15 SIGNS IT'S TIME TO QUIT FACEBOOK
CYBERSPACE, December 1, 2011 (MSN TECH NEWS) By Verity Burns, editor, U.K. MSN Tech & Gadgets - Are you a certified Facebook addict? Read our warning signs to see if it's time to step away from your computer.
Facebook, addiction(Toby Talbot.AP Photo)
YOU UPDATE YOUR STATUS MANY TIMES A DAY
We all know one: the Facebook friend who can't go for more than a few minutes without telling the world (or, at least, their long-suffering circle of friends) exactly what's happening in their life.
Whether they're detailing the minutiae of their day, showing off about how "down with it" they are by going on about some random band you've never heard of, or spamming the world with mundane pictures of their latest night out, they're the people with the least to say who spend the most time saying it.
It's an affliction like any other, this kind of Facebook addiction, and if you're concerned that you (or someone you know) may be falling prey to it, then read on.
Here, we've listed 15 of the most common signs of Facebook addiction. If you tick the boxes on one or two of these, you're probably just as addicted to Facebook as the next person. If you find you're nodding along to most of the list, perhaps it's time to take a step away from the monitor ...
1. Unless something huge or so-hilariously-funny-it-must-be-shared happens in your life, your Facebook friends will probably be okay to get status updates from you once or maybe twice a day, max.
If you've started sharing what's going on in your life on the hour, every hour, people might just get a bit sick of hearing from you. That's what Twitter's for.
2. You get unnecessarily angry when Facebook makes changes You get unnecessarily angry when Facebook makes changes
If you're one of those people who angrily updates their status when Facebook makes a few tweaks to its format, it might be a sign that you care just a bit too much. But if you find yourself discussing why on earth Facebook would mess around with the comment button when you're at a bar with your friends, then it's definitely time to give it a break.
3. You've ever written 'First!'
We're not sure where the idea came from that you get special kudos for commenting on something first, but just for the record — you don't.
In fact, doing it repeatedly is more likely to get you booted off your friends' lists quicker than you can say, well, "first."
4. You've created a separate account for your baby/cat/favourite plant (Microsoft) Let's break this down — if you create an account for someone, or something, that can't actually use it, you're going to be the one updating it.
It'll start innocently enough. A couple of status updates here and there "in character." Maybe a few wall posts. But then before you know it, you'll be having full blown conversations with yourself between your real and fake profiles. That's the first sign of madness these days, don't you know?
5. You check in ... everywhere (Jose Luis Pelaez Inc/Blend Images)
Here's the deal — Facebook Places is great when you're "checking in" places of interest, places your friends might be interested to know you've been. It's also great for taking advantage of Facebook Deals. What it's not great for is letting people know you're at the local supermarket doing your weekly shopping, or at home watching TV. Frankly, no one cares. Sorry.
6. You haven't seen your other half recently
See that person you've listed as being in a relationship with on Facebook? Well they also exist away from the computer too, remember? Facebook was recently found to be a factor in one in five divorces, and we're sure the figures are even higher for relationship breakups. If you've not seen your other half in a while, you might want to make sure they aren't filing the divorce papers and packing their bags while you're busy updating your status.
7. You take pictures of yourself
Are you guilty of posing in front of your webcam? Or have ever taken a photo of yourself in the mirror just to use as your profile picture? This is a sign of S.V.B. — seriously vain behaviour, a condition contracted from extended use of Facebook. We'd say the best course of treatment is to go out with your friends, take your camera and enjoy flicking through the photos afterwards. We'd wager there'll be plenty of great pics to use as your profile picture, and no doubt great memories captured at the same time.
8.You check Facebook from your phone on vacation
The sun is shining, you're on an exotic beach somewhere and you've forked out all your hard-earned cash to get away from it all. Why then, pray tell, would you be checking Facebook from your phone? This is addiction at its most devastating — not only will you miss out on chunks of your holiday with your face in your phone, but when the roaming charges land on your next bill, you'll need to take out a loan to pay them off.
9. You speak to your best friend more often on Facebook than in real life
Previously you'd pick up your phone if you wanted to tell your friends something, or maybe drop them a text message to meet for a chat. If you've found you're now talking to them more on Facebook than in real life, do your friendship a favour, close down the chat box and grab a coffee together.
10. You'd forget your friends' birthdays if it wasn't for Facebook reminders
Remember before the days of Facebook, when you wrote birthdays, important dates and events in a calendar? If Facebook now runs your social life, telling you when to say "happy birthday" and when you're going where, you could be in trouble when you can't access it for some reason. We're not sure how popular you'll be when you forget your mom's birthday because Facebook goes down for maintenance.
11. You've started 'friend farming'
Let's get one thing straight — the number of Facebook friends you have is not directly proportionate to your popularity in the real world. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to suggest it may well be the opposite. If you're finding yourself getting upset that you haven't had a friend request in a few hours, or that your next door neighbour has more Facebook friends than you, it's probably time to move away from the keyboard and get some face-to-face time with your real-life friends.
