What I Learned When Facebook Disabled My Account (2012)(optimizationtoday.com)
optimizationtoday.com
What I Learned When Facebook Disabled My Account (2012)
http://www.optimizationtoday.com/social-media/what-i-learned-when-facebook-disabled-my-account/
132 comments
You can slightly mitigate this particular problem mentioned in the article (the author used it to manage FB pages): I always use at least 2 personal accounts for managing a FB page. One is actively used whereas the other one is just a backup in case something happens to the first one. Redundancy is always important, also in social media.
How did you create 2 fb accounts? Don't they ask for phone number confirmation?
I don't think so. I have 3 accounts (I never use any of them, or FB at all, these days, but they are all still active). None of them are in my real name, but all have plausible-sounding names.
I have several private FB accounts. I created them when text message verification wasn't required. But if I had to do it now, I'd have bought a couple of cheap SIM cards and still set it up the same way.
I feel it's important to split your account into several ones instead of using groups of friends as recommended by FB. It's harder to profile and track you, you have more freedom and privacy in expressing yourself, you mitigate several risks etc. Only one of these accounts has my real name - I log in every couple of weeks and just accept invitations (if I care to). The other ones use common names to protect my privacy.
For example, I have a separate account for reviews. Reviews are important tool for consumers to influence the quality of service/product. While I don't want to hide behind a fake name when writing a review, and if asked I can reveal my identity to the organisation in charge of the product/service, I definitely don't want everyone to see what products/services I'm using. That's just one example - if you have to use social media, do it in such a way you have at least some control in this unequal battle.
> The only solution I can think of is for lots and lots of people to pool their money and start a non-profit Facebook.
See https://diasporafoundation.org/
Not that they've actually made any sort of dent in the problem - as you say, the network effect is just too strong.
See https://diasporafoundation.org/
Not that they've actually made any sort of dent in the problem - as you say, the network effect is just too strong.
Sometimes the only way to win is not to play at all. If you want to contact me on Facebook about that... well, I never had an account, and I am surviving... somehow.
BTW https://mastodon.social is making some headway. I see a lot of security people have switched to it.
BTW https://mastodon.social is making some headway. I see a lot of security people have switched to it.
Isn't that a twitter clone?
(My point is that IMO twitter was the most useless of all the mainstream social networks until snapchat arrived.
I reached this conclusion by seing that you can get to twitter functionality from both facebook, instagram and google+ just by removing features and introducing limitations.)
(My point is that IMO twitter was the most useless of all the mainstream social networks until snapchat arrived.
I reached this conclusion by seing that you can get to twitter functionality from both facebook, instagram and google+ just by removing features and introducing limitations.)
> My point is that IMO twitter was the most useless of all the mainstream social networks
I Twitter is the most honest social network. Everything is public, the end. Unlike Facebook's "privacy" settings.
I Twitter is the most honest social network. Everything is public, the end. Unlike Facebook's "privacy" settings.
When Twitter was launched Facebook didn't have a news feed and Google+ was non existent.
The actual solution would be something like "pool all our money, then execute a hostile takeover of Facebook, kick the entire board, and pivot the company to a nonprofit business model". Until then, well... https://xkcd.com/743/
Not only is that addage showing its age, even though it's as applicable now as it was from its point of first usage, but I would suggest it's a disgrace that humans both think and act in such a manner. In other words, just because it's free shouldn't mean the user should be the product.
I realize a lot of people will not agree with me, however I tend to think way beyond the general human conception and as a consequence hold to a very different perspective.
I realize a lot of people will not agree with me, however I tend to think way beyond the general human conception and as a consequence hold to a very different perspective.
> just because it's free shouldn't mean the user should be the product
I agree with you that that should not be the case. When I look at all the good things human beings have accomplished over the millennia, I cannot help but think that we can do better than this if we set our mind to it.
But life is not the way it should be (IMHO) in so many different levels in so many different ways I would not even know where to begin counting.
I agree with you that that should not be the case. When I look at all the good things human beings have accomplished over the millennia, I cannot help but think that we can do better than this if we set our mind to it.
But life is not the way it should be (IMHO) in so many different levels in so many different ways I would not even know where to begin counting.
[deleted]
Folks have tried starting alternatives to facebook: I think the real problem is that facebook is more similiar to a phone company that only connects its users to others that have the same phone company. It was the only game in town for a while, so this has made it into a near-monopoly.
If facebook was required to have some level of across-platform access, this might level the playing field and give us actual choice. Unfortunatly, I think this will take legislative action to accomplish. Until then, luck and time might change the course of things.
If facebook was required to have some level of across-platform access, this might level the playing field and give us actual choice. Unfortunatly, I think this will take legislative action to accomplish. Until then, luck and time might change the course of things.
> If facebook was required to have some level of across-platform access
That would be very interesting, and I think it would be a good idea. But I imagine it would be rather hard to pull of on the technical side, even if Facebook full-heartedly supported such an effort, and I don't want to begin to think of the kind of pressure we would have to put on our politicians to create such a law without making humongous mess out of it.
That would be very interesting, and I think it would be a good idea. But I imagine it would be rather hard to pull of on the technical side, even if Facebook full-heartedly supported such an effort, and I don't want to begin to think of the kind of pressure we would have to put on our politicians to create such a law without making humongous mess out of it.
Facebook has never been the only game in town. It has just been and continues to be the best game in town.
And the best by being the largest...
"People use it" is a pretty important feature for a social network though.
Whatever replaces Facebook will have to be "cool" enough to get people to actually want to use it. "Facebook but with better privacy" just isn't cool, so the average person isn't going to bother.
