Facebook: Yes or No?

[dysert]

I realize this may be a generational question, but ethically I don't think it should be. Facebook seems to promote or enhance a lot of bad things. Spouses discover that their mate is fooling around (at least online) with someone else; cyber-bullying is common; people are often plagued by jealousy when they read about the (supposed) charmed lives of others; etc.

Otoh, I suppose Facebook promotes or enhances some good things. For one, long-lost friends can reunite. (I can't think of any more.)

So given that Facebook is both good and bad, does one outweigh the other? Does it matter? If there's bad in it, should Christians be spending time in it?

 

[Dave-W]

As I have said before - while I do not believe that Zukerberg is actually the antichrist, I do believe he works for him.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I finally obliterated my Facebook after years. I found that, for myself personally, it contributed to spiritual disease above all else. For one thing, it is the biggest time waster ever invented by human beings. Second, I was constantly debating people regarding their theological and political views. I spent hours on there a day sometimes. I have found the absence of Facebook in my life to be a very liberating thing. To be honest, if you want to get in contact with long lost friends, Facebook is fine to find them, but once you find them, get their phone number or email address. It will be better for your soul, I think.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am too scared to use facebook

 

[Eudaimonist]

So given that Facebook is both good and bad, does one outweigh the other? Does it matter? If there's bad in it, should Christians be spending time in it?

My experiences with Facebook have been wholly positive.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nithavela]

I don't use facebook.

But I don't use a cell phone, too. I'm strange like that.

 

[Greg J.]

I realize this may be a generational question, but ethically I don't think it should be. Facebook seems to promote or enhance a lot of bad things. Spouses discover that their mate is fooling around (at least online) with someone else; cyber-bullying is common; people are often plagued by jealousy when they read about the (supposed) charmed lives of others; etc.

Otoh, I suppose Facebook promotes or enhances some good things. For one, long-lost friends can reunite. (I can't think of any more.)

So given that Facebook is both good and bad, does one outweigh the other? Does it matter? If there's bad in it, should Christians be spending time in it?

I think you have just discovered that there are things that can be used for good or used for evil.

With a few exceptions, my Facebook account is only connected to family members' accounts. It's a way to find out about little pieces of their lives, usually things that aren't worth making an effort to write about. We wish people Happy Birthday, find out where someone is vacationing, etc.

I am programmed to not look at ads, so they don't bother me other than there's too many of them. The worst thing about Facebook is they're too scared of damaging their success by creating an intelligently designed user interface. Problems like bullying and most others are due to parents, not information media.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I was a foster kid growing up. And have met a few lost long foster sisters and friends on Facebook. I take pictures and it nice to see there reaction. When they get them. Also a friend I knew in school growing up. I know my aunt gets intoxicated and gets aggressive, when I see her. And sometimes on Facebook. But I've unfollowed her. And we are both happy about that. Well she doesn't know unfollowed her part. I realized I need to quit posting anti Trump stuff to get at her. Because it was effecting other people I know. So I stopped. I just think people have very strong opinions, go over board, with out thinking who affects them. I think to me Facebooks more positive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I realize this may be a generational question, but ethically I don't think it should be. Facebook seems to promote or enhance a lot of bad things. Spouses discover that their mate is fooling around (at least online) with someone else; cyber-bullying is common; people are often plagued by jealousy when they read about the (supposed) charmed lives of others; etc.

Otoh, I suppose Facebook promotes or enhances some good things. For one, long-lost friends can reunite. (I can't think of any more.)

So given that Facebook is both good and bad, does one outweigh the other? Does it matter? If there's bad in it, should Christians be spending time in it?

Failbook, and along with it all other forms of "social" media, is (imo) a cancer for society.
They call it "social", but in reality it is the most a-social nonsense ever devised by man.

This is a general thing on the interwebs. Whenever the word "social" is used in connection with some online service, usually the exact opposite is true: it's a-social.