12. You've taken out a loan to cover your Farmville/Fish World/Mafia habit (Microsoft)
If you've been hooked in to playing one of these Facebook games, not only will you have no doubt flooded your friends' feeds with news that you just bought a new sheep, but you've probably spent a fair bit of dough on it in the process. If your bank balance is starting to see the effects of your addiction, you might want to think about reining it in a bit, and spending your cash on something away from your computer, in the real world.
13. You've ever updated your status on the toilet
There are some things that can wait, and one of those is status updating. If you've ever found yourself coming up with something you just have to share with the world while sitting on the toilet, put the phone down and wait until you're back at your computer. Of course, if you've taken your computer with you, well then that's a whole different level of addiction you need to address ...
14. You've started oversharing
Hey, depressed one! Facebook isn't your personal advice columnist, ok? You shouldn't be broadcasting how horrible your breakup was or how much you still love your ex on your profile. Nobody really wants to read it. And we'd bet that includes your ex, too.
Of course there is the other end of the scale — are you one of those couples who feel the need to express their love for each other at every possible opportunity? It might have been cute the first five times you did it, now it's just annoying.
15. When you're out, you're wondering what's happening on Facebook (Nisian Hughes/Digital Vision)
It should go without saying — when you're with your friends, your mind should not be on Facebook. So if you're finding yourself getting a nervous tic when you've been away from Facebook for more than a few hours, it's definitely time for a break. You can rest in the knowledge that all the news, comments and photos will be there when you get home, and you'll have plenty of material from the time you spent with your friends to update your status with.
MESSAGE FROM THE FACEBOOK CREATOR AND OWNER
Our Commitment to the Facebook Community by Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 12:39pm
I founded Facebook on the idea that people want to share and connect with people in their lives, but to do this everyone needs complete control over who they share with at all times.
This idea has been the core of Facebook since day one. When I built the first version of Facebook, almost nobody I knew wanted a public page on the internet. That seemed scary. But as long as they could make their page private, they felt safe sharing with their friends online. Control was key. With Facebook, for the first time, people had the tools they needed to do this. That's how Facebook became the world's biggest community online. We made it easy for people to feel comfortable sharing things about their real lives.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Facebook's growth as an Internet social networking site has met criticism on a range of issues, including online privacy, child safety, and the inability to terminate accounts without first manually deleting the content. In 2008, many companies removed their advertising from the site because it was being displayed on the pages of controversial individuals and groups. The content of user pages, groups, and forums has been criticized for promoting controversial topics. There have been several issues with censorship, both on and off the site.
Privacy concerns Issues during 2007
In August 2007, the code used to dynamically generate Facebook's home and search page as visitors browse the site was accidentally made public, according to leading internet news sites. A configuration problem on a Facebook server caused the PHP code to be displayed instead of the web page the code should have created, raising concerns about how secure private data on the site was. A visitor to the site copied, published and later removed the code from his web forum, claiming he had been served legal notice by Facebook.
Facebook's response was quoted by the site that broke the story: “ A small fraction of the code that displays Facebook web pages was exposed to a small number of users due to a single misconfigured web server that was fixed immediately. It was not a security breach and did not compromise user data in any way. Because the code that was released powers only Facebook user interface, it offers no useful insight into the inner workings of Facebook. The reprinting of this code violates several laws and we ask that people not distribute it further. ”
In November, Facebook launched Beacon, a system (discontinued in September 2009 where third-party websites could include a script by Facebook on their sites, and use it to send information about the actions of Facebook users on their site to Facebook, prompting serious privacy concerns. Information such as purchases made and games played were published in the user's news feed. An informative notice about this action appeared on the third party site and gave the user the opportunity to cancel it, and the user could also cancel it on Facebook. Originally if no action was taken, the information was automatically published. On November 29 this was changed to require confirmation from the user before publishing each story gathered by Beacon.
On December 1, Facebook's credibility in regard to the Beacon program was further tested when it was reported that the New York Times "essentially accuses" Mark Zuckerberg of lying to the paper and leaving Coca-Cola, which is reversing course on the program, a similar impression. A security engineer at CA, Inc. also claimed in a November 29, 2007 blog post that Facebook collected data from affiliate sites even when the consumer opted out and even when not logged into the Facebook site.
On November 30, 2007, the CA security blog posted a Facebook clarification statement addressing the use of data collected in the Beacon program: “ When a Facebook user takes a Beacon-enabled action on a participating site, information is sent to Facebook in order for Facebook to operate Beacon technologically. If a Facebook user clicks ‘No, thanks’ on the partner site notification, Facebook does not use the data and deletes it from its servers. Separately, before Facebook can determine whether the user is logged in, some data may be transferred from the participating site to Facebook. In those cases, Facebook does not associate the information with any individual user account, and deletes the data as well. ”
The Beacon service ended in September 2009 along with the settlement of a class-action lawsuit resulting from the service.