Whatever replaces Facebook will have to be "cool" enough to get people to actually want to use it. "Facebook but with better privacy" just isn't cool, so the average person isn't going to bother.
Orkut and MySpace were both a lot larger than when Facebook started. Facebook did some great things and innovated during their early years. But yeah, nowadays they can just coast by being marginally better than any new product.
I know the article is old, but the author showed a severe lack of common sense.
Facebook is NOT a backup. If you only keep stuff in your Facebook account, then it is as 'at risk' as if you only kept on the hard-drive of your ageing laptop that you bought on discount in Walmart/ASDA ten years ago.
This oft quoted adage also applies: 'If you are not paying for the product, then you are the product'. The author seemed to think that Facebook owe him for some reason, and that he is fully justified/entitled in begging for his account back. Facebook is a private company who most of the time let the general public mingle in the lobby of its HQ[1]. As their lobby is still their property, they can refuse entry whenever they like.
Something needs to be done about Facebook's near dominance of the Social Media space. If we let this run unchecked for much longer, there won't be an 'internet' - just millions of stale, abandoned websites all simply redirecting you to their respective Facebook Pages instead. It also wouldn't surprise me if at some point, new phones will be released where the browser app is no longer installed by default, but the Facebook app is. Even if this happened today, most non-technical users wouldn't even notice.
---
[1] Because the lobby is full of adverts from Facebook's business partners and Facebook gets a nice cut if you buy something being advertised.
Facebook is NOT a backup. If you only keep stuff in your Facebook account, then it is as 'at risk' as if you only kept on the hard-drive of your ageing laptop that you bought on discount in Walmart/ASDA ten years ago.
This oft quoted adage also applies: 'If you are not paying for the product, then you are the product'. The author seemed to think that Facebook owe him for some reason, and that he is fully justified/entitled in begging for his account back. Facebook is a private company who most of the time let the general public mingle in the lobby of its HQ[1]. As their lobby is still their property, they can refuse entry whenever they like.
Something needs to be done about Facebook's near dominance of the Social Media space. If we let this run unchecked for much longer, there won't be an 'internet' - just millions of stale, abandoned websites all simply redirecting you to their respective Facebook Pages instead. It also wouldn't surprise me if at some point, new phones will be released where the browser app is no longer installed by default, but the Facebook app is. Even if this happened today, most non-technical users wouldn't even notice.
---
[1] Because the lobby is full of adverts from Facebook's business partners and Facebook gets a nice cut if you buy something being advertised.
Law is full of regulations and court precedents that restrict what people can do to their private property. Here on HN people seem to think that private property is like a subclass in python where the owner is free to define whatever method or property he wants and overwrite rules inherited from the society superclass. It's not.
Landlords cannot just evict renters based on the landlord's own terms of service, not even a renter's non-paying children or girlfriend with whom the landlord didn't contract, and not even the renter himself although the stopped paying: The landlord needs to follow the rules of society, go through a bailiff's court or follow similar strict procedures defined in society to ensure that mandatory law is followed.
Not everybody can set up a medical clinic on their private property, even if they offer their services for free.
TV stations in many European countries can't show hidden ads in programmes and cannot show ads for kids for certain products. Even though the viewers didn't pay. Even though they are free not to watch.
In most places landowners cannot freely decide to do what they want with their land, like building a factory, without taking into consideration zoning laws and without hearing the neighbors or wider community as well.
For millennia, what we today call criminal laws, have applied on private property as well. You can't just hit somebody in the face because they are in your house and the terms on the door clearly says that you can. Think that's ridiculous? Well, it used to be that restaurants in America could chose to serve whites only. It was the choice of the property owner. Until it wasn't. Courts and congress decided that such practices were so despicable that the general interest of non-discrimination outweighed the interest in business owners getting to decide for themselves. Same with businesses hiring men only. Today most of us regard it as obvious that non discrimination laws trump the interest of private owners. A few decades ago, most people thought the owner could choose freely whom to hire.
I hope we will start regulating the new advertising industry comprised of social networks and search engines more tightly.
Landlords cannot just evict renters based on the landlord's own terms of service, not even a renter's non-paying children or girlfriend with whom the landlord didn't contract, and not even the renter himself although the stopped paying: The landlord needs to follow the rules of society, go through a bailiff's court or follow similar strict procedures defined in society to ensure that mandatory law is followed.
Not everybody can set up a medical clinic on their private property, even if they offer their services for free.
TV stations in many European countries can't show hidden ads in programmes and cannot show ads for kids for certain products. Even though the viewers didn't pay. Even though they are free not to watch.
In most places landowners cannot freely decide to do what they want with their land, like building a factory, without taking into consideration zoning laws and without hearing the neighbors or wider community as well.
For millennia, what we today call criminal laws, have applied on private property as well. You can't just hit somebody in the face because they are in your house and the terms on the door clearly says that you can. Think that's ridiculous? Well, it used to be that restaurants in America could chose to serve whites only. It was the choice of the property owner. Until it wasn't. Courts and congress decided that such practices were so despicable that the general interest of non-discrimination outweighed the interest in business owners getting to decide for themselves. Same with businesses hiring men only. Today most of us regard it as obvious that non discrimination laws trump the interest of private owners. A few decades ago, most people thought the owner could choose freely whom to hire.
I hope we will start regulating the new advertising industry comprised of social networks and search engines more tightly.
Absolutely - and the argument that "Facebook usage is like common law licenses of invitation onto private property" tacitly assumes that Facebook is like private property, and that the moral justification of "my private property, my rules" is correct.
