30,000 quit Facebook in protest

May 31, 2010
A group protesting Facebook's privacy policies said Monday more than 30,000 people had heeded its call to quit the social networking giant.

A group protesting Facebook's privacy policies said Monday more than 30,000 people had heeded its call to quit the social networking giant.

"For us it comes down to two things: fair choices and best intentions. In our view, doesn't do a good job in either department," the organizers, who did not identify themselves, said on their website for Monday's "Quit Facebook Day."

"Facebook gives you choices about how to manage your data, but they aren't fair choices."

The group said at 2300 GMT that 32,749 had dropped out of the Facebook universe.

Facebook.com is visited monthly by 540 million people, or slightly more than 35 percent of the Internet population, according to data.

Facebook is overhauling privacy controls in the face of a barrage of criticism that it is betraying the trust which has made it the world's biggest social network.

Facebook redesigned its page to provide a single control for content and "significantly reduce" the amount of information that is always visible to everyone.

Facebook also said it is giving users more control over how outside applications or websites access information at the service.

Critics continue to call for Facebook to make all user information private by default and then let people designate what they want to share case-by-case in an "opt-in" model.

Explore further: Twitter takes note of other apps on smartphones

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Google crowns Facebook king of Internet visits

May 29, 2010

Google on Friday released Web traffic data indicating that Facebook is king when it comes to online visitors despite criticism about privacy at the social-networking service.

Europe slams Facebook's privacy settings

May 13, 2010

Europe slammed as unacceptable the changes by social networking website Facebook to its privacy settings, that would allow the profiles of its users to be made available to third party websites.

Social networking aggregator sues Facebook

Jul 10, 2009

(AP) -- In a counter-punch to the world's biggest online hangout, a small Web company called Power.com has sued Facebook, saying it doesn't follow its own policy of giving users control over their content.

Recommended for you

UN moves to strengthen digital privacy (Update)

Nov 25, 2014

The United Nations on Tuesday adopted a resolution on protecting digital privacy that for the first time urged governments to offer redress to citizens targeted by mass surveillance.

Spotify turns up volume as losses fall

Nov 25, 2014

The world's biggest music streaming service, Spotify, announced Tuesday its revenue grew by 74 percent in 2013 while net losses shrank by one third, in a year of spectacular expansion.

Virtual money and user's identity

Nov 25, 2014

Bitcoin is the new money: minted and exchanged on the Internet. Faster and cheaper than a bank, the service is attracting attention from all over the world. But a big question remains: are the transactions ...

User comments : 25

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jerryd
4 / 5 (9) May 31, 2010
I think Betty White had it right when she said Facebook looked like a complete waste of time!! You all on it need to get a life.
Quantum_Conundrum
3.3 / 5 (7) May 31, 2010
Amen Jerryd...

Bad as the atmosphere is here, at least this site is about learning and showcasing new technologies.

"Social networking" sites are little more than centers for gossip, porn, drug deals, and murder-for-hire schemes.
KCD
not rated yet May 31, 2010
it's true, Facebook is just a waste of time just sitting down the whole day or maybe weeks or so. People should go to websites like this.


"Social networking" sites are little more than centers for gossip, porn, drug deals, and murder-for-hire schemes.


Actually "Social Networking" is made for the benefit of users to interact with other people. Those that you've said in the above are some of the issues that those sites are dealing with.

rincewind
3.1 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2010
Facebook is just a platform for communication. So is your phone, the public street, your local coffee shop, your vocal chords, etc.

Hating Facebook is really quite mis-directed. You have become a publisher of your own life. Treat your newfound power responsibly, that's all you need to do.
gspydr
1 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2010
why quite facebook when you need it? and why have facebook if you don't need it? nobody's forcing anybody to join facebook so I guess it's the same way around when somebody quits. and, it's always based on how you're going to use and be productive with it that matters.

with regards to privacy... let's always bear in mind that it is the end users prerogative what to share or not online.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2010
Facebook, like physorg, is a way to spread information and ideas in a space where unfit(incorrect) stances very quickly vanish from view. It's the unltimate societal science experiment and proves the power of free speech.

I'm surprised to see so many people detracting from it on a science site.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2010
like physorg, is a way to spread information and ideas in a space where unfit(incorrect) stances very quickly vanish from view.
Except when oscillating between Alizee and JoeDuff.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 01, 2010
like physorg, is a way to spread information and ideas in a space where unfit(incorrect) stances very quickly vanish from view.
Except when oscillating between Alizee and JoeDuff.

The secondary need for free speech is the need to get ideas like their's into the public arena so they can be shot down by others so they cannot slowly creep into the minds of those who aren't smart enough to know better.
in7x
3 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2010
Facebook is supporting terrorism for Prophet (profit):

http://yro.slashd...ing-Page

Please. Delete your Facebook page.

http://www.facebo..._account

Be sure to let them know why.
Yelmurc
5 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2010
I'm sure Facebook had another 35,000 people join that day.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 01, 2010
I'm sure Facebook had another 35,000 people join that day.

