Talk:Criticism of Facebook/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

The Biggest Facebook Criticism not in article

How about the fact that they allow bullies to falsely accuse others of violating TOS violations, and then don't allow the accused an appeal? I've been driven off facebook by such people! Facebook has no way contact them in a normal way and their "help" page is NO HELP WHATSOEVER! All it does is take you to more of their stupid pages with no real answers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.115.10 (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a support service.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Ya do you have any sources that we can insert in the article about these issues? If you can find some then edits/changes to the article would be warranted. But if not, this is not a forum to place disatisfied comments.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Infiltration by socialbot

Please consider using information from this newspaper article.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


Disabling of user accounts - Endless Loop

Citation was needed after footnote 114. Actual user experience.

Goal:
To Login to Facebook

Steps:
Go to http://www.facebook.com/
Enter: proper login and password

Result:
Inauthentic Name - Temporary Block

Unfortunately, the name you entered was not approved by our system. Please wait 10 minutes and then try again.

Make sure you enter your name correctly and that it complies with our formatting guidelines. Please note that if your next attempt is also unsuccessful, your account may be disabled.

Expected Action / Result:
Wait the proper time, and try and login again and either successfully login or get another set of instructions.

Actual Action / Result:
Account holder waited days in between attempts and still received the message above. Facebook's help states to follow the instructions which is to wait 10 minutes and try again, but nothing changes, placing the account holder in an endless loop.

While this page isn't a support forum, I think you can solve this problem if you cleared your browser cache and/or cookies.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jasper for thinking I was looking for support and trying to help. Cleaning cookies and cache does not resolve the issue. I was trying to respond to the "citation needed" reference in the article, stating the steps needed to verify the issue. Meaning the endless loop statement in the article under footnote 114, is in fact correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalmer8 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but unfortunately we need more reliable sources (not your own experience) than that.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Verified with two different Facebook profiles. Tested on Mac Lion 10.7.2 with the most updated versions of Chrome & Safari. Tested on Ubuntu 10.04 and 11.04 with the most updated versions of Chrome & Firefox. Just an experienced software person here, writing the steps that validated the "citation needed" reference. If this does not validate the "citation needed" reference in the article, what does?

Third-party sources, that have been published by reputable writers. For example, I have no way to verify that your results aren't unique to your browser and OS combination.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues

This article suffers from many issues as of today. It's excessively long (as in, much longer than the article about Facebook itself). It needs thorough copy-editing. It needs to be updated. A lot of the older events mentioned are both very specific and no longer timely, so they could use some heavy summarizing, or simple removal, depending on these events' level of notability. Also, let's be honest here. Quite a lot of the criticism here is user-generated stuff with few reputable sources and lack of notability.

To tackle this myself would probably take the next week straight through without so much as a bathroom break. As a community, we need to revamp this page considerably. In.tripletime (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Censorship -- Roleplaying

in early 2011, there was a mass genocide by Facebook against profiles that were being used as roleplaying characters. Why is this not mentioned in the article?--99.101.160.159 (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Article written in present tense

Facebook was a phenomenon, and yet now has a history, and the articles should be written in that manner. The article began in the present tense. As of May 2010 many newer issues about criticism of Facebook were in the news. Security settings were changed again then. In my opinion the article needs whatever rewriting and future additions to reflect a simple real chronology, which will make future versions of this article easier to comprehend and edit. Mydogtrouble (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This whole section is outdated, as FB just changed it's TOS and Privacy rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.121.17 (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


Censorship on Facebook

I have been documenting censorship on Facebook with screenshots. It might be of interest to this article:

http://censoredonfb.tumblr.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.150.41 (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted accounts

At the moment, this article says:

  • Facebook's Privacy Policy now states: "When you delete an account, it is permanently deleted from Facebook."