It's intuitive - I'll give you that - but we need to decide amongst ourselves whether this behaviour is something we want to encourage or discourage into the future.
It's intuitive - I'll give you that - but we need to decide amongst ourselves whether this behaviour is something we want to encourage or discourage into the future.
You can't just hit somebody in the face because they are in your house and the terms on the door clearly says that you can.
This may be worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
This may be worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
You missed entirely flexie's point. Flexie gave numerous examples of circumstances in which the owner of a private property can not legally do as he/she pleases. Your response is to mention the castle doctrine. What is the purpose of this?
Your response is especially bad because according to the linked article:
"..as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force..."
Note that is says, "in certain circumstances". Flexie wrote that you can't just hit someone in the face in your house. Flexie is correct in this and the castle doctrine in no way disputes this.
Your response is especially bad because according to the linked article:
"..as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force..."
Note that is says, "in certain circumstances". Flexie wrote that you can't just hit someone in the face in your house. Flexie is correct in this and the castle doctrine in no way disputes this.
Note how the conditions for invoking the castle doctrine are set by society, not by the property owner. It's not a method defined within the class. It's a method inherited from the superclass.
I don't believe this answer deserves a downvote.
I think this answer missed a (somewhat) negation in the middle of the parent posts' argument
I think this answer missed a (somewhat) negation in the middle of the parent posts' argument
There is another option. Consider sites like Facebook to be public accommodations, and create new laws regulating acceptable behavior of digital public accommodations.
Facebook is a significant part of our society. It is not clear why it should be free democratic oversight.
Facebook is a significant part of our society. It is not clear why it should be free democratic oversight.
They'll just title themselves as a "private club", like other organizations that wanted to continue discriminating after public accommodations were enacted.
And in all fairness, FB originally started that way when you needed a university email address to join.
And in all fairness, FB originally started that way when you needed a university email address to join.
As long as we are updating the definition of public accommodation, we can also define the "private".
My point was more that it is not unreasonable to look to regulations to deal with Facebook. The regulations do not necessarily have to be "public accommodations", I just cited them as the most relevant legal concept I was aware of.
My point was more that it is not unreasonable to look to regulations to deal with Facebook. The regulations do not necessarily have to be "public accommodations", I just cited them as the most relevant legal concept I was aware of.
I am more than happy to give Facebook as much rope as it needs.
No worries though, other sovereign entities are trying to do what you suggest, so we get the best of both worlds. It's a wonderful demonstration of why nation-states should defend their independence.
No worries though, other sovereign entities are trying to do what you suggest, so we get the best of both worlds. It's a wonderful demonstration of why nation-states should defend their independence.
'If you are not paying for the product, then you are the product'
This adage is beginning to show its age - virtually all services that can get their hands on your data end up selling it nowadays, whether you pay them or not. I heard even some restaurant chains sell data on who they served and when.
This adage is beginning to show its age - virtually all services that can get their hands on your data end up selling it nowadays, whether you pay them or not. I heard even some restaurant chains sell data on who they served and when.
We need laws that will put real chill in the people who try to get away with something like this.
How do you mean? Laws that prevent services from targeting ads and content based on their users' identities?
Exactly. And people behind it should be afraid of very real time behind the bars.
> Something needs to be done about Facebook's near dominance of the Social Media space
Not gonna stop now, they just have the money to buy market share. If people had jumped ship after the Insta acquire then it could have been a blow to them wasting all that money on a dead space but nah people still kept using it and fell for it because they didn't change things right away and now Instagram is a mess of ads and stolen features and the creepy data sharing from FB is oozing in through friend "suggestions".
Not gonna stop now, they just have the money to buy market share. If people had jumped ship after the Insta acquire then it could have been a blow to them wasting all that money on a dead space but nah people still kept using it and fell for it because they didn't change things right away and now Instagram is a mess of ads and stolen features and the creepy data sharing from FB is oozing in through friend "suggestions".
Fair enough, still though, you'd think someone at facebook would have returned his photos and videos if he had requested, just to be nice. We are moving to a cloud based world, and I'd hate for it to be a world where people rely widely on cloud based services and risk losing their vital documents if they get banned from a given service.
We're there, and have been for years. The employees aren't paid to be "nice", and if you don't have a contract with the company storing your data, then you're making a mistake relying on them.
Rely on them for convenient access to your files...but not as your prime copy, or your essential backup. You use their services at their whim.
Rely on them for convenient access to your files...but not as your prime copy, or your essential backup. You use their services at their whim.
>The employees aren't paid to be "nice" //
Why not? Our UK micro-business's (PLC's) internal motto is "be nice" seems to work well.
Why not? Our UK micro-business's (PLC's) internal motto is "be nice" seems to work well.
It doesn't mesh well with the corporate amorality that large organizations seem to tend toward in pursuit of profit.
> Lol, yes, of course if it makes lots of money then it doesn't need to be run morally or with any degree of humanity. /s
Why did you add the sarcasm tag? The proof's in the pudding: When Facebook throws people off their platform, the first, second, and third reactions of the victims seem to be trying to climb back on. Apparently, they don't "need" to be run morally.
> Lol, yes, of course if it makes lots of money then it doesn't need to be run morally or with any degree of humanity. /s
Why did you add the sarcasm tag? The proof's in the pudding: When Facebook throws people off their platform, the first, second, and third reactions of the victims seem to be trying to climb back on. Apparently, they don't "need" to be run morally.
In theory that's where consumer protection and antitrust laws should kick in.
You are right in that Facebook is not a backup, even if it was a paid service.
But the old age doesn't apply. While we may be the product we are also the client. Fb does have a certain responsibility. Especially when they are encouraging people to user the platform for just what she as using it for.
