Privacy-organisaties hebben kritiek geuit op een voorstel van Facebook om te stoppen met de mogelijkheid om gebruikers te laten stemmen over veranderingen op de site. Het laten tellen van de stem van de gebruiker zou een eis zijn van de Amerikaanse waakhond FTC.
De wijzigingen aan het beleid werden enkele dagen geleden in een voorstel op de site van Facebook geplaatst. Daarin laat de sociale-netwerksite weten dat het wil stoppen met stemrondes die de gebruiker inspraak geeft over wijzigingen aan onder andere het privacybeleid. Privacyvoorvechters hebben kritiek geuit op de plannen en wijzen erop dat het afschaffen van het stemproces ingaat tegen de regels die door de Amerikaanse Federal Trade Commission zijn opgelegd. Facebook zou namelijk in een schikking met de toezichthouder over zijn privacybeleid hebben beloofd om gebruikers inspraak te geven over veranderingen aan dat beleid.
Naast het afschaffen van het stemproces wil Facebook het ook mogelijk maken om gebruikersdata te delen met andere diensten waar het eigenaar van is. Een voorbeeld daarvan is Instagram, waarvoor Facebook onlangs een miljard dollar neerlegde. Ook dit voorstel kwam de sociale-netwerksite op de nodige kritiek te staan. Verder wil Facebook de mogelijkheid afschaffen om berichten van anderen op voorhand te blokkeren. In ruil daarvoor komen er meer filtermogelijkheden voor binnenkomende berichten.
Facebook komt geregeld in het nieuws met betrekking tot zijn privacybeleid. Recentelijk kwam er kritiek op het gebruik van likes van vrienden om reclame te serveren. Facebook zou dit doen zonder goedkeuring van de gebruiker, waardoor de zaak voor de rechter kwam. Overigens moet er over alle voorgestelde veranderingen nog wel worden gestemd door de gebruikers. Hierdoor kunnen Facebook-gebruikers dus zelf instemmen met het afschaffen van het recht om te stemmen.
[Reactie gewijzigd door DarkFly op dinsdag 27 november 2012 21:44]
regels <=> afsprakenFacebook zou namelijk in een schikking met de toezichthouder over zijn privacybeleid hebben beloofd om gebruikers inspraak te geven over veranderingen aan dat beleid.
Ten eerste maakt dat niet uit. Je hebt je aan de wetten en regels te houden ongeacht uw situatie en of het verplicht is of niet. De AH moet zich ook aan de regels houden ondanks dat ze de inkomsten kunnen gebruiken (anders gaan ze failliet) en je evengoed bij een andere winkel kunt shoppen.Ik ben toch van mening dat het grootste deel aan Facebook zelf is, Facebook heeft de inkomsten hard nodig en je wordt niet verplicht je aan te melden op de site.
Volledig: http://alphavilleherald.com/2004/05/introducing_hum.htmlpandora’s vox: on community in cyberspace
by humdog (1994)
when i went into cyberspace i went into it thinking that it was a place like any other place and that it would be a human interaction like any other human interaction. i was wrong when i thought that. it was a terrible mistake.
the very first understanding that i had that it was not a place like any place and that the interaction would be different was when people began to talk to me as though i were a man. when they wrote about me in the third person, they would say “he.” it interested me to have people think i was “he” instead of “she” and so at first i did not say anything. i grinned and let them think i was “he.” this went on for a little while and it was fun but after a while i was uncomfortable. finally i said unto them that i, humdog, was a woman and not a man. this surprised them. at that moment i realized that the dissolution of gender-category was something that was happening everywhere, and perhaps it was only just very obvious on the net. this is the extent of my homage to Gender On The Net.
i suspect that cyberspace exists because it is the purest manifestation of the mass (masse) as Jean Beaudrilliard described it. it is a black hole; it absorbs energy and personality and then re-presents it as spectacle. people tend to express their vision of the mass as a kind of imaginary parade of blue-collar workers, their muscle-bound arms raised in defiant salute. sometimes in this vision they are holding wrenches in their hands. anyway, this image has its origins in Marx and it is as Romantic as a dozen long-stemmed red roses. the mass is more like one of those faceless dolls you find in nostalgia-craft shops: limp, cute, and silent. when i say “cute” i am including its macabre and sinister aspects within my definition.
it is fashionable to suggest that cyberspace is some kind of _island of the blessed_ where people are free to indulge and express their Individuality. some people write about cyberspace as though it were a 60′s utopia. in reality, this is not true. major online services, like compuserv and america online, regular guide and censor discourse. even some allegedly free-wheeling (albeit politically correct) boards like the WELL censor discourse. the difference is only a matter of the method and degree. what interests me about this, however, is that to the mass, the debate about freedom of expression exists only in terms of whether or not you can say fuck or look at sexually explicit pictures. i have a quaint view that makes me think that discussing the ability to write “fuck” or worrying about the ability to look at pictures of sexual acts constitutes The Least Of Our Problems surrounding freedom of expression.
western society has a problem with appearance and reality. it keeps wanting to split them off from each other, make one more real than the other, invest one with more meaning than it does the other. there are two people who have something to say about this: Nietzsche and Beaudrilliard. i invoke their names in case somebody thinks i made this up. Nietzsche thinks that the conflict over these ideas cannot be resolved. Beaudrilliard thinks that it was resolved and that this is how come some people think that communities can be virtual: we prefer simulation (simulacra) to reality. image and simulacra exert tremendous power upon culture. and it is this tension, that informs all the debates about Real and Not-Real that infect cyberspace with regards to identity, relationship, gender, discourse, and community. almost every discussion in cyberspace, about cyberspace, boils down to some sort of debate about Truth-In-Packaging.
