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

(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

Just came across this while catching up with some reading ... Vaughan Bell puts the fucking boot in to Sigman's article.

As posted just now:

Today we announced new opportunities for users to play a meaningful role in determining the policies governing our site. We released the first proposals subject to these procedures – The Facebook Principles, a set of values that will guide the development of the service, and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities that governs Facebook’s operations. Users will have the opportunity to review, comment and vote on these documents over the coming weeks and, if they are approved, other future policy changes. We’ve posted the documents in separate groups and invite you to offer comments and suggestions. For more information and links to the two groups, check out the Facebook Blog.

And if you go there, Zuckerberg says all this:

Last week, we returned to our previous Terms of Use as we worked on a new set of governing documents that would more clearly explain the relationship between Facebook and its users. Since then, I've been excited to see how much people care about Facebook and how willing they are to contribute to the process of governing the site.

Our main goal at Facebook is to help make the world more open and transparent. We believe that if we want to lead the world in this direction, then we must set an example by running our service in this way.

We sat down to work on documents that could be the foundation of this and we came to an interesting realization—that the conventional business practices around a Terms of Use document are just too restrictive to achieve these goals. We decided we needed to do things differently and so we're going to develop new policies that will govern our system from the ground up in an open and transparent way.

Beginning today, we are giving you a greater opportunity to voice your opinion over how Facebook is governed. We're starting this off by publishing two new documents for your review and comment. The first is the Facebook Principles, which defines your rights and will serve as the guiding framework behind any policy we'll consider—or the reason we won't consider others. The second document is the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which will replace the existing Terms of Use. With both documents, we tried hard to simplify the language so you have a clear understanding of how Facebook will be run. We've created separate groups for each document so you can read them and provide comments and feedback. You can find the Facebook Principles here and the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities here. Before these new proposals go into effect, you'll also have the ability to vote for or against proposed changes.

I believe these steps are unprecedented in promoting understanding and enabling participation on the web. I hope you will take a look at these documents, read them carefully, and share your thoughts.

Facebook is still in the business of introducing new and therefore potentially disruptive technologies. This can mean that our users periodically experience adjustments to new products as they become familiar with them, and before becoming enthusiastic supporters. The launch of News Feed and the recent interface redesign are excellent examples that illustrate why we need to continue to make independent decisions about products in order to push technology forward. While these products must be consistent with the Principles and in compliance with the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, they will not be subject to the notice and comment or voting requirement.

We're honored that so many millions of people around the world have decided to bring Facebook into their lives to share information and experiences with friends and loved ones. We understand that gives us an important responsibility to our users.

History tells us that systems are most fairly governed when there is an open and transparent dialogue between the people who make decisions and those who are affected by them. We believe history will one day show that this principle holds true for companies as well, and we're looking to moving in this direction with you.

whose idea was this shit

it's when they detag themselves from every photo you were both in, maybe even every photo you took of them, that's when it hits home

woha.

i basically hate computer nerds who can't stop fiddling with shit. JUST LEAVE IT ALONE it was working fine

also it ONLY JUST changed

judging from the new homepage it looks like they're taking on twitter...

eg "real-time stream of posts from your friends and connections"

it just looks like i've zoomed in too much