell phones: For most of us, quite decent. Yes, ISP's operate under FCC oversight, but I believe that the FCC and government(s) in general are less arbitrary than Facebook! Applicable outside of the U.S.A. too. Newspapers: Same as email and cell phones. Major media is less arbitrary than FB.
ALL of the above, be they Twitter, Wordpress, hosting providers, email services, cell phone/ telecom companies, news media or government, are arguably run by more responsible and experienced people than Mark Zuckerberg, who is the uber-controller of FB, both as founder, and as legal owner. Thus ALL of the alternatives that I mentioned (probably lots that I omitted), seem less vulnerable to external influence and irrational censorship than Facebook.
On the post: Why Do So Many People Rely On Facebook For Communications, Given Its Arbitrary Removal Process?
Re: Alternative?
Facebook: Long history of repeatedly violating users' trust and privacy by selling their information, ceasing to do so when caught, then doing it again, AND
Arbitrary censorship e.g. recently removing the anti-Obama caricature as described here... yet banning a woman for posting images of herself breastfeeding her child, but protecting the rights of Facebook users to post (lots and lots of) tragic, graphic historical photographs of naked, living, starving, tortured victims of the Axis countries in World War 2. THAT is so inconsistent, absurd. The WW 2 photos weren't posted for any clear purpose, not that I recall.
versus
Twitter: Selective censorship under duress, content accessible regardless of whether or not one is a registered user (I can view very little on FB, as I am not a user).
Blogs/ websites: Far fewer incidents of permanent content removal and loss than on FB, even considering ICS and government action as you allude to. Yes, you might lose access temporarily to your website due to the collateral damage effect, or Wordpress blog (if Wordpress is DDoS'd or otherwise taken offline). In most instances, you'll get things back when the over-anxious host calms down, or Wordpress service is restored. FB is like a black hole: Weird dot php URLs, everything transitory.
Email and cell phones: For most of us, quite decent. Yes, ISP's operate under FCC oversight, but I believe that the FCC and government(s) in general are less arbitrary than Facebook! Applicable outside of the U.S.A. too.
Newspapers: Same as email and cell phones. Major media is less arbitrary than FB.
ALL of the above, be they Twitter, Wordpress, hosting providers, email services, cell phone/ telecom companies, news media or government, are arguably run by more responsible and experienced people than Mark Zuckerberg, who is the uber-controller of FB, both as founder, and as legal owner. Thus ALL of the alternatives that I mentioned (probably lots that I omitted), seem less vulnerable to external influence and irrational censorship than Facebook.
Next >>