Ignoring any legal ramifications, it is in fb's best interests to help her because they need people like her. If we assume that we are the product, fb needs to do a certain amount of work to keep the product happy, or it goes away. I'm not saying they have to bend over backwards to help everyone, but at some point the backlash could hurt them... Yeah it probably won't, but it is still good business sense to help your "product"
But there was no reasoning given as to why he had his account disabled. Facebook is now so ubiquitous that it is in danger of becoming an essential service.
> Facebook is NOT a backup. If you only keep stuff in your Facebook account
That's not what a back up is. Facebook can be a backup for your photos.
That's not what a back up is. Facebook can be a backup for your photos.
> Facebook can be a backup for your photos.
Nonsense. Try getting the originals out of Facebook.
Nonsense. Try getting the originals out of Facebook.
Easy enough if you're in the EU, where we have laws about this sort of thing.
https://www.facebook.com/settings > Download a copy of your Facebook data.
Just did exactly that. Thanks!
It can't be. Try to upload some hi-res photo and then download it from FB. Now check the resolution of that downloaded photo.
Try as I might, I have had a very difficult time explaining to people that trying to print a photo you uploaded to Facebook or sent via text is not going to turn out well.
We're on it :)
As usual, there's an eerily appropriate xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1150/.
"Did Chad ask you with a big fat grin on his face to put everything that matters to you in this awesome garage which he built solely for the purpose of 'helping' people show off and connect without having to know how to build shelves? No? Does he arbitrarily kick some out, and let others stay? Yes? Then this cartoon doesn't apply at all."
It's not about business or legality, it's about being a dick or not, or, as demonstrated here, about being a coward or not when someone's being a dick to your friend. Of course, seeing how hard Facebook and other middlemen try to insert themselves into fucking everything, it's about a bit more than just being a dick, but it's pointless to discuss the ocean before we're clear about what is the water drop and what is the sophistry.
It's not about business or legality, it's about being a dick or not, or, as demonstrated here, about being a coward or not when someone's being a dick to your friend. Of course, seeing how hard Facebook and other middlemen try to insert themselves into fucking everything, it's about a bit more than just being a dick, but it's pointless to discuss the ocean before we're clear about what is the water drop and what is the sophistry.
Big companies don't owe you anything by hosting the files for you, because you are the product. Something similar happened to me in 2012 but with a Gmail account[1]. So, I built an app to backup my emails.
The whole ordeal, in hindsight, was the best thing that could happen to me, it taught me a good lesson on data sovereignty in the internet world and opened up a small passive income stream.
[1] https://thehorcrux.com/why-i-built-horcrux-app/
The whole ordeal, in hindsight, was the best thing that could happen to me, it taught me a good lesson on data sovereignty in the internet world and opened up a small passive income stream.
[1] https://thehorcrux.com/why-i-built-horcrux-app/
Yeah, I too was a victim of a random Gmail ban without warning or recourse, so I stopped using webmail ask together and keep all my mail local.
Agreed.
I always tell people I know to atleast use an email address with their own domain, if they can't set up their own server.
https://thehorcrux.com/about/#advise
I always tell people I know to atleast use an email address with their own domain, if they can't set up their own server.
https://thehorcrux.com/about/#advise
In one line, you said Google disabled your account.
In another line, you say have your own domain and let FastMail or google apps manage your mail.
I don't understand ./?
In another line, you say have your own domain and let FastMail or google apps manage your mail.
I don't understand ./?
1. You can still backup your email if you want to.
2. You get to keep your email address if you ever get banned.
I do not think there any benefit in operating your own mail server.
2. You get to keep your email address if you ever get banned.
I do not think there any benefit in operating your own mail server.
I think the worst thing that they do is disable your ability to send messages. This weekend a friend committed suicide, and I had just started a seven day ban due to idiotically posting the wrong photo (a nude) to a meme group.
Whereas most of my closest friends have me on WhatsApp, so I could reassure them I was ok, it was really fucking horrible getting a bunch of Messenger messages asking if I was ok and being completely unable to respond to them.
Poor timing I know, but if they expect people to use and depend upon Messenger, it's actually really irresponsible to take away the ability for people to communicate with each other, plus I see no benefit in doing that.
Most of my friends I eventually managed to get in contact with in other ways, but others I couldn't. Sure it's technically my fault for posting smut whilst drunk, but hindsight is 20/20 and we all make mistakes.
Furthermore, there appears to be absolutely no form of appeals process or a way to say, get the ban suspended due to it being some messed up times.
With great power comes great responsibility.
Whereas most of my closest friends have me on WhatsApp, so I could reassure them I was ok, it was really fucking horrible getting a bunch of Messenger messages asking if I was ok and being completely unable to respond to them.
Poor timing I know, but if they expect people to use and depend upon Messenger, it's actually really irresponsible to take away the ability for people to communicate with each other, plus I see no benefit in doing that.
Most of my friends I eventually managed to get in contact with in other ways, but others I couldn't. Sure it's technically my fault for posting smut whilst drunk, but hindsight is 20/20 and we all make mistakes.
Furthermore, there appears to be absolutely no form of appeals process or a way to say, get the ban suspended due to it being some messed up times.
With great power comes great responsibility.
I know it's not directly on-topic, but I find it amazing that people end up copping a seven-day ban for a bit of titty, but then nothing is done for those videos of people killing puppies and shit.
There are plenty of racist extremist kooks on FB, and their posts are rarely - if ever - banned.
Apparently a stray nipple is more of a threat to society.
Apparently a stray nipple is more of a threat to society.