News Feed and Mini-Feed
On September 5, 2006, Facebook introduced two new features called "News Feed" and "Mini-Feed". The first of the new features, News Feed, appears on every Facebook member's home page, displaying recent Facebook activities of the member's friends. The second feature, Mini-Feed, keeps a log of similar events on each member's profile page. Members can manually delete items from their Mini-Feeds if they wish to do so, and through privacy settings can control what is actually published in their respective Mini-Feeds.
Some Facebook members still feel that the ability to opt out of the entire News Feed and Mini-Feed system is necessary, as evidenced by a statement from the Students Against Facebook News Feed group, which peaked at over 740,000 members in 2006. Reacting to users' concerns, Facebook developed new privacy features to give users some control over information about them that was broadcast by the News Feed. According to subsequent news articles, members have widely regarded the additional privacy options as an acceptable compromise.
In December 2009, Facebook removed the privacy controls for the News Feed and Mini Feed. This change made it impossible for users to control what activities are published on their walls (and consequently the public news feed). Since users can post anything they want, this allowed people to post things that could target certain groups of people or abuse other users through other means.
In May 2010, Facebook added privacy controls and streamlined its privacy settings, giving users more ways to manage status updates and other information that is broadcast to the public News Feed. Among the new privacy settings is the ability to control who sees each new status update a user posts: Everyone, Friends of Friends, or Friends Only. Users can now hide each status update from specific people as well. Cooperation with government search requests
Government authorities rely on Facebook to investigate crimes and obtain evidence to help establish a crime, provide location information, establish motives, prove and disprove alibis, and reveal communications. Federal, state, and local investigations have not been restricted to profiles that are publicly available or willingly provided to the government; Facebook has willingly provided information in response to government subpoenas or requests, except with regard to private, unopened inbox messages less than 181 days old, which require a warrant and a finding of probable cause under federal law.
Aided by Facebook, Israel prevented scores of pro-Palestinian activists in July 2011 from boarding Tel Aviv-bound flights in Europe.
Complaint from CIPPIC
The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), per Director Phillipa Lawson, filed a 35-page complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner against Facebook on May 31, 2008, based on 22 breaches of the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). University of Ottawa law students Lisa Feinberg, Harley Finkelstein, and Jordan Eric Plener, initiated the "minefield of privacy invasion" suit.
Facebook's Chris Kelly contradicted the claims, saying that: "We've reviewed the complaint and found it has serious factual errors — most notably its neglect of the fact that almost all Facebook data is willingly shared by users." Assistant Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham released a report of her findings on July 16, 2009. In it, she found that several of CIPPIC's complaints were well-founded. Facebook agreed to comply with some, but not all, of her recommendations. The Assistant Commissioner found that Facebook did not do enough to ensure users granted meaningful consent for the disclosure of personal information to third parties and did not place adequate safeguards to ensure unauthorized access by third party developers to personal information.
In such cases we generally give you the ability to remove the content (such as allowing you to remove a photo tag of you) or limit its visibility on your profile." The terminology regarding the use of collecting information from other sources, such as newspapers, blogs, and instant messaging services, has been removed.
The possibility of data mining by private individuals unaffiliated with Facebook has been a concern, as evidenced by the fact that two Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) students were able to download, using an automated script, over 70,000 Facebook profiles from four schools (MIT, NYU, the University of Oklahoma, and Harvard University) as part of a research project on Facebook privacy published on December 14, 2005. Since then, Facebook has bolstered security protection for users, responding: "We’ve built numerous defenses to combat phishing and malware, including complex automated systems that work behind the scenes to detect and flag Facebook accounts that are likely to be compromised (based on anomalous activity like lots of messages sent in a short period of time, or messages with links that are known to be bad)."
Similarly, when one of your friends visits a pre-approved website or application, it will receive General Information about you so you and your friend can be connected on that website as well (if you also have an account with that website). In these cases we require these websites and applications to go through an approval process, and to enter into separate agreements designed to protect your privacy…You can disable instant personalization on all pre-approved websites and applications using your Applications and Websites privacy setting. You can also block a particular pre-approved website or application by clicking "No Thanks" in the blue bar when you visit that application or website. In addition, if you log out of Facebook before visiting a pre-approved application or website, it will not be able to access your information. ”
In the United Kingdom, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has encouraged employers to allow their staff to access Facebook and other social networking sites from work, provided they proceed with caution.
In September 2007, Facebook drew a fresh round of criticism after it began allowing non-members to search for users, with the intent of opening limited "public profiles" up to search engines such as Google in the following months. Facebook's privacy settings, however, allow users to block their profiles from search engines.
Concerns were also raised on the BBC's Watchdog programme in October 2007 when Facebook was shown to be an easy way in which to collect an individual's personal information in order to facilitate identity theft. However, there is barely any personal information presented to non-friends - if users leave the privacy controls on their default settings, the only personal information visible to a non-friend is the user's name, gender, profile picture, networks, and user name.