Take "social gaming" for example. With that, they mean things like auto-sharing stuff through "social" media, or easily play games against "friends" on social media, or the gaming platform itself that has "social" media aspects.

Again, in reality, this is the most "a-social" form of gaming since the very beginning of gaming. Try to find a game that still offers multiplayer modes on a local network for example. Consider it a challenge.

Just over a decade ago, it was practically unimaginable for a game with a multi-player mode to NOT offer local network game modes. Back in our college days, we used to come together with our group of friends and our PC. We hooked it all up in a local network and played games. And we sat next to eachother. We shared laughs, talks, drinks,... THAT is "social" gaming.

There is nothing "social" about sitting in your couch by yourself, playing against a guy who is sitting in his couch 3000 km's away.

There is nothing "social" about posting selfies and having random internet people "like" the picture.

There is nothing "social" about feeling good about yourself because you have X "followers" (or stalkers).

It's all complete nonsense and a waste of time, energy and resources.
You wish to be social? GO OUTSIDE and talk to people, face-to-face.

And off course, then there also is the other side of this table: the people/companies who provide these platforms.

They don't do it to "socialise" people. They don't do it to "improve communication".
Nope... the entire setup of "social" media has only ONE goal: profiling and using that data to sell ads. And that's it. The more information they can gather on you, the more accurate the profile becomes.

Go try to create a gmail account WITHOUT providing your phone number or another mail address.. Go ahead, try.

Google says that the reason for that is "security". NONSENSE.

The only reason for asking you for your other mail address or your phone number, is to have more data on you by which they can identify you. By doing so, they can build a more accurate profile on you. If you give your phone number for that account, then they can use that data to "connect" other accounts where that phone number is mentioned somewhere to your super-profile.

It's a disgusting process and I can only hope that one day a brave politician will put a stop to it.

 

[dysert]

Failbook, and along with it all other forms of "social" media, is (imo) a cancer for society.
They call it "social", but in reality it is the most a-social nonsense ever devised by man.

This is a general thing on the interwebs. Whenever the word "social" is used in connection with some online service, usually the exact opposite is true: it's a-social.

Take "social gaming" for example. With that, they mean things like auto-sharing stuff through "social" media, or easily play games against "friends" on social media, or the gaming platform itself that has "social" media aspects.

Again, in reality, this is the most "a-social" form of gaming since the very beginning of gaming. Try to find a game that still offers multiplayer modes on a local network for example. Consider it a challenge.

Just over a decade ago, it was practically unimaginable for a game with a multi-player mode to NOT offer local network game modes. Back in our college days, we used to come together with our group of friends and our PC. We hooked it all up in a local network and played games. And we sat next to eachother. We shared laughs, talks, drinks,... THAT is "social" gaming.

There is nothing "social" about sitting in your couch by yourself, playing against a guy who is sitting in his couch 3000 km's away.

There is nothing "social" about posting selfies and having random internet people "like" the picture.

There is nothing "social" about feeling good about yourself because you have X "followers" (or stalkers).

It's all complete nonsense and a waste of time, energy and resources.
You wish to be social? GO OUTSIDE and talk to people, face-to-face.

And off course, then there also is the other side of this table: the people/companies who provide these platforms.

They don't do it to "socialise" people. They don't do it to "improve communication".
Nope... the entire setup of "social" media has only ONE goal: profiling and using that data to sell ads. And that's it. The more information they can gather on you, the more accurate the profile becomes.

Go try to create a gmail account WITHOUT providing your phone number or another mail address.. Go ahead, try.

Google says that the reason for that is "security". NONSENSE.

The only reason for asking you for your other mail address or your phone number, is to have more data on you by which they can identify you. By doing so, they can build a more accurate profile on you. If you give your phone number for that account, then they can use that data to "connect" other accounts where that phone number is mentioned somewhere to your super-profile.