However, if I check out my list of friends, I will see links to "deleted accounts". If the account is deleted, then why does the person's name still exist there? --Toccata quarta (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hypocritical facebook policy concerning friend requests

Users have been banned by facebook for making friend requests, as facebook states that the purpose of their website is NOT to meet new friends. Harvey Henkelmann (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You are going to find a source for that. Facebook will indeed not allow friend requests when they are sufficiently suspicious.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Suspicious of what? If I were in a public venue trying to socialize with people, and I get tossed out for trying to make new friends, does that not defeat the purpose of socialization? Harvey Henkelmann (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed section about KNOI radio and Leo Laporte

The URL referring to the incident that caused the ban of KNOI was broken. Upon further investigation, I found the listing for KNOI as KNOI-FM a non-commercial radio station with no website. The link about the news story was to a website knoifm.com that is non-existent. I noticed that the radio Station Owner was listed as "The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation" and the station location was in Sulphur Springs, Texas. Problem is that The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation are all located in Washington State, and they do not list KNOI in Texas as one of their council owned properties on their Official webpage providing such information. Finally, Google Maps listed KNOI-FM as "location not found", see [1].

The combination of inconsistent facts, as well as the ample amount of criticism of Facebook already available in this article is why I removed this paragraph. I don't want the Wikipedia article to erroneously link a sovereign Indian nation with anything that is not factually verifiable. --FeralOink (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed Obama hate section

The entire section was original research with non-notable sources. I was falsely accused of vandalims, but that section is a violation of wikipedia's principles. 214.13.69.132 (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not Obama hate it's a section about one of the criticisms of Facebook, which is that it allows for this type of thing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"Anti-Facebook Graphic"

I see this thing on the page:

Anti-Facebook graphic

There is no explanation about its notability or where it came from, unlike the other artwork. Is it really appropriate in the article to have a line through a Facebook logo? Hanxu9 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Facebook - Live Nation "Ticket Map"

I was disgusted recently when I purchased tickets on Live Nation and saw a map that placed Facebook users in the seats they were to have reserved at the concert. Maybe I'm just an alarmist but it seems like after the Morgan Dana Harrington incident this would be frowned upon. If your friends are going to the concert you don't need the Live Nation-Ticketmaster-Facebook corporate machine to archive that information for you, you should already know if they are your friends. I guess what I am getting at is - Do we have any sources that contain criticism of this aspect? If not criticism, has anyone in the media pointed out the potential threat this could present to users? UselessToRemain (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

This page is just pathetic unless you're going to make an "criticism of" page for every given product brought to market with over 100 million users... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.75.80 (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

By reason of what? The majority of the claims here stems from common critiques of Facebook. See WP:N, WP:RS and WP:DUE. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Divorce

Social networks, like Facebook, can have a detrimental effect on marriages with users becoming worried about their spouse's contacts and relations with other people online, leading to marital breakdown and divorce.

Who wrote this? Users don't become "worried", they end up cheating. This needs to be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; I read it as "it leads to distrust that damages marital relationships". Toccata quarta (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Divorces due to Facebook aren't caused by "distrust that damages marital relationships". They are caused by cheaters who get caught.[2] The euphemism here is sickening and unencyclopedic. It needs to be rewritten and possibly spun out into its own article. It isn't about "worry" and "distrust" it's about cheating and affairs, and that's what the sources say. Clearly, someone is trying to hedge and write between the lines. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:BB. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not actually interested in the topic. I just happened to see this and wanted to bring it to the attention of any active editors. Sometimes it is best to get opinions from people who are disinterested. Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

