
fail
I've been trying to warn folk off of Facebook for some time now. but It's to no avail, they are all hooked on it. :(
UK lawmakers have threatened to have Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg dragged kicking and screaming to Parliament if he doesn't attend a hearing about the social media giant's dodgy practices in the next month. In a letter [PDF] sent on Tuesday to the head of public policy for Facebook's UK office, Rebecca Stimson, the head of a …
True, although none of my direct family uses Facebook - my step-daughters deleted their accounts about 4 years ago.
I had to have an account at my previous employer, but I only used it to control the corporate account. I have since deleted it again.
To be honest, real life is so hectic, I never really found time to use FB anyway - when I was at my most active, excluding work posts, I'd browse maybe for 15 minutes once a month. So I don't really miss it at all.
I was lucky this time. I have no interest in other people's lives(*) and assumed that they felt the same way about me so Facebook, Twitter and all that social media crap has passed me by :)
(*)Frankly it's bad enough I have to share a planet with you lot, don't ask me to take an interest as well :)
I occasionally make the effort to try and be interested when someone suggests I look at something on their faecbook feed. Then they try to find it. Scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll "it's very funny". Scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll "it's here somewhere". Scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll "you'll like it I'm sure". Scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll.......
By which time I've gone to the pub to talk to some friends that actually exist.
Rupert Murdoch and moral high ground in the same sentence. LOL.
He's the foreigner who influences UK elections through his media activities and that's really bad, isn't it? Or was that Putin? Which one is illegal again? Or should be?
It's all so confusing in this post truth era...
"If they don't like what Facebook does - make it illegal."
It looks to me like they're investigating whether or not Facebook broke laws that already exist.
"If Facebook has does something illegal, extradite / arrest those suspected of criminal actions.
Otherwise, STFU."
You don't want to live in a world where those are the only two available options. You really don't.
> You don't want to live in a world where those are the only two available options. You really don't.
The rule of law. The current laws govern what is allowed and unless you break those laws, moral or not, you are free to continue doing what you do. If society/government determines that they would prefer something doesn't happen, then campaign for and pass enforceable laws, preferably reasonably well thought through ones, to achieve that purpose. Bit of extra frippery around the edges on extradition, separation of state and justice, personal freedoms, etc.
Otherwise, KRFFC (Kindly Refrain From Further Comment; it's a bit more polite).
Indeed. The British politicians aren't doing it for the good of their constituents.
If they really wanted make a difference, they could bring in laws to tax these multinationals at appropriate levels. But apparently, it's all too difficult. Must be even more difficult than Brexit.
Still, anyone can publicly ridicule a CEO in a kangaroo court, if that's what the mob is baying for. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
https://qz.com/1234502/how-to-block-facebook-all-the-urls-you-need-to-block-to-actually-stop-using-facebook/
Why the actual fuck should I have to try and do the above to stop Zuckerberg stalking me on the Intertubes outside of his Social Network? I haven't joined it. I don't visit it. So he can Fuck Off.
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah... Use Firefox loaded with NoScript, U-Block Origin and Privacy Badger. Problem is that the rest of the Plebs are not as clever as like what we Commentards are. No offence intended. That's just the way it is.
I've said it before and I will say it again. It would be much easier for me and the Plebs if my ISP provider added a "Block FaceBook" check box to my Gubberment Mandated Pron Page. They already have a 'homework option'.
STRICTLY OPT-IN
Perhaps, if possible, the choice to block completely or block outside of FaceBook 'property'... just in case the Plebs might suffer withdrawal symptoms.
At least some good might come from Claire Perry's Fuck Whittery and the Daily Mail can, once again, claim that 'It Wuz Us Who Wun It!!!'
For existing Facebook users, test using 'Download your Data'.
Facebook recently added beacon images into the download (sneaky). Check those against the Hosts file above. For example, mine are not blocked by this list. Which is also the problem here.
Hosts file lists etc, need to be updated regularly, just like legislation. Otherwise we're all playing catch-up with an enemy that is faster and nimbler than you or I can ever be:
https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2018/04/18/facebook_privacy_settings/#c_3489424
Shorter list (ok taken out some of the CDN servers) :
facebook.com
fbcdn.net
fbcdn.com
fbsbx.com
facebook.com.edgekey.net
instagram.com
fb.com
Add those to your ublock domain filter file, though it will nuke access to FB & Instagram's front end sites too. Not that it really bothers me that much!
You can be part of the sheeple herd and get your Internet services for free in blissful ignorance, or you can pay someone to offer you the service only, or you can be a bit more informed about the choices and either decide you don't care or decide you do with FF/NS/PB/uBO or VPN or containers (or all of the above).
There's simply no point railing at Facebook specifically unless and until they've actually broken an enforceable law/regulation - they will do what they can within and ahead of the regulations to make as much money as they can for their shareholders. Just like 99% of all the other businesses out there. Get the regulation sorted to protect basic rights and country structures (like elections), and let businesses make money from the assorted plebs.