It's a disgusting process and I can only hope that one day a brave politician will put a stop to it.

I don't think it's up to politicians to put a stop to it. I think it's up to Christians. There's much more bad than good that comes from the likes of Facebook that I don't think Christians should have any part of it. Until that mind-set changes, it will continue to march on and continue to propagate the sins I mentioned in OP.

Lying about yourself to paint yourself in the best possible light, or being envious of others who are doing that is morally wrong. The future of Facebook is really up to each of us.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't use facebook.

But I don't use a cell phone, too. I'm strange like that.

Me too, on both accounts. I don't want to be in constant contact with other humans.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think it's up to politicians to put a stop to it.

I know it is.
Because, in the end, this is about violations of privacy and profiling.
This is about companies making money by literally selling and connecting your personal data through profiling.

The problem here is that technology develops a LOT faster then politicians can work to put new laws into effect.

Just to give you a simple example, which most people are amazed to hear about...
Back when photography became a rather common thing, when the first camera's went into mass production and stuff... The issue of privacy was a really hot debate item in governments. I don't know about the US, so I'll just speak for my particular country.

In those days, they have past a law that one needs permission from people in order to even only take pictures of them - let alone actually also publish those photographs.

Today, every cellphone has a camera. The pictures taken with that camera are published faster online then you, as a bystander, can protest about being in the picture.

But you know what? These laws still exist. Following the law, one still needs permission of other people before one can take a picture of them. Let alone publish those pictures.

Cue facebook... Every picture you post on there, practically becomes the intellectual property of facebook. Through their EULA, they are supposedly free to use any picture posted on facebook to use it in whatever add or poster as they see fit.

But they aren't able to check if those pictures are "legal" in the sense explained above. So essentially, for that alone already, they are in violation of the law.

Then there are all the other issues for which there are NO laws. Not because they are allowed, but simply because government is too slow to actually take appropriate action / measures whenever these technologies are deployed to the public. More then that even, oftenly these functions/features aren't even known by the public until they are deployed and live.

Here's the thing....
If lawmakers would vote a law that states that it is illegal for companies to USE the personal information through profiling of users to then sell that data for ads... then +90% of the revenue from companies like Google and Facebook instantly evaporates.

I think it's up to Christians. There's much more bad than good that comes from the likes of Facebook that I don't think Christians should have any part of it. Until that mind-set changes, it will continue to march on and continue to propagate the sins I mentioned in OP.

Hey, newsflash... you "christians" don't have a monopoly on ethics and/or morality.

Lying about yourself to paint yourself in the best possible light, or being envious of others who are doing that is morally wrong. The future of Facebook is really up to each of us.

This reasoning totally misses the point about what the actual problem with failbook is.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't use facebook.

But I don't use a cell phone, too. I'm strange like that.

Me too, on both accounts. I don't want to be in constant contact with other humans.

We are the last three. We shall lead the revolution...

 

[Nithavela]

This site is as close to social media as I get.

 

[Cute Tink]

I have no problem with Facebook. I use it for very little and I don't post much about myself. I run a couple groups on there where I share pertinent stories.

I've stopped participating in the online arguing aspect of it. I do answer questions that I see on there sometimes though.

I've not really understood all the complaining about how evil Facebook is. It is literally nothing more than what it's users do with it. Declarations of it being evil would seem to suggest that their users are the problem. Perhaps they are.

 

[Chesterton]

I know it is.
Because, in the end, this is about violations of privacy and profiling.
This is about companies making money by literally selling and connecting your personal data through profiling.

The problem here is that technology develops a LOT faster then politicians can work to put new laws into effect.

Just to give you a simple example, which most people are amazed to hear about...
Back when photography became a rather common thing, when the first camera's went into mass production and stuff... The issue of privacy was a really hot debate item in governments. I don't know about the US, so I'll just speak for my particular country.

In those days, they have past a law that one needs permission from people in order to even only take pictures of them - let alone actually also publish those photographs.