cyberspace is a mostly a silent place. in its silence it shows itself to be an expression of the mass. one might question the idea of silence in a place where millions of user-ids parade around like angels of light, looking to see whom they might, so to speak, consume. the silence is nonetheless present and it is most present, paradoxically at the moment that the user-id speaks. when the user-id posts to a board, it does so while dwelling within an illusion that no one is present. language in cyberspace is a frozen landscape.
i have seen many people spill their guts on-line, and i did so myself until, at last, i began to see that i had commodified myself. commodification means that you turn something into a product which has a money-value. in the nineteenth century, commodities were made in factories, which karl marx called “the means of production.” capitalists were people who owned the means of production, and the commodities were made by workers who were mostly exploited. i created my interior thoughts as a means of production for the corporation that owned the board i was posting to, and that commodity was being sold to other commodity/consumer entities as entertainment. that means that i sold my soul like a tennis shoe and i derived no profit from the sale of my soul. people who post frequently on boards appear to know that they are factory equipment and tennis shoes, and sometimes trade sends and email about how their contributions are not appreciated by management.
as if this were not enough, all of my words were made immortal by means of tape backups. furthermore, i was paying two bucks an hour for the privilege of commodifying and exposing myself. worse still, i was subjecting myself to the possibility of scrutiny by such friendly folks as the FBI: they can, and have, downloaded pretty much whatever they damn well please. the rhetoric in cyberspace is liberation-speak. the reality is that cyberspace is an increasingly efficient tool of surveillance with which people have a voluntary relationship.
proponents of so-called cyber-communities rarely emphasize the economic, business-mind nature of the community: many cyber-communities are businesses that rely upon the commodification of human interaction. they market their businesses by appeal to hysterical identification and fetishism no more or less than the corporations that brought us the two hundred dollar athletic shoe. proponents of cyber- community do not often mention that these conferencing systems are rarely culturally or ethnically diverse, although they are quick to embrace the idea of cultural and ethnic diversity. they rarely address the whitebread demographics of cyberspace except when these demographics conflict with the upward-mobility concerns of white, middle class females under the rubric of orthodox academic Feminism.
the ideology of electronic community appears to contain three elements. first, the idea of the social; second, eco-greenness; and lastly, the assumption that technology equals progress in a kind of nineteenth century sense. all of these ideas break down under analysis into forms of banality.
as beaudrilliard has said, socialization is measured according to the amount of exposure to information, specifically, exposure to media. the social itself is a dinosaur: people are withdrawing into activities that are more about consumption than anything else. even the Evil Newt says that. ( i watched his class.) so-called electronic communities encourage participation in fragmented, mostly silent, microgroups who are primarily engaged in dialogues of self-congratulation. in other words, most people lurk; and the ones who post, are pleased with themselves.
eco-green is a social concept that is about making people feel good. what they feel good about is that they are getting a handle on what amounts to the trashing of planet earth by industrialists of the second industrial revolution. it is a good and desirable feeling, especially during a time where semioticists are trying to figure out how they are going to explain radiation- waste dumps to people thirty thousand years in the future. eco-green is also a way to re-package calvinistic values under a more palatable sign. americans are calvinists, i am sorry to say. they can’t help it: it arrived on the mayflower.
i also think that the idea of electronic community is a manifestation of the triumph of sign-value over worth-value. there is nothing that goes on in electronic community that is not infested with sign- value. if electronic community were anything other than exercise in sign-value, identity hacking, which is entirely about surface-sign, would be much more difficult. signs proclaiming electronic technology as green abound in cyberspace: the attitude of political correctness; the “green” computer, the “paperless” office and the illusion that identity in cyberspace can be manipulated to obscure gender, ethnicity, and other emblems of cultural diversity; the latter of course being both the most persistent and most ridiculous. both of these concepts, the social and the eco-green, are directly nourished by an idea of progress that would not have appeared unfamiliar to an industrialist in the nineteenth century.
[Reactie gewijzigd door jacobvdm op woensdag 28 november 2012 18:56]
Ja juist dat is het probleem, men zegt er weinig over om maar geen 30% te halen, beter zou zijn verplicht voorschotelen, dus verplicht stemmen.Ik gebruik Facebook al jaren (zonder te zeuren overigens..), maar ik had er geen flauw benul van dat je kunt 'stemmen'. Waar wordt dat gecommuniceerd? Zou handig zijn als je daar een melding van kreeg op Facebook, of een mailtje.
[Reactie gewijzigd door Nounours op dinsdag 27 november 2012 20:55]
Ik ben bang van wel:geldt dit nu ook voor prive berichten?
Vertaling: "Je geeft ons het recht om alles te doen wat we willen met alles wat je op Facebook post."you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook
[Reactie gewijzigd door SECURITEH op dinsdag 27 november 2012 23:19]
[Reactie gewijzigd door Nounours op dinsdag 27 november 2012 21:05]
[Reactie gewijzigd door Jarlian op dinsdag 27 november 2012 22:12]
Op dit item kan niet meer gereageerd worden.