A third party site, USocial, was involved in a controversy surrounding the sale of fans and friends. USocial received a cease-and-desist letter from Facebook and has stopped selling friends.  Inability to voluntarily terminate accounts
A notable ancillary effect of social networking websites, particularly Facebook, is the ability for participants to mourn publicly for a deceased individual. On Facebook, students often leave messages of sadness, grief, or hope on the individual's page, transforming it into a sort of public book of condolences. This particular phenomenon has been documented at a number of schools.Previously, Facebook had stated that its official policy on the matter was to remove the profile of the deceased one month after he or she has died, preventing the profile from being used for communal mourning, citing privacy concerns. Due to user response, Facebook amended its policy. Its new policy is to place deceased members' profiles in a "memorialization state".
Such memorial groups have also raised legal issues. Notably, on January 1, 2008, one such memorial group posted the identity of murdered Toronto teenager Stefanie Rengel, whose family had not yet given the Toronto Police Service their consent to release her name to the media, and the identities of her accused killers, in defiance of Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act which prohibits publishing the names of under-age criminals. While police and Facebook staff attempted to comply with the privacy regulations by deleting such posts, they noted that it was difficult to effectively police the individual users who repeatedly republished the deleted information.
Customization and security
Facebook is often compared to MySpace but one significant difference between the two sites is the level of customization. MySpace allows users to decorate their profiles using HTML and CSS while Facebook allows only plain text. However, a number of users have tweaked their profiles by using "hacks." On February 24, 2006, a pair of users exploited a cross-site scripting (XSS) hole on the profile page and created a fast-spreading worm, loading a custom CSS file on infected profiles that made them look like MySpace profiles.
On April 19, 2006, a user was able to embed an iframe into his profile and load a custom off-site page featuring a streaming video and a flash game from Drawball. He has since been banned from Facebook.
Facebook enabled an automatic facial recognition feature in June 2011, called "Tag Suggestions". The feature compares newly uploaded photographs to those of the uploader's Facebook friends, in order to suggest photo tags. Facebook has defended the feature, saying users can disable it. Facebook introduced the feature in an opt-out basis. European Union data-protection regulators said they would investigate the feature to see if it violated privacy rules. Investigation by the Irish Data Protection Commissioner 2011
In August 2011 the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) started an investigation after receiving 16 complaints by europe-v-facebook.org which was founded by a group of Austrian students. The DPC stated in first reactions that the Irish DPC is legally responsible for privacy on Facebook for all users within the European Union and that he will "investigate the complaints using his full legal powers if necessary".
The complaints were filed in Ireland because all users who are not residents of the United States or Canada have a contract with "Facebook Ireland Ltd", located in Dublin, Ireland. Under European law Facebook Ireland is the "data controller" for facebook.com, and therefore, facebook.com is governed by European data protection laws. Facebook Ireland Ltd. was established by Facebook Inc. to avoid US taxes (see Double Irish Arrangement).
The group europe-v-facebook.org made access requests at Facebook Ireland and received up to 1.200 pages of data per person in 57 data categories that Facebook was holding about them, including data that was previously removed by the users. Despite the amount of information given, the group claimed that Facebook did not give them all of its data. Some of the information not included was "likes", data about the new face recognition function, data about third party websites that use "social plugins" visited by users and information about uploaded videos.
In an Interview with the Irish Independent a spokesperson said, that the DPC will "go and audit Facebook, go into the premises and go through in great detail every aspect of security". He continued by saying: "It's a very significant, detailed and intense undertaking that will stretch over four or five days. Then we'll publish a detailed report and Facebook will respond".This means that the investigation by the DPC might become one of the most severe investigations into Facebook's privacy practice in the past years.  Breach of privacy extends to non-members of Facebook
An article published by USA today claimed that Facebook has created a web log of pages visited both by its members and by others. Facebook relies on tracking cookies to keep track of pages visited by more than 800 million individuals.
According to the article, the United States congress and the world wide web consortium are attempting to set new guidelines to deal with privacy concerns. It is not clear whether the information collected in this manner is provided only to advertisers and no others.
Facebook has been criticized for making people envious and unhappy due to the constant exposure to positive yet unrepresentative highlights of their peers.
Research performed by psychologists from Edinburgh Napier University indicated that Facebook adds stress to users' lives. Causes of stress included fear of missing important social information, fear of offending contacts, discomfort or guilt from rejecting user requests or deleting unwanted contacts, the pressure to be entertaining, and having to use appropriate etiquette for different types of friends.Many people who started using Facebook for positive purposes have found that the website has negatively impacted their actual lives.
In May 2011 emails were sent to journalists and bloggers making critical allegations about Google's privacy policies; however it was later discovered that the anti-Google campaign, conducted by PR giant Burson-Marsteller, was paid for by Facebook in what CNN referred to as "a new level skullduggery" and which Daily Beast called a "clumsy smear." While taking responsibility for the campaign, Burson-Marsteller said it should not have agreed to keep its client's (Facebook's) identity a secret. "Whatever the rationale, this was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should have been declined," it said in a statement.
Inappropriate content controversies
One can easily create an account and impersonate another person, often for malicious or mischievous reasons and to harass others.This criticism is not unique to Facebook, since any site with user accounts has the potential for users to create false accounts but due to its popularity and wide use Facebook is being the severe reason for this on internet.
