FACEBOOK ruined my life ! ! !

[deep]

He is saving all of his pardons for the last minute,
for people like O J and Mumia Abu-Jamal.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

so will there be a new thread entitled "facebook ruined my stock portfolio and/or retirement" ?

not, ya know, mine personally... but, ya know, yea.

[ladyfreckles]

I don't know. I think it's not facebook's job to police what kids are doing. It's not like this is teenagers we're talking about here. It's not that difficult for a parent to keep a twelve-year-old's internet connection monitored and censored. If you don't want your elementary-level children on facebook, it's your job to keep them off of it.

[Dfit00]

12-year olds can easily unmonitor and uncensor a monitoring and censoring piece of software nowadays.

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by Dfit00

12-year olds can easily unmonitor and uncensor a monitoring and censoring piece of software nowadays.

Actually, it's extremely easy to control what kids have access to if you control the computer. IMHO kids under the age of thirteen shouldn't even be touching a computer without parental supervision.

[PhilsFan]

It's only easy if you are around your computers 24/7. It's pretty silly to suggest parents should know exactly what all of their kids are doing at every second of every day in their home. That's a tough task to assign.

Maybe it's me, coming from a family with several young kids all operating at one time, but this whole "You should be able to control your kids" initiative is retarded. If my parents could keep track of me every waking moment, I would have never been on this forum. They can't, though. It's impossible. They have six other people to worry about. Me, at age fifteen, posting about music on some blue webpage was not on their radar because it shouldn't have been. Me logging out signalled I was not doing anything. Why should they have assumed more? I was just doing homework.

[ladyfreckles]

It's not that I'm saying that per say, it's that computers are relatively easy to control. My friends have 3 kids (4 year old, 7 year old, and 10 year old) and the family computer needs a password just to boot up (before even reaching the log-in screen). The computer is only booted up when the parents have time to be there with the kids. When I was a kid, my parents did something similar. You can also set the router to completely disable the internet on certain computers in the house as well as to block websites from loading. My dad took the modem and router with him when he left the house so there was no possible way I could get online even if I somehow managed to guess the complicated boot-up passord. I was one of those kids that "got around everything" and I continue to be to keep my skills sharp. Therefore I'm familiar with the common methods used by kids.

A child (elementary age) should never be going on the internet without a parent or guardian. Playing video games or watching TV, maybe, but the internet? No. Children are not so great at filtering information and they don't really understand what is and isn't safe to tell other people. Even if they never stumbled across predators or bad websites, they could wind up giving up way too much information to a stranger or risking identity theft. There's too much at risk.

[deep]

this sounds like a good idea

New La. law: Sex offenders must list status on Facebook, other social media - CNN.com

[Moonlit_Angel]

I have absolutely no problem with the public being notified in any way possible of potential sex offenders/child predators and their activities. Though, personally, I've always felt that if we have to warn the public and give that much detail when someone like that is free, that's probably a sign that we still see them as a threat, and therefore, if that's the case, then maybe they should still be in jail instead out on the streets and moving into one's town or neighborhood or something.

If these people are going to be put online like that, though, I wonder if they'll allow comment sections for such things. 'Cause I have a feeling if people can leave comments that could get ugly really quickly, on both ends.

[deep]

I think it is for people that are registered sex offenders that want to go online on social networks. A person can be out of jail and a registered sex offender for the rest of their lives.

My guess is that they would just choose to stay off the sites. We don't need sex offenders online friending young people without identifying themselves.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by deep

this sounds like a good idea

New La. law: Sex offenders must list status on Facebook, other social media - CNN.com

This make my 'about you' section less funny

[deep]

I do believe if someone is convicted of a sex crime that requires them be a registered sex offender they should have to identify themselves as such on social media and especially dating sites.

Skout dating app suspends service for teens amid rape allegations - Los Angeles Times

This is a serious matter. I do know someone that recently got convicted of looking at underage persons online. He got sentenced to one year in jail.

It may seem harsh, but I believe this conviction should prevent him from going online without letting people know of his status as a sex offender.

[Dfit00]

The weakness of this law is that it requires sex offenders to register on Facebook, apart from already being registered in sex predator directories and similar websites.

[Danny Boy]

So Facebook has had quite the week already, releasing their mobile stalking app and then automatically defaulting to an @facebook.com email address on everyone's profile.

The email thing is a blatant attempt to build a walled internet experience for their users, though of course they deny it. Have to keep those eyeballs on Facebook ads as much as possible. Facebook gathers enough data about their users as it is. No way in hell I would want my email going through their servers.

[cobl04]

What is this email business anyway? I don't plan on using it, I've already got three different addresses.

[corianderstem]

They gave folks (maybe just on Timeline?) an @facebook email address and made it the default to appear on your page.

Mine had that happen to it, but I changed it even though I didn't have an email address displayed anyway.

I think they're crying "well, we TOLD you we were going to do it!" but they just told us they were rolling out @facebook email addresses, not that they were going to default everyone into it as their display email.

... although based on their past history with switching people to default settings, we should have made that assumption.

I find it to be mildly annoying, and hardly worth the cries of "OMG FACEBOOK YOU FUCKERS" I've been seeing.

[cobl04]

I don't see why that's a big deal. Where would the inbox be? Who's going to send me emails? Not fussed.

I see those cries every time there's a minor change. Bit pathetic.

[corianderstem]

I wouldn't put it past them to start sending notifications there. No idea how to access that email. Would rather they not put that email out there as a contact for me, especially if they're not going to tell me how to access it.

[indra]

I don't display any email addys on my fb info page (I still have the info page because I'm waiting for them to make me do Timeline -- want to see how long it takes...). I figure if someone on fb wants to get in touch with me they can send me a message though the fb message system. Then depending on what they contact me about, I'll give them an appropriate email addy or just continue corresponding via fb messaging.

[MrsSpringsteen]

I guess I just don't get why people feel the need to post anything like that online. Even if it's just innocent play of your kids. I think they've even coined a term for it, for parents who overshare their kids' lives online. Can't remember the word. I think that is poor parenting, what could happen to that kind of photo? Even if it is "private"-what actually is? Putting your own need to overshare, your own narcissism, whatever-above your child's privacy and safety.

KOMOnews.com

SEATTLE -- A local mom is outraged after getting temporarily banned from Facebook over a photo she says is completely innocent.

The photo in question shows Lauren Ferrari's 5-year-old daughter pretending to nurse her 2-year-old sister.

Facebook says it violates the company's community standards, but Ferrari disagrees.

"It's not sexual and they were just pretending," she said. "What's obscene about breastfeeding?"

Ferrari didn't think much of it when she uploaded the photo of her two daughters for all her Facebook friends to see.

"When I posted it I said, 'She says she's nursing her baby,'" Ferrari said. "She didn't say, 'Mommy look, she's kissing my boobie.'"

Less than 24-hours later, the image was gone, with message from Facebook claiming Ferrari violated the site's policies.

"They did not say it was child pornography," she said. "They were not clear, they were really vague."

Stefanie Thomas of the Seattle Police Department's Internet Crimes Against Children agrees the photo isn't child porn, but she said it's poor parenting on Ferrari's part. She points to the fact that there's no control over who sees the photo and whose hands it ends up in.

"There's no real way of actually getting wherever that image ends up down off the Internet. So that's something that this family, that these girls, are going to have to ultimately deal with," Thomas said.

After the photo was taken down, Ferrari learned she'd been banned from Facebook for seven days.

"I just wish someone would have actually talked to me and asked a question or something. I just felt it was very harsh," she said.

An official from Facebook said the company doesn't comment on its policies.