new category proposal: surveillance

I would like to add a new category to the content section, called "Surveillance." The pre-existing category "student-related issues", will be added as a sub-category to the "Survelillance" category. Also under the Surveillance category will be sub-categoriess: "employer-employee privacy issues" and "performative surveillance." Employer-employee privacy issues will refer to recent news of employers forcing their employees, or potential employees, to turn-over their Facebook log-ins and passwords so that the employer may surveil employees' personal lives online. Sources I will use for "employer-employee privacy issues" are: 1) Hudson Jr., David L. "Site Unseen." ABA Journal 98.11 (2012): 22-23. Business Source Complete. Web. 12 Mar. 2013. This article discusses the privacy implications of employers and schools forcing employees or students to disclose login information on social networking sites. 2) http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/03/bill_to_ban_companies_from_req.html This article discusses the passing of a bill in New Jersey that would make it illegal for employers to even ask (potential) employees for access to their facebook accounts. The "performative surveillance" sub-category will address the notion that people allow themselves to be surveilled through facebook, and other social networking websites, so that they may portray a certain existence online that may, or may not, be true to their real life. I will use this source for the performative surveillance sub-category: E.J. Westlake. "Friend Me if You Facebook: Generation Y and Performative Surveillance." TDR: The Drama Review 52.4 (2008): 21-40. Project MUSE. Web. 12 Mar. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>. This article discusses how Facebook has enhanced the prevalence of something called "performative surveillance", or the idea that people can present themselves online in a manner that doesn't necessarily align with their actual life.

Melconser (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This looks great! And good call on putting student-related issues as a sub-category. I would flesh it out, put citations in the correct format, and go ahead and start editing the page. -Angelica Atavel (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Privacy - April 2013

Some days ago, I captured this:

Privacy on Facebook?

If you click on Do you know any of them, you will see a list of users' newly added friends.

I think this is an example of how users' privacy is violated by FB.

Please share your comments.

Thanks.

New worl (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Disabling of user accounts wrong information

" Once Facebook disables an account " .... " it is impossible to reinstate the account " - this is plain wrong,it's extremely hard,yes ... but it's possible + that statement don't have any source quoted . 95.85.182.25 (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

new category proposal: Facebook's violation of our freedom of association rights given (upheld?) by NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449

Facebook places illegal (see NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449) limits on the number and/or the frequency of Facebook friend adds, this places a limit on our ability to freely associate with other persons in violation of our civil rights.

For example Facebook game apps require users to be Facebook Friends in order to share items in game, when people seek out fellow game app users to become friends with Facebook puts us in "Facebook Jail" preventing us from adding friends.

NAACP_v._Alabama "In an opinion delivered by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the petitioners, holding that "Immunity from state scrutiny of petitioner's membership lists is here so related to the right of petitioner's members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in doing so as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment" and, further, that freedom to associate with organizations dedicated to the "advancement of beliefs and ideas" is an inseparable part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The action of the state's obtaining the names of the Association's membership would likely interfere with the free association of its members, so the state's interest in obtaining the records was superseded by the constitutional rights of the petitioners"

Facebook's limits on the number and/or frequency of "Facebook friend adds" is a same type of interference of free association as shown here by the state of Alabama in NAACP_v._Alabama.

Freedom_of_association "Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members. It is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organization.

Freedom of association is primarily manifested through the right to join a trade union, free speech or debating societies, political parties, or any other club or association such as religious groups, fraternities, or sport clubs. It is closely linked with the freedom of assembly, particularly under the US Bill of Rights. More specifically the freedom of assembly is understood in a political context, although depending on the source (constitution, human rights instrument, etc.) the right to freedom of association may be understood to include the right to freedom of assembly."

I assert that being able to add as many Facebook friends as I want is a form of Freedom_of_association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.17.112 (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Your cited case pertains to infringement of constitutional rights by the government. It does not provide a right against private enforcement of rules related to use of a website. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that this is blatant original research, unless a reliable source reports a claim that Facebook has violated the court's ruling. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That's why I have placed this in the talk page so fellow wiki editors can find proof that will meet the Wikipedia requirements. (If I had enough money you would have the proof via a court case against Facebook) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.17.112 (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing to prove. Private regulation of a privately owned website would rarely violate one's constitutional rights. If it were otherwise, then Wikipedia's enforcement of policies and guidelines would constitute an intolerable encroachment upon free speech. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Another one about Facebook and unhappiness

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/how-facebook-makes-us-unhappy

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069841

89.139.34.142 (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Updates badly needed

The DPC is planning to do a review about Facebook's progress in July 2012.