On July 24, 2008, the High Court in London ordered a British cameraman to pay £22,000 (then about US$43,700) for breach of privacy and libel. He had posted a fake Facebook page purporting to be that of a former school friend and business colleague, Mathew Firsht, with whom he had fallen out in 2000. The fake page claimed that Firsht was homosexual and untrustworthy. The case is believed to be the first successful invasion of privacy and defamation verdict against someone over an entry on a social networking site.
Anorexia and bulimia
Facebook has received criticism from users and from people outside the Facebook community about hosting pro-anorexia and pro-bulimia information.British eating disorder charity B-EAT called on all social networking sites to curb "pro-ana" (anorexia) and "pro-mia" (bulimia) pages and groups, naming MySpace and Facebook specifically.  Advertiser concerns
On August 3, 2007, British companies including First Direct, Vodafone, Virgin Media, The Automobile Association, Halifax and the Prudential removed their advertisements from Facebook. A Virgin Media spokeswoman said "We want to advertise on social networks but we have to protect our brand". The companies found that their services were being advertised on pages of the British National Party, a far-right political party in the UK. New Media Age magazine was first to alert the companies that their ads were coming up on BNP's Facebook page.
In Italy, the discovery of pro-mafia groups caused an alert in the country and brought the government, after a short debate, to rapidly issue a law which will force ISPs to deny access to entire sites in case of refused removal of illegal contents; the removal can be requested by a prosecutor in any case in which there is a suspicion that criminal speech (a defence of or incitement to crime) is published on a website. The amendment was passed by the Italian Senate and now needs to be passed unchanged by the Chamber of Deputies to become immediately effective.
Facebook and other websites, Google included, criticized the amendment emphasizing the eventual effects on the freedom of speech of those users who do not violate any law.
On March 31, 2010, the Today Show ran a segment detailing the deaths of three separate adolescent girls and trolls' subsequent reactions to their deaths. Shortly after the suicide of high school student Alexis Pilkington, anonymous posters began trolling for reactions across various message boards, referring to Pilkington as a "suicidal slut", and posting graphic images on her Facebook memorial page. The segment also included an exposť of a 2006 accident, in which an eighteen-year-old student out for a drive fatally crashed her father's car into a highway pylon; trolls e-mailed her grieving family the leaked pictures of her mutilated corpse.
There have been cases where Facebook "trolls" were jailed for their communications on Facebook, particularly memorial pages. In Fall 2010, Colm Coss of Ardick, Britain, was sentenced to 26 weeks in jail under s127 of the Communications Act 2003 of Great Britain, for "malicious communications" for leaving messages deemed obscene and hurtful on Facebook memorial pages.
In April 2011, Bradley Paul Hampson was sentenced to three years in jail after pleading guilty to two counts of using a carriage service, the Internet, to cause offense, for posts on Facebook memorial pages, and one count each of distributing and possessing child pornography when he posted images on the memorial pages of the deceased with phalluses superimposed alongside phrases such as "Woot I'm dead".
Disabling of user accounts
There have been complaints of user accounts easily being mistakenly disabled for violating Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. The disabling is often automated and can be easily triggered by a user filing a report on an account, regardless of whether or not the report is legitimate. Once Facebook disables an account, whether it does so for unconfirmed reasons or a suspicion that something may be awry, it is impossible to reinstate the account, partly due to lack of in-person support and partly because any attempt to do so sends the account holder into a closed loop.
Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities is often misleading. For example, it states that joining a school network is not a requirement, even though users are often disabled for not joining a school network. Facebook has disabled user accounts for having names deemed to be fake despite being real. Once an account is disabled, it can no longer be logged into and all public traces of it disappear.
There have also been instances of user accounts being memorialized, even though the person listed on the profile was not deceased.
Enabling of Harassment
Facebook instituted a policy by which it is now self-policed by the community of Facebook users. Some users have complained that this policy allows Facebook to empower abusive users to harass them by allowing them to submit reports on even benign comments and photos as being "offensive" or "in violation of Facebook Rights and Responsibilities" and that enough of these reports result in the user who is being harassed in this way getting their account blocked for a predetermined number of days or weeks, or even deactivated entirely.
In addition, Facebook does not ban the IPs of users who have proven to create multiple accounts for the purposes of trolling or stalking others, thereby enabling the harasser, even if they do have one of the offending accounts deactivated, to simply create another one and continue the harassment with no lasting consequences.
Lack of customer support
Facebook lacks live support, making it difficult to resolve issues that require the services of an administrator or are not covered in the FAQs, such as the enabling of a disabled account. The automated emailing system used when filling out a support form often refers users back to the help center or to pages that are outdated and cannot be accessed, leaving users at a dead end with no further support available.
Downtime and outages
Facebook has had a number of outages and downtime large enough to draw some media attention. A 2007 outage resulted in a security hole that enabled some users to read other users' personal mail. In 2008, the site was inaccessible for about a day, from many locations in many countries. In spite of these occurrences, a report issued by Pingdom found that Facebook had less downtime in 2008 than most social networking websites.
