Talk:Facebook

Spying, stealing data

Has anyone else noticed that the ads he is presented with on Facebook are strongly correlated to the content he/she's been viewing on Youtube??? Well, I have. It's kind of scary that about every third ad that I see on Facebook connected to what I've been watching on Youtube and these things are usually uncommon, so it can't be accident.

face-book.com

"The company dropped The from its name after purchasing the domain name facebook.com in 2005 for $200,000."

That's not true and it's by your own reference. They already owned facebook.com and wrestled face-book.com away from a spammer. You might want to correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.213.91.220 (talk • contribs)

Banned in Iran?

I don't think that facebook is banned in Iran. I have many friends living in Iran using facebook without any problems. Even official statesmen are using this plattform. For instance, Mousavi used it in his election campaign and is still using it. www.facebook.com/mousavi Also former president Chatami has got an official account. Please correct it in the article.

New Alexa Rank

As of today it is not the third ranked site, as stated in the article and template, but the second follow here for proof: http://www.alexa.com/topsites

Facebook Owns You

Or at least they can without your permission for using your photographs from your personal profile. Facebook has changed their Terms of Service, and it now OWNS what was once your personal property. Check this out. In their Terms of Service -- which you agree to when you sign up for an account -- they say "Facebook members now release full control of their social networking content to the company including the right to copy, modify, distribute, use images and descriptions for commercial use or advertising." In a nutshell, this means that if you've uploaded images of yourself and/or your kids, Facebook may decide to use them in any way they choose: including putting them in one of their advertising campaigns without compensating you or maybe even letting you know about its use. Approximately 20,000 protest groups have formed on the site -- all strongly opposed to the new terms. One outraged member had this to say: "If I decide to close my account and have all associated data deleted, that should be my choice. If I want to yank a blog post, I have that ability. Why should Facebook be any different?" Prior to these changes, FB said it only had rights to use content while the user was a member of the service. Now, FB will hold those rights even if a user cancels their membership. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg posted a blog entry in an attempt to explain the new terms saying: "We wouldn't share your information in a way you wouldn't want," he said. "The change was designed to reassure users that account deactivation would not mean that data they had shared with friends would be wiped from the site." This is supposed to reassure users? It seems like it would be more of a concern to have lingering peronal property floating around the web. If you decide to close your account, shouldn't your information be yours and not theirs? BTW: Did you know Facebook can also share your information with lawyers, companies and government agencies?

Lamebook

This is not criticism--just satire/humor. Perhaps a new section should be added i.e. 6. Satire. Or just remove it. Buzzbo (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

New Facebook outage

{{editsemiprotected}}

The following issue could be placed under the existing heading "Downtime and outages."

Sometime on October 3, 2009, an unspecified number of Facebook users were unable to access their accounts. Simultaneously, these users' profiles were unavailable for others to view. Three days later, Facebook said the problem would be fixed in 24 hours. More than a week after that, the affected users were still unable to access the site. There was some speculation that one of Facebook's databases may have been corrupted.

a few sources: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10370788-36.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10372417-36.html http://facebooklogin.net/news/facebookaccount-unavailable/

http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=facebook+site+maintenance&btnG=Search+Blogs

Xtian44 (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a cut-down version of this request, ie a single sentence "In October 2009, an unspecified number of Facebook users were unable to access their accounts for several days." - we need to take care to remain neutral, avoid Wikipedia:Recentism, and speculation/blogs have no place on Wikipedia. If you disagree with my rationale and my summarizing, please feel free to start a discussion below. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  07:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Why was it removed?

Wikipedia is not censored. As quoted from it, "omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available—however, when a cited quotation contains words that may be offensive, it should not be censored." I see clear indication of a source. So why was it removed? Children are our most vulnerable members of our society. Many children believe that if they use Facebook when they are under 13 they are violating the terms. However this is simply not true when Facebook does not actively enforce age limits. Therefore, children under 13 can use it if they do not disrupt the Facebook community in any way either by putting their profiles on private and not telling authority figures or parents about their account. Wikipedia's goal is to inform all readers by telling the truth verifying what is stated in reliable sources. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:V to start with. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a source which was [1]. How was this source not a reliable source? Facebook does not actively enforce the age limit which is why there are children under 13 using it. It says so clear in the source. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about this information. I have to disagree with Darrenhusted, BB is normally a reliable source and the information is verifiable to that reliable source. I do agree with Scythre, who removed the material with an edit summary of "nn". I take that "nn" to mean not-notable. Facebook has a policy but just because they don't or can't effectively enforce that policy doesn't make it notable. If the information is presented in a way in a location that explains why it is notable then I might feel differently. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

New York has investigated Facebook's Safety Rules. [2] Would this be able to support its notability? 198.38.10.1 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear on my thoughts. The way that text is worded and the proposed location is why I think the information is not notable. Adding additional sources does not help that situation. If the information is reworded to explain that it is a criticism of Facebook and the information is placed in the criticism section, it probably would be notable. This will depend on how it is written. As it currently stands I do not believe it is notable and will not fulfill the edit request below. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone add the removed content?

{{editsemiprotected}} The following content "Facebook does not actively enforce the age limit resulting in children under the age of 13 to use it." should be readded. I think the NYtimes reference establishes notability. But if its not please comment in the above discussion. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not add that statement as it is a blanket statement that cannot be proven. One report by an NYT journalist and subsequently republished by others (such as the BBC) does not meet the bar for proof. The only way to test the hypothesis would be for all facebook users to change their age to 12 and see if they are blocked. Its removal was correct within the guidelines of Wikipedia, and most notably under WP:V. A section about the article and its investigation could be added provided it was not worded so loosely. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Celestra (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

update to "New Facebook outage" entry

{{editsemiprotected}}

The recent problem of Facebook users being unable to access their accounts seems to have been fixed yesterday.

For your consideration, an updated sentence at the end of "Downtime and outages" could read:

"In October 2009, approximately 150,000 Facebook users were unable to access their accounts for up to 10 days."

sources: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10373349-36.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/173550/facebook_outage_silences_150000_users.html http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139311/Facebook_deals_with_missing_accounts_150_000_angry_users

many thanks, Xtian44 (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one. That probably shouldn't have been in there in the first place, as I was under the impression that the fleeting goings-on, technical difficulties and whatnot on websites are not notable enough to be included, but apparently some news agencies do consider this important enough to warrant mention, or even an article. So, my answer is, Uncertain. Intelligentsium^review 01:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Already mostly done by someone else, but I rephrased slightly and added the additional refs. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Facebook for Android(OS)

{{editsemiprotected}}

"Google's Android OS does not as yet have an official Facebook application due to apparent disputes between the two companies."

This is no longer true as an official Facebook app has been released for the Android OS and has been fully functional since September 08, 2009. This app is comparable to the iPhone platform version as there are many similarity's between the two. Please make this correction as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.16.138 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source. Tim Song (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The concept of Facebook

With its popularity, Facebook supports the socialization of national and global scientific communities that include students equally, so that together with the Wikipedia promotes advanced research projects such as, for example, the case of one universal scientific project, of which, it is best for you be informed via the portal "Croatian scientific bibliography-CROSBI; Project S-III-158; link - http://bib.irb.hr/"

Sicronet (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Misspelled word / Please fix

In the paragraph below, the word "filed" in the sentence "Jack Thompson filed a law suit" has been misspelled as "filled". Hopefully someone can address/fix this. Thanks!--Soundcomm (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jack Thompson See also: Jack Thompson (activist)#Facebook_lawsuit On 29th of September 2009, Jack Thompson filled a law suit for $40 million against Facebook at U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. He said that the social networking site had harmed him by not removing angry postings made by Facebook users. He said that several groups caused him great harm and distress.[204]

All fixed. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! GlassCobra 19:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

International giant march against Colombian terrorists FARC organizated through Facebook

I recommend to put this note somewhere in Wiki's Facebook page: The most representative International Impact of Facebook what happened last February 4, 2008 when millions of Colombians around the world marched against the terrorist organization FARC that for more than 50 years violates human rights in the country; that march was organized entirely through Facebook months ago, where different compatriots joined a group within this network called "One million voices against FARC[3], which took over the idea, planning and courage to mobilize this large amount of people. Even the Secretary of State of U.S, Hillary Clinton, spoke about the massive international mobilization against the FARC, held on 4 February 2008 from this group on Facebook, as the largest anti-terrorism demonstration in the history of the world[4]. You can find many of news and photographic records of that event with just a little searching on any search engine on the Web[5].

Is Facebook ready to become a featured article?

The following discussion is a debate of the proposed proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on a new section of the discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was no. Clearly there is no reason for it to become a featured article unless there is a peer review. Robert9673 (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am proposing that Facebook be nominated for featured article. Robert9673 (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• It's been more than a year since it was last assessed. A WP:Peer review might be advisable before going for a FAC. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as a failed proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on a new section of the discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No mention of the upcoming facebook movie?

Why isn't this mentioned?24.190.34.219 (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)