There are quite a few statements like this -- that something "will be done" as of several years ago. All this kind of thing needs badly to be updated if this article is to remain relevant. In fact, there is very little on this page that postdates 2011. --Michael K SmithTalk 12:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View and Verifiable Sources

I'm nominating this article to be checked for PoV and Verifiable sources. There is some legitimate stuff in here, but this article seems like it's just become a forum for people to vent their frustrations and complain about parts of Facebook that they do not like. There are many sources that are from answer sites, message boards, facebook groups, personal facebook pages, personal web pages.

Some problematic sections I noticed are (This article needs serious examining as a whole, however):

  • Inappropriate Content Controversies -> Identity Theft (Original research)
  • Inappropriate Content Controversies -> Defamation (Not relevant to 'criticism of Facebook'. Describes a civil case against a user of Facebook)
  • Facebook Hate Groups -> Pro-mafia groups' case (Many sources from now-removed articles. A wikipedia article is used as a reference, search results on Facebook.com are used as a reference)
  • Technical -> Disabling of user accounts (Using a personal blog as a source, using helpowl.com, an answers site, as a source, using an internet message board as a source, original research)
  • Technical -> Deleting user's statuses (Original research, uses blog post as main source)
  • Technical -> Enabling of Harassment (Original research, uses self-published facebook page, now deleted, as main source)
  • Technical -> Lack of Customer Support (Original research, source is a website that allows users to modify/update information)
  • Technical -> Upgrades (Original research, Gawker.com used repeatedly as a main source, editors opinion of Facebook user interface changes is irrelevant)
  • Surveillance -> Student-related issues -> Student Privacy Concerns (Not criticism of Facebook)
  • Litigation -> Young v. Facebook, Inc. (Is a dismissed frivolous lawsuit really notable enough? There are over 15 million of these filed each year in the US alone)
  • Terms of Use Controversy (Original research, makes assumptions about motives of living people)

I am also concerned about whether many of the items on this page belong on a wikipedia article for 'Criticism of Facebook'. Most of the criticisms relate to user-submitted content, subjective complaints by an editor about the user interface, or downtime and would be just as valid on virtually any 'Criticism of <insert any website here>' article. --Padenton (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You are a scholar and a hero, and likewise should be done at the similarly preposterous Criticism of Apple Inc. Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Seeing no disagreement, I am going to begin working through this eyesore of a Wikipedia article. --Padenton (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Code Generator problem !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is not the place to discuss this. Wikipedia is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. 
     I have been with Facebook for many years, and as of lately ,after logging in with my proper password, I am always asked  to type in a the code from the code generator .... in-which you have to access through your smart phone... but on several occasions , my smart phone has been low on batteries , or the phone has been dead due to the fact I work on location , and have no charge station...... thus I can't get into my Facebook account because it is still waiting for a code "generator code" ------- How do I disable the Code Generator security ? ( that by the way activates every-time I login to Facebook ?????)
    **** I have only ever logged-in from 2 sources ; my laptop, and my smart phone ****
  YET IT ASKS ME TO TYPE IN A CODE FROM THE CODE GENERATOR, EVERY SINGLE TIME , FOR MONTHS NOW ......................WHY??????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
 I can't even go to a helpline person, because you have to be logged in first ??????????????????????????? So , I will post this everywhere on the internet until I get a response from a "Real Person at Facebook ".... are there any out there ?????? ------ Jmac2day@yahoo.comBold text'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.106.157 (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I will not be online social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and other because they are fake sites, mostly fake persons and celebs who are mostly narcissism don't really care us. Another thing is never give out my real information to web sites such as your not calling/texting me because it is violation of my civil rights as a USA citizen. A friendly piece of advise to the owner (s) these two social media sites is to eat my shorts, get a real life (s) and have a nice day too. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert smiles you (talk • contribs) 14:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Criticism of Facebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on Criticism of Facebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Criticism of Facebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Facebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Facebook and Anti-Israel bias claims section