On September 16, 2009, Facebook started having major problems with loading when people signed in. On September 18, 2009, Facebook went down for the second time in 2009, the first time being when a group of hackers were deliberately trying to drown out a political speaker who had social networking problems from continuously speaking against the Iranian election results. On August 10, 2011 Facebook was in-accessible.
In October 2009, an unspecified number of Facebook users were unable to access their accounts for over three weeks. On September 23, 2010, nobody within the UK, US, and Latin America could log in to Facebook. Facebook quoted a DNS failure.
Upgrades September 2008
In September 2008, Facebook permanently moved its users to what they termed the "New Facebook" or Facebook 3.0. This version contained several different features and a complete layout redesign. Between July and September, users had been given the option to use the new Facebook in place of the original design, or to return to the old design.
Facebook's decision to migrate their users was met with some controversy in their community. Several groups started opposing the decision, some with over a million users.
In October 2009, Facebook redesigned the news feed so that the user could view all types of things that their friends were involved with. In a statement, they said,
Stores your applications generate can show up in both views. The best way for your stories to appear in the News Feed filter is to create stories that are highly engaging, as high quality, interesting stories are most likely to garner likes and comments by the user's friends.
This redesign was explained as:
News Feed will focus on popular content, determined by an algorithm based on interest in that story, including the number of times an item is liked or commented on. Live Feed will display all recent stories from a large number of a user's friends.
The redesign was met immediately with criticism with users, many who did not like the amount of information that was coming at them. This was also compounded by the fact that people couldn't select what they saw. Immediately, groups formed, one getting over 1,600,000 within the first two weeks of the update.
The change was described by Gawker as Facebook's Great Betrayal, forcing user profile photos and friends lists to be visible in users' public listing, even for users who had explicitly chosen to hide this information previously, and making photos and personal information public unless users were proactive about limiting access.For example, a user whose "Family and Relationships" information was set to be viewable by "Friends Only" would default to being viewable by "Everyone" (publicly viewable).
That is, information such as the gender of partner you are interested in, relationship status, and family relations became viewable to those even without a Facebook account. Facebook was heavily criticized for both reducing its users' privacy and pushing users to remove privacy protections. Groups criticizing the changes include the Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union.Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, had hundreds of personal photos and his events calendar exposed in the transition. Facebook has since re-included an option to hide friends lists from being viewable; however, this preference is no longer listed with other privacy settings, and the former ability to hide the friends list from selected people among one's own friends is no longer possible.
Journalist Dan Gillmor deleted his Facebook account over the changes, stating he "can't entirely trust Facebook" and Heidi Moore at Slate's Big Money temporarily deactivated her account as a "conscientious objection". Other journalists have been similarly disappointed and outraged by the changes. Defending the changes, founder Mark Zuckerberg said "we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it". The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada launched another investigation into Facebook's privacy policies after complaints following the change.
Facebook has been criticised heavily for 'tracking' users, even when logged out of the site. Australian technologist Nik Cubrilovic discovered that when a user logs out of Facebook, the cookies from that login are still kept in the browser, allowing Facebook to track users on websites that include "social widgets" distributed by the social network. Facebook has denied the claims, saying they have 'no interest' in tracking users or their activity. They also promised after the discovery of the cookies that they would remove them, saying they will no longer have them on the site. A group of users in the United States have sued Facebook for breaching privacy laws.
The warning box that appears when Internet users try to view censored or blocked content on Facebook  Search function
Facebook's search function has been accused of preventing users from searching for certain terms. Michael Arrington of TechCrunch has written about Facebook's possible censorship of "Ron Paul" as a search term. MoveOn.org's Facebook group for organizing protests against privacy violations could for a time not be found by searching. The very word privacy was also restricted. Facebook claimed that the problem was a bug.
Facebook has been criticized for removing photos uploaded by mothers of themselves breastfeeding their babies and also canceling their Facebook accounts. Although photos that show an exposed breast violate Facebook's decency code, even when the baby covered the nipple, Facebook took several days to respond to calls to deactivate a paid advertisement for a dating service that used a photo of a topless model.
The breastfeeding photos controversy continued following public protests and the growth in the online membership in the Facebook group titled "Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene! (Official petition to Facebook)."
Censorship of editorial content
On February 4, 2010, a number of Facebook groups against the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) were removed without any reason given. The DAB is one of the largest pro-Beijing political parties in Hong Kong. The affected groups have since been restored.
On May 21, 2010, Facebook disabled the account of Sulphur Springs, Texas radio station KNOI after it posted editorial comments critical of Facebook's privacy policies and shared links to articles about Leo Laporte's decision to delete his own Facebook account.  Accusation of politically biased granting of group upgrades
In May 2011, Facebook announced that in the coming months it will be "archiving" all groups in the old format, part of the consequence of which is losing all the existing members of a group, which would effectively destroy many groups, forcing them to re-acquire members from scratch. A few groups have been given an option to "upgrade" to the new groups format, which keeps the members, but the criteria for determining whether a group is offered this "upgrade" are unknown. Some groups have had success in getting this upgrade by having activity in their group, while others have not. One article has claimed an empirical observation that disproportionately more "liberal" groups have been able to upgrade than "conservative" groups, leading to accusations of potential political bias, or of politically motivated censorship of conservative groups.