Today, every cellphone has a camera. The pictures taken with that camera are published faster online then you, as a bystander, can protest about being in the picture.

But you know what? These laws still exist. Following the law, one still needs permission of other people before one can take a picture of them. Let alone publish those pictures.

Cue facebook... Every picture you post on there, practically becomes the intellectual property of facebook. Through their EULA, they are supposedly free to use any picture posted on facebook to use it in whatever add or poster as they see fit.

But they aren't able to check if those pictures are "legal" in the sense explained above. So essentially, for that alone already, they are in violation of the law.

Then there are all the other issues for which there are NO laws. Not because they are allowed, but simply because government is too slow to actually take appropriate action / measures whenever these technologies are deployed to the public. More then that even, oftenly these functions/features aren't even known by the public until they are deployed and live.

Here's the thing....
If lawmakers would vote a law that states that it is illegal for companies to USE the personal information through profiling of users to then sell that data for ads... then +90% of the revenue from companies like Google and Facebook instantly evaporates.




Hey, newsflash... you "christians" don't have a monopoly on ethics and/or morality.



This reasoning totally misses the point about what the actual problem with failbook is.

Both of your posts remind me of something G. K. Chesterton said back around 1917: "The new community which the capitalists are now constructing will be a very complete and absolute community; and one which will tolerate nothing really independent of itself."

 

[Moral Orel]

We are the last three. We shall lead the revolution...

But how are we going to recruit new members and organize without Twitter?!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If facebook is the modern town square, what happens when people get used to a town without a church?

It's a town square with camera's pointed at every inch with facial recognition, tracking and profiling technology, eardropping microphones everywhere and the only reason it was build is to sell billboards that are specifically matched to all the data the previously mentioned technology gathered on you.

If this would be an actual physical place in real life, nobody would frequent it, because everybody would consider it ridiculous and even a little scary.

This is the problem I have with a lot of online stuff...
I always ask the question "how would this look like if it was done in real life"? If it's not okay in real life, then it's not okay on the internet.

All the stuff you mentioned that you consider "good" about facebook, can easily be accomplished without facebook (or without all the evil nonsense underneath the surface of facebook).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have no problem with Facebook. I use it for very little and I don't post much about myself. I run a couple groups on there where I share pertinent stories.

I've stopped participating in the online arguing aspect of it. I do answer questions that I see on there sometimes though.

I've not really understood all the complaining about how evil Facebook is. It is literally nothing more than what it's users do with it. Declarations of it being evil would seem to suggest that their users are the problem. Perhaps they are.

Facebook being evil has nothing to do with the users and everything with what facebook itself does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you consider that evil, though?

Yes. Not only is it evil, strictly speaking it is also illegal.

Profiling is not a legal practice. Invading people's privacy is not a legal practice. Publishing pictures of people and even using them in ads, without explicit consent of those people, is an illegal practice.

Before you say "but you agreed to their policies when signing up"...

1. That doesn't matter. If I give you permission to kill me, then you are still not legally allowed to kill me.

2. *I* actually did not. Because I never signed up. But that doesn't stop facebook and google to keep a profile on me, connect all data they have on me, allow people to tag me in pictures that are posted on their platforms without my consent and without me even knowing about it and allowing them to use facial recognition to automatically find me in other pictures of which I am also not aware.

If I don't have a gmail account, or any other google account, then I never agreed to their terms of service. Nevertheless, if I send an email TO a gmail account, then my mail is archived, scanned and coupled to my non-google email address.

When I frequent a site that used google ads or a facebook plugin (the infamous "thumbs up" for example), then google and facebook store a cookie on my pc, and that without warning and without my explicit concent, and through that cookie, they can (and do) search my browser history and couple that data to a hash of my browser and/or device.

They have algoritms that can connect all these things together into a "super profile".