Full disclaimer, this was a picture of me where my dick is kinda visible - I was intending on uploading it to a secret adult only group where this shit is consensual which I know is taking a bit of a risk, but it harms/affects absolutely no-one, but accidentally posted it to the wrong group.
A stray nipple is a cheaper binary test than "above some threshold of ideological hatefulness"
"cheaper binary test" shouldn't be the way to decide though.
It's the quintessential Computer Science way to decide. "Which algorithm has lower complexity? Nudity filter? Ok, use that one."
This is why it's very frustrating that any equivalent of "the public square" on the internet is almost always owned by a private entity.
This is why it's very frustrating that any equivalent of "the public square" on the internet is almost always owned by a private entity.
I think it was my third time to be honest, I probably fully deserved it, I just think taking away people's ability to speak privately to people is verging on cruel and unusual, and from an uncaring perspective a fucking terrible way to instil trust in your service.
Like hey, do you want to use one of these messengers where you wont get banned for utter bullshit, or do you want to entrust your communication to a service where you can lose it for an arbitrary period for breaking some of our shitty prudish rules?
Like hey, do you want to use one of these messengers where you wont get banned for utter bullshit, or do you want to entrust your communication to a service where you can lose it for an arbitrary period for breaking some of our shitty prudish rules?
On the other hand, I find it interesting that everytime somebody is complaining about censorship on Facebook, they are almost always following up with complaints of some other objectionable content not being censored.
The think about the nipple ban is it is a really simple rule and it is really easy to decide if a picture contains a nipple or not.
The think about the nipple ban is it is a really simple rule and it is really easy to decide if a picture contains a nipple or not.
> there appears to be absolutely no form of appeals process
It's a common problem with these giants (Facebook, Google, Twitter). Being an area that does not generate profit there is not attention paid to it, or just the bare minimum.
Though I understand the difficulties to scale something like that to hundred of millions of users. Even if a small fraction want to appeal whatever ban they received that could be quite the mass of people to deal with.
It's a common problem with these giants (Facebook, Google, Twitter). Being an area that does not generate profit there is not attention paid to it, or just the bare minimum.
Though I understand the difficulties to scale something like that to hundred of millions of users. Even if a small fraction want to appeal whatever ban they received that could be quite the mass of people to deal with.
> Being an area that does not generate profit there is not attention paid to it, or just the bare minimum.
I don't buy that. Amazon Associates/Google adwords/etc have a long history of silently banning people who are actively generating revenue for them with no recourse.
I don't buy that. Amazon Associates/Google adwords/etc have a long history of silently banning people who are actively generating revenue for them with no recourse.
They flat-out have evidence of offers of bribery in exchange for fake news site takedowns – right now, along with the Senate intelligence committee – and have failed to act. They're knowingly turning a bling eye to criminal activity because it is in their profit interest.
Well, they banned you because they want you to stop posting inappropriate pictures (as defined by their TOS). They also stopped you from using their messager because they were afraid you would just continue sending inappropriate picture using private messages (which would make their ban completely useless).
I agree though that they should have let your friends know that you cannot answer any messages for X amount of days.
My tip is to just stop using any social networks when you are intoxicated because their will be a permanent record of the things you have done and said which is almost never good. It is so much more fun without a mobile fun anyways.
I agree though that they should have let your friends know that you cannot answer any messages for X amount of days.
My tip is to just stop using any social networks when you are intoxicated because their will be a permanent record of the things you have done and said which is almost never good. It is so much more fun without a mobile fun anyways.
They could have banned me from, for instance, posting any media for a week.
> Well, they banned you because they want you to stop posting inappropriate pictures (as defined by their TOS).
No, they banned him because they can do what they damn well please, and their approach to content moderation starts with a hammer and escalates from there. It would've sufficed to delete the offending post and issue a warning, even ban him from the group where he misposted the nude. Completely severing access, for a week, from a primary means of social interaction, is vastly disproportionate - that's something you do because someone has demonstrated a clear pattern of deliberately shitty behavior, not because he got loaded and acted the fool one time.
Considering the extent to which Facebook has inveigled itself into so many people's social lives, and the consequent scope and impact its moderation actions may have, I think it's long past time that some severe regime of external regulation be imposed on the corporation, whether by legislation - although that's a forlorn hope at best in the US, where Congress is largely useless no matter who's in it at any given time - or by shareholder activism, as someone else here suggested. I'm not the man to run that project, but I'd surely buy a few shares to participate in it.
To be clear, I don't want Facebook fixed, because I don't think it can be. I want Facebook gone, engineered out of profitability - and thus out of existence - and replaced with a world in which no new Facebook can arise because everyone can both own her data and identity outright, and participate in what we now call "social networking" without having to make herself beholden to any corporate behemoth at all.
It's possible! There are a lot of smart, capable people working on it, and more join in every day. Eventually, someone's going to hammer that stake into Facebook's heart. Before then, finding a way to enforce nuance upon it is a good place to start. Facebook hurts people every day, and cares not at all that it does so. As we work toward the ultimate goal of killing it, we do well also to reduce its ability to do this sort of harm.
No, they banned him because they can do what they damn well please, and their approach to content moderation starts with a hammer and escalates from there. It would've sufficed to delete the offending post and issue a warning, even ban him from the group where he misposted the nude. Completely severing access, for a week, from a primary means of social interaction, is vastly disproportionate - that's something you do because someone has demonstrated a clear pattern of deliberately shitty behavior, not because he got loaded and acted the fool one time.