The original paragraph started with "Beginning in 2015, it increasingly emerged that Facebook had a double-standard when it came to pages and posts regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict." I checked the citation and it doesn't even mention the year 2015. It does state that the accusation of a double-standard when it came to pages and posts regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict has been made. Since the claim of a double standard would likely not be uncontestedI, I think it's inappropriate to state it as a fact. Yes, the accusation has been made and yes, an NGO claims they're experiment shows proof of this. The reader can decide what value to place on the experiment themselves. This is why I've again reworded the opening sentence to better reflect the citation,--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, good edit. By the way, did you try so find sources for the statement you removed before you removed it? Debresser (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Exposing patients

Putting this here for later: http://fusion.net/story/339018/facebook-psychiatrist-privacy-problems/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.222.75 (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Censorship of atheists

We should also include how Facebook censors atheists by restricting certain features with the time length ranging from a few hours to 30 days, and how Facebook outright bans and shuts down atheist pages. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Mateoski06 (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Criticism of Facebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Criticism of Facebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Troubling Live Streaming Feature on Facebook

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/21/chicago-gang-rape-teen-streamed-facebook-live/99447884/ leaving this here as one of many incidents with Facebook Live Stream — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhan5 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of Facebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Criticism of Facebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of Facebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page to here:

Critism of Facebook

Thank you for your comments

News Feed changes: The recent News feed algorithms changes are the results of criticisms made by users and psychologists concerning the worthlessness of interactions on Facebook. From a platform made for friends, Facebook has become an advertising platform. The new algorithms is supposed to address this raising concern and to retrieve the “former spirit”. If I may add, the upgrades presented in this section (user interface), neither formulate real criticisms but reactions to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntoineURBAN TPT (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Lack of meaningful reactions: Thank you for your comments. To me it is a criticism in the sense that it highlights the fact that people might not be able to differentiate virtual and real life, thus it can lead to very strong social impact. That results from very long hours spent on online services like Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg himself, points out the fact that spending that much time on Facebook might not be the key, but making a short time on Facebook valuable would be one. This post specifically was the starting point of reactions and criticism. There is also a criticism on whether or not virtual relationships are as meaningful as the ones made in “real life”. I intend to put more informations on the link between Facebook and our social capital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafietouSONKO TPT (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. Firstly - thanks for discussing your proposed changes, rather than simply adding them again.
Secondly - are the two editors AntoineURBAN TPT and SafietouSONKO TPT the same person? You might want to read up on multiple accounts if so.
Now, with regard to the actual content - my previous comment still stands - you have to show via reliable third party sources that these changes to the FB platform have been roundly criticised. At the moment your proposals identify the changes, but make no clear statement that these have been shown to be a criticism - nor logically who thinks them to be a criticism. Unfortunately, you don't count, so your statement of "To me it is a criticism in the sense..." is of no use either.
Bear in mind the opening paragraph (the lede) of the article: "Criticism of Facebook relates to how Facebook's market dominance have led to international media coverage and significant reporting of its shortcomings." My emphasis on the last part of the sentence - but it's the part you need to focus on. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your answer!
We are not the same person but we are in the same school and are currently following the same course named "Internet and Society".
We work together on the texts before editing them. We understand way better now your comment and what do we have to do to have our paragraphs validated. We are currently working on it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafietouSONKO TPT (talk • contribs) 20:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi again. If you're working on some kind of class project, you might want to get your teacher involved, and all of you have a read through this article, which is specifically geared to helping students avoid many of the potential problems they could face - it aims to make you work better, and more likely to remain: Wikipedia:Training/For students
If you have other questions, you're welcome to ask me - but I'm no expert on academia in Wikipedia, and you may be better off at the Help desk. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Chaheel Riens, thanks for the advice, you got it right it's a class project and our teacher will be involved and review our texts.
Thank you for taking your time to guide us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafietouSONKO TPT (talk • contribs) 07:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead - Jealousy or envy?

