hexagon789
Veteran Member
Its like anything, sensible control and legislation and its a great medium for contact and networking.
Exactly my view, it's just a shame the company behind it can't be sensible.
Its like anything, sensible control and legislation and its a great medium for contact and networking.
Good grief there would be riots on the streets if Facebook were blocked!
Exactly my view, it's just a shame the company behind it can't be sensible.
It also does a lot of good and has changed people lives, it has positive sides too.
Yes totally agree, hopfully that will now change
It also does a lot of good and has changed people lives, it has positive sides too.
Fizzy drinks, sweets and smoking have no purpose other than to make us feel good, but have various undesirable side effects which ultimately cost the NHS money, so government has an incentive to regulate their consumption. Facebook on the other hand is just a program in a machine. There's very little to stop others from creating either work arounds or just modified versions which do the same job (see government requirement to Internet companies for blocking of the pirate bay). The government would be better off going after the company for its bad practices, as the end-user functionality of the site itself isn't illegal, so whilst blocking it would hurt Facebook it would also greatly annoy the users.Yes, I am aware there are easy ways round blocks but the majority of people wouldn't know how to do this.
Should the Government block Facebook?
Why? Because of the dodgy practices with data and to show that Facebook can't just do what it wants, when it wants without any recourse.
But why should the Government control what I can and can't access?
Yes, we don't live in a dictatorship... or do we?
With the Government specifying specific cigarette packet colours and designs, taxing fizzy drinks, schools not allowing chocolate in packed lunches... we're limited by choices the government makes for "our own benefit" - so why shouldn't the government block Facebook for a day as "Social Media Free Day" or something, killing two birds with one stone.
Absolutely, I do think there is too much negativity towards facebook generally.
Yes indeed George, my positive story is that my long lost daughter of 34 years from my first marriage contacted me through facebook two years ago and I now have in my life, my daughter, 6 grandchildren and one great grandson who I had no idea even existed, amazingly they have all accepted me and call me grandad, a real life changer thanks to facebook.
No. Next thread.Should the Government block Facebook?
To be fair Google+ was a fairly reasonable attempt at such a thing when combined with the other Google services - but even the might of Google couldn't unseat FB.
No. Next thread.
That's a nice story, facebook has certainly enabled me to keep in regular contact with family and friends who live far away.
No. Next thread.
Ah ha.Fizzy drinks, sweets and smoking have no purpose other than to make us feel good, but have various undesirable side effects which ultimately cost the NHS money, so government has an incentive to regulate their consumption.
And thus, if you're not prepared to do anything about it, you have to accept the terms being imposed, or rather the operating practices of the company.Obviously they could block it, but I doubt they will somehow.
Ah ha.
But does social media contribute to bad mental health... and cost the NHS money?
Many people spend hours and hours on social media, Facebook in particular. Twitter is great for bullying people but I don't think harms as much as Facebook can.
And thus, if you're not prepared to do anything about it, you have to accept the terms being imposed, or rather the operating practices of the company.
Zuckerberg has been summond to answer questions in Parliament. I doubt he will. Does that mean if I am summond in front of a panel of MPs, I can ignore it with no consequences?
Sort of makes a joke of them, that their "power" is just a load of words, nothing more. Hence the little respect MPs have is diminished.
Poor mental health does indeed cost the NHS money, but I don't think it's as simple as that. Poor mental health can happen for many reasons, for example poor employment and a lack of purpose. A lack of physical exercise or being constantly exposed to negativity, with the negative effect on mental health that results, is just as possible by watching TV all day, but there's no government system to force us to switch off and go outside for a while.Whistle said:Ah ha. But does social media contribute to bad mental health... and cost the NHS money? Many people spend hours and hours on social media, Facebook in particular. Twitter is great for bullying people but I don't think harms as much as Facebook can.
I'm not at all influenced by the targeted adverts I receive
Not sure how to answer that or to prove it. I am a creature of habit. I am also in to stuff that is obscure enough that it doesn't flag up on the data scooping software they use. I have bummed my way around Europe and large swathes of the world. I know what clothes I like. I am really in to planning my travel myself and I stick with the ways I do it unless a trusted mate has a better idea. My next mobile phone is going to be a Galaxy S7 Edge because a mate is giving it to me. All I can say is I am 43 years old, I am confident I am not being influenced by the stuff they try and sell to me. I don't care if they use my photos or my comments about people I come across. Apart from my phone contract and paying for wi fi I get a pretty good service for free. They are actually talking about it on Question Time.How do you know?
Personally I don't see the need of facebook at all, we had many other better options before then and we could have again. We used to use windows live messenger at school and whilst you could only use it for instant messaging do we really need any more functionality than that. You could still search for people but you could not see anything until they had approved you and that is a much better option.
Remember Facebook are selling you stuff they are selling YOU, google is the same, Microsoft do seem to be better in these regards and their email is light years away from gmail in terms of advertising and "reading" your emails, they defiantly do not use the contents of your emails to sell you stuff via more emails like gmail.
It is intensly annoying. I don't use Facebook (although I did open an account with a ficticious identity because someone told me you can't, but I don't go there), but I get "targeted" ads with ebay and others. If I even look at something like a camera on ebay (because I want to sell one myself and am looking for the going rate) I get bombarded with emails for further ads of the very same camera, even while I'm selling mine. Then it tells me what other people who looked at that camera also bought : eg ice cream makers, ladies' socks, violins - why would I care? If they improved the "targeting" (as the admen promise us if we would only reveal even more of our lives to them, as they plead) it would be creepy as well as doubly annoying.I really don't see any problems with that kind of targeted advertising.
Actually it is quite cheap. For example you can buy 5Gb of hosting and unlimited bandwidth, unlimited mailboxes and email addresses (real email, not web-mail) for £2-£3 per month, advert free; I do.... you're getting the ability to send messages and interact with friends, up to and including things like posting videos, completely free of charge, and all the hardware and software to make that possible doesn't come cheap
Here's an example - what about targeting alcohol adverts to alcoholics? Or similarly targeted gambling adverts?But I don't think targeted advertising is by itself an issue.
That is true of *any* data stored online. Do you propose that the world go back to papyrus?no guarantees can be made that the global criminal fraternity cannot access your personal information