Considering the extent to which Facebook has inveigled itself into so many people's social lives, and the consequent scope and impact its moderation actions may have, I think it's long past time that some severe regime of external regulation be imposed on the corporation, whether by legislation - although that's a forlorn hope at best in the US, where Congress is largely useless no matter who's in it at any given time - or by shareholder activism, as someone else here suggested. I'm not the man to run that project, but I'd surely buy a few shares to participate in it.
To be clear, I don't want Facebook fixed, because I don't think it can be. I want Facebook gone, engineered out of profitability - and thus out of existence - and replaced with a world in which no new Facebook can arise because everyone can both own her data and identity outright, and participate in what we now call "social networking" without having to make herself beholden to any corporate behemoth at all.
It's possible! There are a lot of smart, capable people working on it, and more join in every day. Eventually, someone's going to hammer that stake into Facebook's heart. Before then, finding a way to enforce nuance upon it is a good place to start. Facebook hurts people every day, and cares not at all that it does so. As we work toward the ultimate goal of killing it, we do well also to reduce its ability to do this sort of harm.
A super easy solution to this would've been disabling your ability to send new messages, but enabling your ability to respond to incoming chats. This way even a hypothetical spammer case is properly blocked..
The meta-lesson from this, is that hosted domains, services have to meet the AUP of the host, and your SLA with the host has to cover off on dispute or you are in a high risk situation. I have a personal domain hosted at google. I stand at risk of having them close the google account but retention of the domain is outside of that situation, I would need to be rejected by both google, and the dns registrar to lose all control of that personal domain (not impossible. not unlikely if google WAS my dns registrar). I might lose the data, but I can at least have continuity of service at my own risk levels if I do some basic minimum of holding copies off the domain or managing the state of the domain outside of google.
In facebook, this is just a lot harder. There is no outside. The tools to upload and manage content as a small enterprise are much less clear to me. What I've seen suggests most people treat it as the repo, and write into it as the repo, and operate in it. They don't upload to it from an external state or use an API.
But it would be true in AWS, in any hosted solution, in any space which you think is your space, but is actually a brand like myspace: if you don't own it, you run it under their terms and conditions.
Its a contract. you might not like it, but that 30 page ream of randomly mutating text T&C matters.
I've talked to people who got shut out. It sure hurts. I do not like to think what I would lose, should I fall into breach of my T&C or be detected as being in breach, and blackhole the notices.
My colleagues who do, or did work in google say that whilst it looks arbitrary, if you respect their mails of warning and commitment, if you reply in sequence through the hoops, you can survive being called out. If you dis-respect their sequence, or try to avoid hoops, you will suffer.
My experience with FB is similar, helping persians who suffered abuse of yahoo emails by opponents of their world view, marked as recovery accounts for facebook pages. If you do the right sequence (mutating) of things with FB, you can recover. But its not well documented at any specific point in time what that sequence is and you cannot easily get third parties to help you.
In facebook, this is just a lot harder. There is no outside. The tools to upload and manage content as a small enterprise are much less clear to me. What I've seen suggests most people treat it as the repo, and write into it as the repo, and operate in it. They don't upload to it from an external state or use an API.
But it would be true in AWS, in any hosted solution, in any space which you think is your space, but is actually a brand like myspace: if you don't own it, you run it under their terms and conditions.
Its a contract. you might not like it, but that 30 page ream of randomly mutating text T&C matters.
I've talked to people who got shut out. It sure hurts. I do not like to think what I would lose, should I fall into breach of my T&C or be detected as being in breach, and blackhole the notices.
My colleagues who do, or did work in google say that whilst it looks arbitrary, if you respect their mails of warning and commitment, if you reply in sequence through the hoops, you can survive being called out. If you dis-respect their sequence, or try to avoid hoops, you will suffer.
My experience with FB is similar, helping persians who suffered abuse of yahoo emails by opponents of their world view, marked as recovery accounts for facebook pages. If you do the right sequence (mutating) of things with FB, you can recover. But its not well documented at any specific point in time what that sequence is and you cannot easily get third parties to help you.
The reality is that you are always subject to T&Cs and decisions of a wide range of third-party service providers. Even in the most independent case, you're probably still dependent on domain registrars and one or more ISPs--as well as being affected by the actions of organizations like Spamhaus.
What you can (and often should) do for critical services is to use providers that don't create huge dependencies on a particular provider. It's probably a lot easier to switch from sites hosted on Digital Ocean to AWS than it is from Facebook to X. Furthermore, if you're hosting sites on a site that actually exists for that purpose, I have a lot more confidence I'll be able to work through issues than one hosting sites more or less incidentally (as in the case of Facebook).
What you can (and often should) do for critical services is to use providers that don't create huge dependencies on a particular provider. It's probably a lot easier to switch from sites hosted on Digital Ocean to AWS than it is from Facebook to X. Furthermore, if you're hosting sites on a site that actually exists for that purpose, I have a lot more confidence I'll be able to work through issues than one hosting sites more or less incidentally (as in the case of Facebook).
Every person I've known to have their FB account deleted also happened to be people who posted inflammatory, toxic content on a daily basis. most of them also acted that way in PMs with people, but on an even more terrible level. Harassment level conversations, and probably a much larger scope than I was directly aware of.
I am not at all convinced that Facebook just deletes accounts for no reason. Sure, high-profile people get maliciously flagged sometimes, but I seriously doubt these randoms who get deleted are telling the entire story.
I am not at all convinced that Facebook just deletes accounts for no reason. Sure, high-profile people get maliciously flagged sometimes, but I seriously doubt these randoms who get deleted are telling the entire story.