The lead states this: "The use of Facebook can have psychological effects, including feelings of jealousy[...]" Are we sure that jealousy is meant here? Jealousy means to have something and be afraid that it will be taken from you. On the other hand, envy is seeing something someone else has and wanting it for yourself. Jealousy is often used erroneously in place of envy. Can it be confirmed if the usage of the word jealously in this context is correct? DesertPipeline (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

RE-building Facebook (...and a FEW thoughts about Twitter).

I would submit, for YOUR consideration, these Tweets that I just posted to Mark Zuckerberg (and LESS relevant, but still in loose proximity the last couple in regard to Twitter…FOR balance!)

https://twitter.com/freshskives/status/984915209704755201 https://twitter.com/freshskives/status/984918492297052160 https://twitter.com/freshskives/status/984920164566102016 https://twitter.com/freshskives/status/984920363866906624 https://twitter.com/freshskives/status/984920863513325568 https://twitter.com/freshskives/status/984921540012617729


BEST regards,


-Alan Adams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.29.162 (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Predictions of Facebook's end

I just created Predictions of Facebook's end.

If anyone is aware of any more criticism which has led anyone to predict an end to Facebook then please post it in that article. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand why you felt the need to create an entirely new article for this. Surely its content can be merged into this article if rewritten to fit it. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Creating a new article for this gives undue weight. It should be merged into this article. Alex Rosenberg (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Pamela Geller and the Moonie Times are not RS

There is really nothing more that needs to be said[9]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The source from Washington Times is not written by Pamela Geller, but one Valerie Richardson, a WT staff writer. Just because the papers ownership is associated with a religious organization does not automatically make it a non-RS, name calling of the source does not make it any less of a reliable source. The paper has an editor, and journalists. It may be biased, but that does not make it a non-RS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Conservative Bias

Should a section about alleged bias against conservatives be included in this article? For instance it was the topic of a hearing in front of a committee in the United States House of Representatives. It has been written about in National Review, Gizmodo, and in Investors Business Daily.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

How do you read this article and not see a facebook pro right bias? Facebook allows hate speach, right wing conspiracy theories, attacks on transgender, malicious, and possibly paid political, false accusations of real name violations against left leaning users resulting in locking of accounts. It's clear facebook prioritizes its right wing and Russian paid accounts. 98.164.64.58 (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(Pinging RightCowLeftCoast too). While that may be true, 98.164.64.58, we are supposed to WP:PRESERVEBIAS, WP:VERIFYOR. That means that, using reliable third party sources, we should include the critiques of American conservatives too. If there are responses to those critiques from reliable third party sources, then we should include those as well to further WP:PRESERVEBIAS, WP:VERIFYOR. It's not our choice to exclude that information just because the article already heavily implies a right wing bias. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Add part about censorship of the painting "L'Origine du monde"?

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critiques_de_Facebook#L'Origine_du_monde

I don't know if there are many english sources.

--Tuxayo (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Nudity in art is already covered. O3000 (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Downtime and outages

Should the Downtime and outages section be edited to include today's 5 hours of downtime and reduced functionality? We don't yet know the cause. David Spector (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Kenrick/Williams-Nesse refs

@Objective3000: I'm not sure how you can not see the connections. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't make connections ourselves. That's called WP:SYNTH. You'll need to find a reliable source that talks about Facebook. O3000 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Legal Action by Content Moderators

I am new to Wikipedia, and not planning to edit this article. I am available if anyone has questions.

I am the lead plaintiff in a case filed in the High Court in Ireland on 4 Decemer 2019.