Student privacy concerns
Students who post illegal or otherwise inappropriate material have faced disciplinary action from their universities, including expulsion.Others posting libelous content relating to faculty have also faced disciplinary action.
Effect on higher education
On January 23, 2006, The Chronicle of Higher Education continued an ongoing national debate on social networks with an opinion piece written by Michael Bugeja, director of the Journalism School at Iowa State University, entitled "Facing the Facebook". Bugeja, author of the Oxford University Press text Interpersonal Divide (2005), quoted representatives of the American Association of University Professors and colleagues in higher education to document the distraction of students using Facebook and other social networks during class and at other venues in the wireless campus.
Bugeja followed up on January 26, 2007 in The Chronicle with an article titled "Distractions in the Wireless Classroom", quoting several educators across the country who were banning laptops in the classroom. Similarly, organisations such as the National Association for Campus Activities, the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, and others have hosted seminars and presentations to discuss ramifications of students' use of Facebook and other social networking systems.
The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative has also released a brief pamphlet entitled "7 Things You Should Know About Facebook" aimed at higher education professionals that "describes what [Facebook] is, where it is going, and why it matters to teaching and learning".
Some research on Facebook in higher education suggests that there may be some small educational benefits associated with student Facebook use, including improving engagement which is related to student retention. Furthermore, using technologies such as Facebook to connect with others can help college students be less depressed and cope with feelings of loneliness and homesickness. According to one case study, students surveyed who were regular facebook users had, on average, lower grades than those who were not.
Third-party responses to Facebook
Government censorship Main article: Censorship of Facebook
Several countries have banned access to it including Syria, China, Iran, and Vietnam.
In 2010, Facebook reportedly allowed an objectionable page, deemed by the Islamic Lawyers Forum, to be anti-Muslim. The "ILF" filed a petition with Pakistan's Lahore High Court. On May 18, 2010, Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry ordered Pakistan's Telecommunication Authority to block access to Facebook until May 31. The offensive page had provoked street demonstrations in Muslim countries due to visual depictions of Mohammed, which are regarded as blasphemous by Muslims.
A spokesman said Pakistan Telecommunication Authority would move to implement the ban once the order has been issued by the Ministry of Information and Technology. "We will implement the order as soon as we get the instructions", Khurram Mehran told AFP. "We have already blocked the URL link and issued instruction to Internet service providers yesterday", he added. Rai Bashir told AFP that "We moved the petition in the wake of widespread resentment in the Muslim community against the Facebook contents".
The petition called on the government of Pakistan to lodge a strong protest with the owners of Facebook, he added. Bashir said a PTA official told the judge his organisation had blocked the page, but the court ordered a total ban on the site. People demonstrated outside court in the eastern city of Lahore, Pakistan, carrying banners condemning Facebook. Protests in Pakistan on a larger scale took place after the ban and widespread news of that objectionable page. The ban was lifted on May 31 after Facebook reportedly assured the Lahore High Court that it would remedy the issues in dispute.
In 2011, a court in Pakistan was petitioned to place a permanent ban on Facebook for hosting a page called "2nd Annual Draw Muhammad Day May 20th 2011."
Organizations blocking access
Ontario government employees, Federal public servants, MPPs, and cabinet ministers were blocked from access to Facebook on government computers in May 2007. When the employees tried to access Facebook, a warning message "The Internet website that you have requested has been deemed unacceptable for use for government business purposes". This warning also appears when employees try to access YouTube, MySpace, gambling or pornographic websites. However, innovative employees have found ways around such protocols, and many claim to use the site for political or work-related purposes.
A number of local governments including those in the UK and Finland imposed restrictions on the use of Facebook in the workplace due to the technical strain incurred. Other government-related agencies, such as the US Marine Corps have imposed similar restrictions.
A number of hospitals in Finland have also restricted Facebook use citing privacy concerns.
Employees of Broward County, Florida have been blocked from accessing Facebook and most social networking and blog sites since 2009.  Schools blocking access
The University of New Mexico (UNM) in October 2005 blocked access to Facebook from UNM campus computers and networks, citing unsolicited e-mails and a similar site called UNM Facebook. After a UNM user signed into Facebook from off campus, a message from Facebook said, "We are working with the UNM administration to lift the block and have explained that it was instituted based on erroneous information, but they have not yet committed to restore your access." UNM, in a message to students who tried to access the site from the UNM network, wrote, "This site is temporarily unavailable while UNM and the site owners work out procedural issues.