Facebook is such a mega-center of cultural life, that for it to have a black-box method of permanently banning people is dangerous, however you may feel about the "attitudes" of the people who're ostracized.
Maybe I am inflating their role.
Maybe I am inflating their role.
It's not a black box method. Their Community Standards[1] are pretty cut and dry, and every person I've known to have been banned was flagrantly disregarding those standards for months prior to their accounts being deactivated.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards
[1] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards
I learn to quit facebook very early days. I don't like the privacy violations or that big brother spying you feeling. Also account deletions are happening to everyone who talk against facebook. Crooked as google. Both really disappointing services all the way.
People, please use alternatives
People, please use alternatives
Alternatives to Facebook that's not made by Google?
GNU social AND/OR mastodon...They're compatible with each other (though not 100%, the basics work across each other), because they use the same underlying protocol!
Mastodon somewhat I guess
As others have pointed out: fb is not your primary disk, so back up your pix. If they're offering a free service, you are the product.
I'm gunna add one obvious thing to that list... fb is not your product.
As I was reading through that article, it was all - client this, client that. "I can't admin my client's fb pages." Admin. A fb page admin. Cuz it sort of reads like: I perform guerrilla social marketing, SEO, and branding campaigns for a myriad of clients on someone else's social network, and they banned my account for spamming their users.
"Why would fb do this to me", he asks himself, but then realized something, "something very important - I hate getting bullshit spam all day from facebook, so I filtered all Facebook updates to Skip Inbox, Delete. Surely the answer to why they blocked me was there somewhere."
I'm gunna add one obvious thing to that list... fb is not your product.
As I was reading through that article, it was all - client this, client that. "I can't admin my client's fb pages." Admin. A fb page admin. Cuz it sort of reads like: I perform guerrilla social marketing, SEO, and branding campaigns for a myriad of clients on someone else's social network, and they banned my account for spamming their users.
"Why would fb do this to me", he asks himself, but then realized something, "something very important - I hate getting bullshit spam all day from facebook, so I filtered all Facebook updates to Skip Inbox, Delete. Surely the answer to why they blocked me was there somewhere."
Site down. Cached copy:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170525042302/http://www.optimi...
https://web.archive.org/web/20170525042302/http://www.optimi...
And this is why we should move away from services with a centralised point of failure.
If this happened, then under the EU data directive facebook would be obligated to still provide all data they have on someone even after they disable their account. So, the data would not be gone as long as it was not deleted.
From my experience, it's nearly impossible to get help from Facebook/Instagram if what you need is not listed in their help page. I used to have two Insta accounts and two FB accounts(personal & professional). When Instagram released a new version to add multiple insta accounts, I did the mistake of adding my work account. But Insta was so buggy that it merged my imported FB friend list of both my Insta accounts. This incident made me never trust Insta/FB/Whatsapp again.
Slack has a flawless multi-account implementation, which surprised me in this era where corporates try to aggressively create links between our accounts (import/suggest users, merge, or share the advertising ID). But, for example, if you do politically controversial activity on one Twitter account [1], I wouldn't add it in the multi-profile iPhone app: I would be too afraid of being banned from one and losing all accounts together, or the identity of all accounts be shared with law enforcement. I wonder what Chrome shares between multi-accounts profiles, but I have low trust in it for isolating data.
[1] I criticize my city's law enforcement, by filming where crime happens, where the police really is and the faults they do. I don't think it's illegal but I still wouldn't want my identity shared to them.
[1] I criticize my city's law enforcement, by filming where crime happens, where the police really is and the faults they do. I don't think it's illegal but I still wouldn't want my identity shared to them.
> So what did I learn from my experience with Facebook? Back up your account! You never know if/when they’ll decide to delete you.
Just delete your account. Find a way to share your photos without any of this nonsense: Google Drive, OneDrive, Dropbox, Flickr. Not only do you run the risk of Facebook deleting your stuff, but [when I still had an account] it was was a dreadful UX for exploring photos. Use products built for photos if you want to get the most out of your photos.
Just delete your account. Find a way to share your photos without any of this nonsense: Google Drive, OneDrive, Dropbox, Flickr. Not only do you run the risk of Facebook deleting your stuff, but [when I still had an account] it was was a dreadful UX for exploring photos. Use products built for photos if you want to get the most out of your photos.
Yes. Thankfully I've never felt the inclination to join Facebook and reading stories like this just makes me angry at Facebook and at people for making them so powerful.
I get the idea that you need a more serious back up for your personal stuff. But what's wrong with using FB to share photos with friends? FB takes down your account? No problem, you upload your photos from an external HDD to other sites.
(cough cough) www.famipix.com
More info: https://www.famipix.com/privacy-promise
And: free for schools, with intuitive (and well-documented) features to let schools quickly share photos with parents.
And of course download a zip of your albums whenever you want.
-
I started this site in 2005 to share photos of my growing family, as I was living abroad. I've never shared any meaningful photos on Facebook.
And: free for schools, with intuitive (and well-documented) features to let schools quickly share photos with parents.
And of course download a zip of your albums whenever you want.
-
I started this site in 2005 to share photos of my growing family, as I was living abroad. I've never shared any meaningful photos on Facebook.
This applies to almost any online service including Amazon, Google, etc. Basically, these services are so unreliable and risky that using them for anything critical is dangerous. Even if you pay for them. They can and will shut down accounts for no reason. That is a risk people should be more aware of. Since the services are not dependable, it's a mistake to depend on them.
I run my whole company on a Digital Ocean account. I'm frightened at the idea of the account being suddenly shut, for example if I miss a payment and the process had a bug.