See this article for a good overview - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/04/ex-facebook-worker-claims-disturbing-content-led-to-ptsd

TheRealChrisGray (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

TheRealChrisGray, I think this belongs somewhere between "Content" and "Censorship" because it's about Masnick's Impossibility Theorem: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well, except for the parts which are about Facebook being just another bad employer (for instance the many lawsuits about racism and other common work issues). I'm not entirely sure where to place it because this overall story about the content moderators PTSD etc. is still evolving quite quickly in sources.
Meanwhile I've added something about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Facebook&type=revision&diff=942532487&oldid=942530059 (Censorship of) Content critical of Facebook", which was mentioned in some articles related to the one you linked. If you remember where this information was published, that would be helpful. Thank you, Nemo 07:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Privacy §

Dumb fucks redirects to this but there's nothing there to indicate why. Lycurgus (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"Dumb fucks" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dumb fucks. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#Dumb fucks until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ZimZalaBim talk 03:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

ADHD edits

I'm not sure what is motivating CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk · contribs) to add lengthy summaries of research studies about digital content and ADHD, but the vast majority don't deal with Facebook or even social networking, so I've been trying to remove them. These seem to be undue focus on ADHD outside the scope of this article. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@ZimZalaBim: Not sure what's motivating you to keep your head up your ass about the mental health effects of Facebook especially since two of the studies that I originally summarized explicitly studied Facebook users. Maybe because you have a problem with using the website yourself and are in denial about it? Or perhaps because you receive payments from the company to defend its public image on Wikipedia? Either way you are wrong that Facebook does not cause ADHD and one of its manifestations is a greater number of deaths of teenagers in motor vehicle accidents. As someone who had a close friend who died in a motor vehicle accident at the age of 16, your intransigence on this topic borders on downright negligence. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@CommonKnowledgeCreator:, please try to be civil. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
And your edit summary here confirms that you are making a supposition not directly supported in any citation. It appears you are arguing that "because the previous studies state that the severity of ADHD symptoms have a statistically significant positive correlation with Facebook usage while driving a motor vehicle", and that "U.S. teenagers usage of mobile phones has increased dramatically at the same time as increasing numbers die in motor vehicle accidents", therefore the increase in motor vehicle deaths is because of the increased use of mobile phones, and that this increase is also connected to ADHD. But nothing you cite actually makes this causal connection. Unless you can provide a reliable source that, as you say above, Facebook "cause[s] ADHD and one of its manifestations is a greater number of deaths of teenagers in motor vehicle accidents", this edit needs to be reverted. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@ZimZalaBim: Very well. Revert it at your discretion. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Badly written section.

The section about Facebook allegedly listening to user conversations in this article is written with first person pronouns and other things that definitely don't fit Wikipedia's writing style. I don't really have time to fix it, I just wanted to direct your attention towards it. שוקו מוקה (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to clean it up, but we probably need better/more sources. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Moving Privacy Content

I have deleted the 'Privacy Issues' section, having first ensured that all content is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_concerns_of_Facebook.

Here are three issues I came across.

1. There were two sections in ‘Criticism of Facebook’ that were not in ‘Privacy Concerns of Facebook’.

1.10 Inadequate privacy controls.

1.32 Oculus antitrust investigation

I have added this content to ‘Privacy Concerns of Facebook’.


2. In three cases, editors in 'Privacy Concerns' had added sub-headings in 'Privacy Concerns', but not in 'Criticism of Facebook':

Section 6. Data Mining

Section 12. Investigation by the Irish Data Protection Commissioner

Section 20 Student Related Issues

However the content was otherwise identical.


3. There was one section in Privacy Concerns that did not appear in Criticism of Facebook: ‘Effect on Class Engagement’. Since this is in the page we are keeping, it is of no consequence. I mention this purely for the record. Sadgrove (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Facebook/Archive_2&oldid=1050656515"