In other words...
If I would sign up to facebook today and actually use my real name...
They would know exactly who I am. They probably do already. They will give me a list of pictures I am tagged on. They will give me a list of people that I "probably" know - and I'll know most of them. They'll pretty much also instantly also be able to connect their already existing profile on me with my actual account. So upon signing in for the first time (with the browser / device of which they already have intel), they'll instantly know my interest, my surfing behaviour etc etc etc.

Every wondered why Google gives Android away for free to manufacturers?
It's not for competiteveness. It's for market share and big data. Because they want to know who your contacts are, what your agenda looks like, where you find yourself at which time (there's a tracking chip in every cell phone, called GPS... "find my phone" features is - again - not really present for "security").

Eric Schmidt once said "don't do evil" and "don't cross the creepy line". To him, I say: "mate.... you are so far past that line... the line has become a dot to you".

Although I'm glad to see that the EU is starting to slowly come into action.
For example, in Belgium some time ago, a judge ruled that is was illegal for facebook to gather data on people that never signed up and / or aren't logged in. This is the "plug in cookie" I was talking about on sites of third parties.

Facebook was ordered to stop that practice. Instead of stopping the practice, they arrogantly said "ow, is that how it's gonna be? Owkay then... we'll 'stop the practice' allright..." and then completely blocked all access to any facebook page unless you are logged in.

That is still the case today.

It's materialistic, yes, but I don't think there's much of anything sinister going on.

It's not the materialistic aspect that's the problem. The problem is the obvious illegal activities that no politician is brave enough to stand up to, because we are talking about multi-billion dollar companies on which a lot of other multi-billion dollar companies depend and we are also dealing with a user base that is obsessed with these things and are completely clueless about what goes on behind the screens.

They're doing what every website does, including Christian Forums, which is collecting data so they can actually make enough money to keep running.

No, CF does not do this. The ads I'm seeing here are actually relevant to the contents of this site. I never see ads here that deal with subjects of previous surfing sessions that have nothing to do with this forum.

Having said that, websites do not have their own ad platform. They use the google and facebook platforms.

Do you have a problem with google ads? Or the ads on CF? Do you think we should be able to use any website free of charge without being subject to ads?

That is a false choice. Google made billions from ads in the past waaaay before any of these practices were going on. There is no need at all to engage in blatant invasion of privacy and even applying your "service polices" to those people who didn't even sign up for your service and thus didn't agree to said policy in order to sell ads.

And honestly... yes, I would happily pay 50 bucks a year or whatever to get an ad-free, privacy protecting and ethical platform a la facebook.

I get your point - I think its intrusive, but people have shown time and time again that they are not willing to pay for things on the internet

During the days of Napster and Kazaa, people said that about digital movies and music as well.

But the truth was that there simply weren't any viable alternatives that people thought were worth it.

And then there was iTunes, Spotify, Xbox music, Netflix, etc etc etc.

And still, I can only repeat that before this "social" nonsense, google was perfectly able to collect billions in advertising, without engaging in creepy behaviour.

, so it's one of the logical next steps to collect data and sell it. We all agree to it in EULAs (which admittedly few people read).

As said... nope. They do it anyway. All it takes is frequenting a website which uses their plugins. Or even only sending an email to a gmail account for example.

And yes, all of this could be accomplished without facebook, but there are certain benefits to FB, mainly that people are already on there. In my opinion, google is the far scarier organization, as its reach is far greater.

I beg the differ, actually.
Google's reach is more or less limited to google users (with a google account and an android phone). Whereas facebook is a lot more platform agnostic. iOs, windows, android - they all have a facebook app. What's the cound these days for facebook? 1.5 billion profiles?

They have the biggest market share of mobile phones with android, they are the biggest search engine, and they collect data like no one else. Facebook is child's play compared to what google does.

Look around when you surf on the internet. There are facebook "thumbs up" plugins practically everywhere.



PS: sorry for ranting..... I get worked up by this, I can't help it