Favorite editorial cartoons: June 2010

Changing a policy is not a sign of evil or even underhandedness, though, which is largely what the public outcry is over (as noted in the comic with the sneaky hand covering the mouth from the user). It's not "Hey, you changed your policy, and I don't like the new one", it's more "BWAAAAH, Facebook is being tricksy!!! My rights, my rights!!!", which, afaict, is malarky. No one's rights are being tread upon, per se.
 
In my eyes, it comes bordering close to a bait and switch, depending on if you believe Facebook intended to change its policy well ahead of time from when they instituted the change or not. In either case, and again as a matter of opinion, some people put forward that Facebook was beholden to do a better job of alerting its users as to the change. As a personal decision, I have never been a Facebook user for this and other reasons, so I do actually hold a certain sense of vindication which likely biases me.
 
jpariury said:
Enh, I just don't book faces because I already have a Myspace account I never do anything with... why create another account I won't do anything with either? :)
Click to expand...

Because Myspace has become the ghetto of the internet...?

Also, I'd like to reiterate... on top of the fact that Facebook hasn't done a good enough job informing people of the change... the change has been made automatically and people have to seek out the not quite obvious method to opt out of it. If Facebook never made the claims they did none of it would be an issue.. I'd just be sure to read the fine print closer next time. And, yes, I did actually read the fine print when i signed up for Facebook. I was ok with them retaining my info so long as they didn't do what they're doing now. And I would have had a bigger issue still if I hadn't been able to later go in and systematically turn off every setting I had a problem with. That took a lot of looking into and doing though. It should be easier than it was.
 
Vazhi said:
Because Myspace has become the ghetto of the internet...?
Click to expand...
Possibly, but that has nothing to do with my lack of use. I just don't find the general app particularly entertaining.

Also, I'd like to reiterate... on top of the fact that Facebook hasn't done a good enough job informing people of the change...
Click to expand...
AFAIK, they have an account that tracks all upcoming policy changes. All you have to do is friending or fanning or subscribing to it and you'll get updates as they come down the pike, including be able to chime in on proposed changes. And I'm not buying the whole "omg, it's sooo hard" argument. I'm not a member and I can find it pretty easily.

I was ok with them retaining my info so long as they didn't do what they're doing now.
Click to expand...
I think you're making out to be harder than it is. From the policy page:

Deactivating or deleting your account. If you want to stop using your account you may deactivate it or delete it. When you deactivate an account, no user will be able to see it, but it will not be deleted. We save your profile information (connections, photos, etc.) in case you later decide to reactivate your account. Many users deactivate their accounts for temporary reasons and in doing so are asking us to maintain their information until they return to Facebook. You will still have the ability to reactivate your account and restore your profile in its entirety. When you delete an account, it is permanently deleted from Facebook. You should only delete your account if you are certain you never want to reactivate it. You may deactivate your account on your account settings page or delete your account on this help page.

That said, the issue stops being one about privacy, and becomes one about user-accessibility. Those are two very different complaints.
 
jp - You are, as usual, not really making much of an attempt to discern what point is actually being driven toward and going in a different direction as it suites you. I'd like a debate to not fizzle out and die some time because you've decided it's time to be mister contrary. Stop it. Outlasting everyone isn't a viable method of proving your point.

*Wanders in the general direction of away* *Goes looking around for amusing editorial cartoons to share*
 
No, I get the point people seem to want to portray: Facebook is evil, and kick puppies in churches... or some such. Every time the arguments concerning their evil are pointed out as flawed or invalid, folks just like to jump to a new reason why they want me to think Facebook is evil. This isn't a discussion based on attrition, its a discussion based on whether or not the arguments presented have any merit. I haven't seen any, tbh.

"Facebook is sneaky and violates privacy rights!"
Rights - you have no reasonable expectation of them protecting your publicly posted information, so really, you're faulty for expecting it.
Privacy - accepting the above, they do make it possible to isolate who has access to stuff you put on their site
Sneaky - no, they pretty much tell you right out what they're doing.

"But, its hard to figure out how to remove your own stuff, and someone else might put stuff up!"
Sounds like something you need to take up with that someone else. That said, your reasonable expectation of privacy erodes when you start having other people around. At best, you have a good argument for why proliferation of information might erode expected privacies, but that's a discussion about you, not Facebook. And hard? Not hardly.

"But, they changed their rules, and make it hard to find out when they do that!"
Really? I found it pretty easy, and I don't even use it. How much harder is it if you join?

"Now you're just arguing to argue"
Not really, but how does that make a case for the big evil Facebook?

"We're just supposed to look at the comics and laugh! Why do you keep trying to discuss the content and, like, think about it and stuff?"
Because it's interesting and fun...

"JUST LET ME HAVETHELASTWORD!!!"
Okay.

Dangit.
 
Flawed and invalid is not what is going on. Interpretation is. Moral and ethical considerations are never obvious because individuals differ on what's most important, where lines should be drawn, and other points. The protection of privacy is very much an ethical issue, and pretty clearly there are different interpretations of that ethical point going on. The discussion isn't really about what's happened, it's about whether it's ethical or not. Facebook's policy change could have been a good deal worse, and I don't think anyone tried saying it couldn't. It also could have been better, and how much better it should have been and how important that is anyway are very much matters of personal interpretation based on individual experience. Unless someone has access to a legitimate and unassailable moral authority genuinely endorsing one viewpoint over all others, debate and differing opinion are to be expected and appreciated as a means of moving towards consensus. You know, ideally. Whether you think the entire responsibility for privacy protection rests on Facebook, on the users, or somewhere in between, you hold an opinion, nothing more and nothing less.

As an example, I hold the opinion that stating Facebook is clearly public requires an interpretation of the facts that is not totally supported. Unless I'm quite mistaken, a person individually approves of ever person who can look at the things they write. With that being the case, there is no implied publicity in the internet sense, but rather an extended privacy. As such, it may well be the expectation of users that their personal information remain available only to those people they themselves approved of, and not become available in a more truly public sense without their express permission, as opposed to their lack of refusal.
 
cagle00.gif


darkow.gif


cartoon20100607.jpg


dim


bors.jpg
 
jpariury said:
There's something about the look on Meg Whitman's face that always makes me want to smack the crap out of her.
Click to expand...

It's that smug look that some rich people get, that they're better than you and they know it, and they're merely humoring you.
 
Touchdown Jesus is a mural, not a statue...just saying.

Scott
 
The "real" Touchdown Jesus is a mural at Notre Dame and is visible over one of the endzones from inside the stadium.

Evidently a statue somewhere else has been given the same nickname. It's a poser ;)

Scott
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top