I'll bet money that even if the regulations say everything must be informed consent with opt-in that 90%+ would just opt-in when the choice is 'Opt in or pay'.
...Yes. For some reason the Red Queen comes to mind here....
Which Red Queen? Are we talking about the one in 'Looking Glass'? Or Jasper fforde's version?
There are many other options.... but I would prefer the Queen of Hearts in 'Wonderland' - "Off with his head!!"...
Actually the little cretin is, as you so eloquently put it "under the Norman yoke" - since arsebook and associated companies operate in the entire area claimed by that former state. including parts of France, Italy, the entirety of England amongst others. personally I'd favour the "red hot spike up the bottom" approach - or the hanging drawing quartering approach - or from our Chinese friends "the ninth degree" which would have the added advantage of wiping out every Facebook staffer on the planet - although it'd probably be a bit messy.
I've got precisely zero problem with the little turd enjoying the Anne Boleyn experience in full with his entire family "lest the evil persist".
incidentally if you know anyone with the surname Bullen - there's a good chance they're related to Anne - the family slightly adjusted the name after her Tudor haircut.
incidentally if you know anyone with the surname Bullen - there's a good chance they're related to Anne - the family slightly adjusted the name after her Tudor haircut.
Oh, I see a pun to be had there. Descendants of Anne Boleyn: Heir today, gone tomorrow.
Well..I didn't say it was a good pun.
with the surname Bullen
ObInterestingFact[1]: A lot of the surnames that start with 'P'[2] are of Welsh origin. The tales goes that a recently-appointed English magistrate who had been foisted on the Welsh soon got tired of their genealogies[3] and decreed that, from henceforth, only one level would be allowed in his court. So "Iuan Ap Arri ap Iuan ap Iwan" (and so forth)... became Iuan Ap Arri. Which, over time, mutated[4] to Iuan Parry.
[1] Which, to quote the MMQB, may be of interest only to me.
[2] And not in the Bob sense.
[3] Wales, like the Scandanavian countries and the Gaidhlig areas of Scotland, didn't use surnames. Rather, people would be classified by their genealogies - So I would be Anndra mac Phol (ans a'Ghaidlig)
[4] But not in the Welsh sense. Croeso i Gymru and all that.. Cornish and Breton do similarly. The P-Celtic languages do mutate (mor becomes mhor for example - which changes the sound since a mv is a 'v' sound) but not to the same extent.
His company is subject to said yoke, and is known to have broken the law of the land.
The committee can direct the DoP to prosecute for these breaches of the DPA, and next month can direct the DoP to bankrupt Facebook Inc. 4% global revenue done four or five times...
The UK also has the power to detain any foreign national visiting any part of the UK or Territories, just like the USA does. The UK just doesn't use that power as often as the USA.
subject to the Norman Yoke
That hasn't been true since about the late 1400's..
(The Tudors are classed as Anglo/Welsh and had very few legitimate links to either the Angevins or the preceding Norman dynasties. And English had been the Court language for a century or two by that point..)
...Facebook seems to share a similar disdain of Collins and the committee: it has repeatedly stonewalled questions and Zuckerberg has not once but twice refused to attend its hearings.
It doesn't help either that soon after the committee quizzed Facebook exec Simon Milner in February, during which he claimed that dodgy data outfit Cambridge Analytica did not have Facebook data, it emerged that it did in fact have Facebook data – on millions of people....
So... politicians constantly stonewall and lie to the electorate - refuse to set up inquiries or fiddle the Terms of Reference so that they do not address the main issues. And then whitewash themselves afterwards.
Why should they be surprised when companies do the same to them? It sounds as if they can deal it out to the little people, but they can't take it themselves....
oh dear, this is going to ruin his regular holiday plans!
Anyway, methinks they're just huffing and puffing and twitting and facebooking, and soon enough they'll move on to the next point on their agenda. That said, it'd be fun to have James Bond go after Mark Z. Perhaps James might be furnished with an Israeli passport, in a tit for tat, eh?
Well if you are going to be picky about words, you can't be summonsed to a hearing if you are outside the jurisdiction of the body doing the summonsing.
Personally, I don't see why the politicians (on either side of the pond) don't *prefer* to speak to a lackey who actually knows rather more about how the business is run. Insisting on speaking to the figurehead is a bit like advertising that the session is all form and no substance. A bit like shouting "Hey! Look at us! We're a bunch of vacuous airheads." and expecting respect in return.
"We allowed Facebook to become to big to fail."
Facebook is certainly not "too big to fail". That phrase means that the consequences to the general public of a business failure is so unacceptable that the business must be propped up by the public to prevent it.
Facebook is not that. If it went away tomorrow, the public would generally be just fine. Probably better.
"your laws start and end at Dover "
And here was me thinking that they started at Lands End and ended at John o' Groats, and included any internet facing hardware in between. Now I find that the Westminster parliament is actually just Dover Town Council on vacation. Oh well, at least I found out before the elections tomorrow.