Anybody know what those who have the "wrong" name on Facebook but who can't change their name anymore (because they already changed it once and got reported or something) are supposed to do? Obviously IDs are going to show your legal name rather than the one you go by, so if you send one in, won't you just be giving Facebook proof that you violated their ToS, and won't they just ban you instead of updating it? Or if you don't send one in, then how can you change your name to the "correct" one so you don't lose your account like this later?
The article is from 2012. Not that I have seen Facebook changing its ways, anyway.
We've always felt strongly about Facebook's views on real names: they're intrusive and unfair.
So we made Lyra, a better conversation service which lets you have whatever name you like (among other things). https://hellolyra.com/c/343
We're a nonprofit and don't take investment, so excuse the plug :)
So we made Lyra, a better conversation service which lets you have whatever name you like (among other things). https://hellolyra.com/c/343
We're a nonprofit and don't take investment, so excuse the plug :)
Pretty weird, I have been operating a number of fake accounts for spamming, trolling and information retrieval purposes for years and never got a single account blocked.
I've only got challenges to identify people in pictures if too many people deny your friend request in some time window. But this is easy to solve as you can see the faces by searching their name in second window.
I've only got challenges to identify people in pictures if too many people deny your friend request in some time window. But this is easy to solve as you can see the faces by searching their name in second window.
You should have learned to be very happy they disabled your account! Facebook is for idiots and for companies that milk those idiots. This event likely saved you for wasting even more of your precious life time. Be happy and do some great things with your life without feeling the need to constantly show off.
I partly agree with you, as I quit Facebook years ago, and have never wanted to go back. That said, I don't think people who use it are idiots. In fact, I can see that they get a lot of value from it. A lot of genuinely valuable content is siloed in Facebook - you're not an idiot just because you can't get it from somewhere else.
I didn't say all people who use it are idiots. But willingly sharing your private data for free while waiving all your rights? If you realise that facebook runs AI on that data and knows much more about you then you could ever imagine, and if you realise they are selling that data to companies you might not like so much, or what else more, that's pretty stupid imao.
The man runs a business that depends in considerable part on his ability to maintain Facebook pages. This ban could've put that business under. A dicey model, to be sure, but in contracting you have to go where the clients are - I think this is a fair bit beyond "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".
Am I reading it correctly that this guy never actually found out why his Facebook account was disabled?
Sort of. Facebook never told him. But he guessed that it was because of either real name policy or more likely because one of his clients ran a single semi spamy marketing campaign.
Although unfortunate for the author (and a huge inconvenience), such cases display in the best possible way the problem of depending on non-federated communication tools which promote disowning your data under ridiculous privacy policies.
TL;DR: don't use Facebook for messaging, nor as disk backup for photos.
Consider not using Facebook at all. It has zero value for the user, it only has value for Facebook.
Facebook has enormous value for the user. They didn't get this popular by accident. They provide a wonderful service, and they chain it to acceptance of their awful terms.
Imagining that your use case is the only use case is the great bane of geeks and developers. If you want to help build a world without awful tech companies, you need to stop doing that.
Imagining that your use case is the only use case is the great bane of geeks and developers. If you want to help build a world without awful tech companies, you need to stop doing that.
I have to agree with Marenkay. I left Facebook a long time ago and haven't missed it on bit. There was some minimal value, I suppose, in being able to have anyone contact me if they didn't have my email. And possibly organize invites for events. All of this is, of course, possible without Facebook, they just made it easier. However, the real issue is the secret cost of Facebook far outweighs any benefit the user derives.
Also, the reason Facebook is popular is not because it adds extraordinary value for the user, it's because it caters to things like curiosity, narcissism, and ego that reside in all of us. It's feeding those things that keep the user hooked and coming back. Not "value". The extraordinary value you speak of is what the shareholders have.
Also, the reason Facebook is popular is not because it adds extraordinary value for the user, it's because it caters to things like curiosity, narcissism, and ego that reside in all of us. It's feeding those things that keep the user hooked and coming back. Not "value". The extraordinary value you speak of is what the shareholders have.
Again, your use case is not the only use case. Facebook doesn't provide value for you, and that's perfectly reasonable. But at this point you're basically a guy who doesn't care for falafel standing outside a packed falafel restaurant trying to figure out what character flaw drives people to eat there, since obviously they can't just like falafel.
I don't use Facebook much, in part because of how awful its policies are, but when I do use it, it remains a fantastic tool for keeping in touch with friends. At this point someone always declares that it's actually just narcissism, because email and IM exist and nobody actually needs Facebook, which is a lot like someone 20 years ago declaring that this email thing is just a fad because we already have phones and mail.
I don't use Facebook much, in part because of how awful its policies are, but when I do use it, it remains a fantastic tool for keeping in touch with friends. At this point someone always declares that it's actually just narcissism, because email and IM exist and nobody actually needs Facebook, which is a lot like someone 20 years ago declaring that this email thing is just a fad because we already have phones and mail.
> it remains a fantastic tool for keeping in touch with friends
... that is exactly what I question about FB. Their notion of friendship is merely on a level of "people you met at least once".
Just honestly make a list of things you get out of FB that you did not have before and actually enrich your life.
On the other hand, well, that is precisely what some people warned us of - give a single company that much power, and it will inevitably be abused, be it by malice or incompetence.
But it is not easy to give any useful advice, because there is basically no alternative to facebook - you can go with the flow or stay away from it. But there is not "something like Facebook without all the problems that come with it being a single large profit-driven corporation". The only solution I can think of is for lots and lots of people to pool their money and start a non-profit Facebook. And even then, I am not overly optimistic, because by now the network effect is far too strong.