The site is in violation of UNM's Acceptable Computer Use Policy for abusing computing resources (e.g., spamming, trademark infringement, etc). The site forces use of UNM credentials (e.g., NetID or email address) for non-UNM business." However, after Facebook created an encrypted login and displayed a precautionary message not to use university passwords for access, UNM unblocked access the following spring semester.
The Columbus Dispatch reported on June 22, 2006, that Kent State University's athletic director had planned to ban the use of Facebook by athletes and gave them until August 1 to delete their accounts. On July 5, 2006, the Daily Kent Stater reported that the director reversed the decision after reviewing the privacy settings of Facebook.
Closed social networks
Several web sites concerned with social networking, such as Plugtodo.com and salesforce have criticized the lack of information that users get when they share data. Advanced users cannot limit the amount of information anyone can access in their profiles, but Facebook promotes the sharing of personal information for marketing purposes, leading to the promotion of the service using personal data from users who are not fully aware of this. Facebook exposes personal data, without supporting open standards for data interchange. According to several communities and authors closed social networking, on the other hand, promotes data retrieval from other people while not exposing one's personal information.
Facebook Settles Privacy Complaints of U.S. Regulator November 30, 2011, 7:51 PM EST By Sara Forden and Jeff Bliss (Updates with Gaskins comment in sixth paragraph and Zuckerberg statement in 10th paragraph.)
Nov. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Facebook Inc., the world’s biggest social networking site, agreed to settle complaints by the Federal Trade Commission that it failed to protect users’ privacy or disclose how their data could be used.
The proposed 20-year agreement would require Palo Alto, California-based Facebook to get clear consent from users before sharing material posted under earlier, more restrictive terms, the FTC said today in a statement. It would also compel independent reviews of Facebook’s privacy practices.
“Companies must live up to their promises about privacy,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said on a conference call with reporters. The settlement “will protect consumer choices and ensure they have full and truthful information about their data.”
The settlement is part of an effort to resolve legal issues that could be a distraction as Facebook moves toward an initial public offering, said Francis Gaskins, president of Los Angeles- based IPODesktop.com, a Web site that tracks IPOs. Facebook is considering an IPO that would raise $10 billion and value the company at more than $100 billion, a person familiar with the matter said.
‘Clear the Decks’
“They’re obviously trying to clear the decks to take off,” Gaskins said in an interview, adding that the settlement “should give some comfort” to potential investors.
In a blog posting, Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg said the company should have been more vigilant in protecting users’ privacy.
“I’m the first to admit that we’ve made a bunch of mistakes,” he said.
The FTC is stepping up enforcement of privacy requirements at Internet companies and this year has settled complaints with Google Inc. and Twitter Inc.
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington-based advocacy group that filed a complaint against Facebook over privacy issues in 2009, said today’s settlement “is a sweeping order that will prevent Facebook from disregarding the privacy interests of its users in the future.”
It should also should send a message to the Internet industry at large, Maneesha Mithal, associate director of the FTC’s Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, said in an interview.
“The provisions of the order are good practices for all companies to follow,” Mithal said. “Companies should seek permission from consumers before they make changes to how they treat personal information.”
Zuckerberg said the company already has addressed many of the FTC’s concerns. Today he appointed Erin Egan, a former partner at Covington & Burling who specialized in data security, as chief privacy officer, policy, and Michael Richter, the company’s head privacy counsel, as chief privacy officer, products, Zuckerberg said.
The settlement, which the FTC’s commissioners approved 4-0, requires Facebook to establish a “comprehensive privacy program” and block access to a user’s account within 30 days of it being deleted, according to the FTC’s statement. The company also is barred from making any deceptive claims about its privacy practices.
Audits by an independent third party will help build faith in Facebook’s efforts, said Elliot Schrage, a Facebook spokesman.
“Oversight fosters trust by providing users with additional assurances that the commitments we make are being upheld,” he said in an e-mail.
Michael Gartenberg, an analyst at Gartner Inc., a Stamford, Connecticut technology research company, said, “There’s no doubt Facebook and privacy have not gone well together in the past.”
The FTC said Facebook shared users’ personal information with advertisers after promising it wouldn’t. Facebook also pledged it would restrict sharing of information to designated “friends” of users while the data also was accessible to third-party applications used by the friends, the FTC said in the statement.
Facebook assured users that third-party applications only had access to data required for them to function, while, in fact, the applications had access to almost all of a user’s personal information, according to the agency.
The company’s “Verified Apps” program to certify the security of applications didn’t work, the FTC said.
In other FTC actions on Internet privacy, Google Inc. agreed in March to settle claims that the Mountain View, California-based company used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy policies when it introduced its Buzz social- networking service last year.
That same month, the agency accepted a settlement with Twitter, resolving charges that the San Francisco-based company deceived consumers and put their privacy at risk.
The regulator has said the online-advertising industry’s self-policing effort allowing Internet users to block ads based on their web browsing fails to protect consumers. --Editors: Fred Strasser, Justin Blum (OTHER IMAGES ON THIS PAGE COURTESY OF Google Images)
Reported by: Sol Jose Vanzi
2011 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS
All rights reserved
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE