"Can I say you're my girlfriend on Facebook?"

At least friending people via that People You May Know bar lets them, and everyone who sees the feed, know you found them via that way. I hated adding people and then thinking "I hope they know I just stumbled upon them and thought this would be convenient, and I didn't go FB hunting for an immoral amount of time after our last encounter just to friend them"

Fucking weird but I was browsing through my friends' pages and LO AND FUCKING BEHOND one of my friends (who's living abroad) is friends with an old classmate of mine (also living there). I mean what the fuck right? Facebook is showing me six degrees of seperation here.

Also I felt kinda creepy searching for a person I play tennis with but apparently she did the same so hey we're friends on there as well now. Felt like a frigging stalker but then discovered she had tried to find me which is hard cause my name is popular.

Dumb question but you know 'photos of you' ie ones that other ppl have uploaded and tagged... well can you rearrange these so that the most recent drunken shiny pics can be hidden at the back? Or are you stuck with them in 'most recent first' order unless you de-tag them?

The parents thing is hilarious. Even my mom has a Facebook, which I couldn't imagine happening ten years ago....

the parents thing kind of weirds me, but thankfully, my parents are...uh, dumb when it comes to the internet. my mom asked me at christmas what the difference between a web browser and search engine was.

ahem.

also, been reading lots of housing Craigslist posts, and lots of people now ask for myspace or facebook links when you reply, in the roomie-type situations. this makes sense, but for some reason, i don't remember this happening as much when i was younger and looking for an apt.

also, been reading lots of housing Craigslist posts, and lots of people now ask for myspace or facebook links when you reply, in the roomie-type situations. this makes sense, but for some reason, i don't remember this happening as much when i was younger and looking for an apt.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.53d2fb293d708cf32571d6ab8f4b3208.211&show_article=1

British man killed wife over 'single' Facebook status

notable excerpt:

The couple had been living apart since the previous month, said Fiona Cortese, a spokeswoman for the Crown Prosecution Service, which is responsible for prosecuting cases in England and Wales.

"Richardson became enraged when Sarah changed her marital status on Facebook to single and decided to go and see her as she was not responding to his (text) messages," Cortese said.

to say this is fucked beyond in an understatement :(

is an understatement

(yes the murder in any case is horrible. But the increased rage over Facebook status vs. reality just adds more creepiness to something already awfuo=l.)

I have yet to join the facebook cult. I don't want to enable strangers to measure my degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon. :(

Wife murdered for Facebook status
A man murdered his estranged wife after becoming "enraged" when she changed her marital status on Facebook to "single".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/staffordshire/7845946.stm

Edward Richardson, 41, of Mayfield Road, Biddulph, was found guilty of stabbing Sarah Richardson to death.
He killed the 26-year-old hairdresser at her parents' home in Brown Lees, Staffordshire, on 12 May, 2008, Stafford Crown Court heard.
Richardson tried to kill himself after the attack and was sentenced to life with a minimum of 17 years in prison.
Fiona Cortese, of the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "Richardson became enraged when Sarah changed her marital status on Facebook to single and decided to go and see her as she was not responding to his messages.
"He gained entry by breaking the front door window and made his way into the property.
"Once inside he found Sarah in her bedroom and subjected her to a frenzied and brutal attack with a knife and then attempted to take his own life.
"We hope that today's guilty verdict will go some way to easing the pain of Sarah's family and friends after losing her in such a violent and abrupt way."
In a statement, Mrs Richardson's parents, Beryl and Alan Boote, said: "There simply aren't the words to describe how Sarah's death, and the awful way in which she died, has affected us. We all miss her so much.
"Sarah was the loveliest daughter anyone could wish for. She was honest, loyal and sweet, and everyone loved her."

http://www.switched.com/2009/01/23/man-kills-wife-for-changing-facebook-status-to-single/

jeff @ Jan 26th 2009 2:59PM
she got wooped good...next time (well there won't be a next time) but if she was smart she would have asked his permission before putting single on her facebook profile....

http://www.mopo.ca/uploaded_images/repost-781096.jpg

my bad

"can i say you're not my girlfriend on facebook?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/7874273.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/31/facebook-sex-divorce

blog.facebook.com

There's a lot of content my friends have shared on Facebook that's pretty awesome. For instance, in the last few days I've seen photos from a friend's wedding, an article about U.S. President Obama's ongoing transition and status updates from a friend traveling in India.

We've just introduced an easy way to tell friends that you like what they're sharing on Facebook with one easy click. Wherever you can add a comment on your friends' content, you'll also have the option to click "Like" to tell your friends exactly that: "I like this."

Fuck's sake.

What facebook needs is a FUCK OFF option.

It's called "defriending".

what would facebook be w/o the secret loathing of others' actions?

ech i dunno, the way to deal with not wanting work colleagues, fam, etc, on facebook, is to block 'em or just make sure only friends can see you're on it.

There's a social problem with blocking people who are your actual friends (or your wife's friends). An 'ignore everything from this user' option would solve many problems.

You can set for less about them in yr feed.

Doesn't affect the status update feed, though.

Anyway I'm beyond facebook, sick of reading incessant streams of bullshit from people who I don't actually like but am expected to keep on my fucking list.

(that said, I will probably check it daily out of primal compulsion)

Doesn't affect the status update feed, though.

Yes it does.

We've just introduced an easy way to tell friends that you like what they're sharing on Facebook with one easy click. Wherever you can add a comment on your friends' content, you'll also have the option to click "Like" to tell your friends exactly that: "I like this."

what i dislike about this is that it presumes that typing the actual words "i like this" are beyond us

Yeah, adding a comment already says "I like this", or at least "I am interested in this".

You can set for less about them in yr feed.

Doesn't work very well though. One of my FB friends is constantly updating their profile with shite and I have them set right down but I still get a load of crap in my feed.

I think you have to click "less about this person" 3 or 4 times, but eventually you'll get no status updates. I think.

if you go to the bottom of your news feed and click on "options for news feed" you can manually enter people you don't want to hear about.

Oh, I must be doing it wrong then because adding people to that 'less about' list makes bugger-all difference to the status update feed.

Seriously if someone is annoying on FB, remove them! If theyre going to get offended by that they need a life.

I delete ppl on LJ all the time, if they post nothing but memes and polls, or drone on and on about their baby's poop.

So Facebook's change in their terms of service has been making a lot of waves recently. Check this out:

http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever

and this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/technology/internet/17facebook.html?hp

Hmm there's an addendum to that first article, though:

"We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload. The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site. That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend). Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user's privacy settings. So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info "in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof." Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail. For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account."

Make sense, rly.

Apart from a few random photos, I dont even *have* any content on Facebook. FB is contentless! I mean if you're publishing professional (or erm, legally dodgy) photos, or whole novels, on there, then more fool ye.

Yeah, I'm still not sure what I think about it. The addendum that you just posted does make the change seem fairly nonconsequential. But still, as some dude in the NYT article says (Sasha Frere-Jones? Who the hell is that?), "“Zuckerberg’s response to the protest is just the modern version of ‘Ignore the fine print, ma’am, just sign here,’ ” Mr. Frere-Jones wrote in an e-mail message. “Why would anyone trust a company with his or her personal information, especially when that company’s explicit legal language claims eternal rights to exploit that information, and there is good reason to expect that they will?”"

an ex housemate of mine noticed i'd deleted him from my friends about 3 days after the action and sent me a message! i didn't bother to respond, since he's a complete creep and i'll never see him again (one of the major bonuses of moving country)

In other words, the way the addendum describes the change seems reasonable, but it doesn't change the fact that the terms of service state that they can sublicense out your content even after you've quit the site. You can counter that other social networks have similar TOS, but in my view that's more worrying than a comfort.

Haha. Old people are on your internet, playing with your Facebook®.

Oh for sure I mean my main issue with any of these sites is that they can (and will and HAVE) hand over your data to the authorities, should that be requested.

But this is not a new thing, ISPs have always had to abide by such requests in general as well. If the cops or feds ask for info on a user online, they have to be given it by law. In Australia anyway, I assume in the US/UK as well.

Dont put it online if you dont want it known, is the only way this can go really. Hard to stick to in actuality mind you.

otm. If you don't want it known, don't put it there in the first place. It's like 77 in that you think everything is private and G0gglepr00f until some numpty in the control room presses the wrong button and suddenly it's all out in the open.

The problem with shit like facebook is that it only takes one person to post 'OMG YUOR MOBILE NUMBER IS 0411767536!!!!!!!1' and bang, your privacy is out the window.

ha

Terms of Use Update
Close

Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.

If you want to share your thoughts on what should be in the new terms, check out our group Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.

How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer

The Daily Mail at its best.

I heard about this on Today this morning ... my interest dropped substantially when the words "Aric" and "Sigman" followed in swift succession. A psychologist who issues a press release when he has an article published. Hmm.

Anyway. I've made a note to have a look at his article when I have time, but I have low hopes.

In fairness, the Mail is only doing what he's set it up to do ... this is an instance when I wouldn't actually accuse a newspaper of blowing a piece of research out of all proportion, because the impression I get with Sigman is that that's precisely what he wants to happen. I could be wrong, though ... I'm going to shut up until I've actually read his paper.

you should read it, it's pretty hilarious

i like this

"Ken c" likes this

"Ken c" likes "this"

I love Mail article comment boxes where even their readership completely rip on the piece