Many of which were from Pakistan hoping to see what the fuss was all about.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2010
I didn't get it. I'm not smart enough... Wouldn't be more effective simply to censor new ideas instead of downvoting them anonymously?
Prohibition never works. If you prohibit an action or especially knowledge, then you make that knowledge or action desireable.

No one wants to look like an idiot. So if you expose an idea as mere idiocy at best, it will exile itself from public thought.
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2010
My question is, how Muslims could know, some particular picture is just a Muhammad's picture, if they've no pictures of Him? Maybe all pictures were only a harmless drawings of someone else...


@nisa- Here, I'll make it easy for you: According to the Law of Islam, any and all images of Mohammed are PROHIBITED, regardless of whether or not they portray any actual likeness.

In other words, you could display an image of an elephant, your kid brother, a rose, or a postage stamp -for example- but if you identified any of these images as being an image of Mohammed, then you would be breaking Islamic Law. You might lose your head over it.

You may draw your own conclusions regarding organized religion from this.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2010
No one wants to look like an idiot. So if you expose an idea as mere idiocy at best, it will exile itself from public thought.


Skeptic,
If only that were the case- we don't have to look any further than the concepts of Creationism and Intelligent Design to know that idiocy is alive and well- especially in America.

I think that forums like this do at least give the Rational worldview a fighting chance. But, as you are aware, there are countless websites that enable the incubation of profoundly non- or anti- scientific ideas, and their inoculation into the minds of hordes of uncritically-thinking people.
Creating, in effect, culturally-based opinion/"knowledge", that is put into play without ever being reviewed or vetted for accuracy or truthfulness.

In a very real way, what is essentially propaganda is instantly transformed into Public Opinion, in a deeply committed opposition.

This in stark contrast to a site such as Physorg, where debate is more the rule.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 01, 2010
Skeptic,
If only that were the case- we don't have to look any further than the concepts of Creationism and Intelligent Design to know that idiocy is alive and well- especially in America.
Because for a long time those of us who know better said "Let them have their bed time story so they don't toss their toys out fo the crib and throw a tantrum.
In a very real way, what is essentially propaganda is instantly transformed into Public Opinion, in a deeply committed opposition.
This is why education is always underfunded.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2010
Does negative voting prove/expose, some idea is idiocy? So far I never met with more qualified "arguments".
Only if held as an authority. Unfortunately here, it is not due to the dilution of vote bots and sock puppets enployed by pseudoscientists and young earth creationists. We vote as a sign of disdain or acceptance of a thought or the effectiveness of a stance or argument. It's more an arbitrary pat on the back or sneer around here.
If so, why not to label all portraits of Mohammed as an elephant? It should be OK & head-safe, after then...
Or how about Islam grows up like a good little religion and learns that other people will laugh at you when you say or do something stupid.

Eventually Japan will get involved and tell them what it's like to poke a bear with sticks.
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Jun 01, 2010

@NisaJ
Why the fixation on negative voting? Believe me- if you spend any time posting here, you will recieve plenty of downvotes. They do tend to be fair, in an overall way, but, sometimes, they are given just for spite. If you pay attention, though, you may learn. You may even change your way of thinking on an issue. Don't laugh- I've seen it happen here.

If so, why not to label all portraits of Mohammed as an elephant? It should be OK & head-safe, after then...
.

As far as portraits of the prophet are concerned- there are none, so how would anyone know what he actually, historically, looked like(assuming he even existed), so I don't understand what you would hope to accomplish by labeling an image of some guy as an elephant. It is the attribution of "Mohammedness" to an image that makes it blasphemous. And no- this does not allow for any rational solution.

It is PROHIBITED by Islam. Period. Not subject to negotion.

Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Jun 01, 2010
Is therefore the photo of Mohammad Ali prohibited by Islam? And what about teddy bear 'Muhammad'?


Only in the case of a specific claim of an image being a depiction of Mohammed the Prophet.

frajo
3 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2010
Or how about Islam grows up like a good little religion and learns that other people will laugh at you when you say or do something stupid.
It's exactly this stance of belittling indiscriminately billions of people through more than 1000 years which makes one look stupid outside of one's world.

Wise people know how to explain without hurting.
Armed men don't appreciate wisdom, however. That's why they are doomed.
frajo
2.5 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2010
The public discussion simply doesn't work here, because it lack rational arguments on both sides.
Some people just don't understand rational considerations. It's no use to tell them that anyone using more than one account loses all his credibility. They just continue to create new accounts once a month.
Other people simply know this. They don't need any "rational argument" to behave decently.
"Rationality" is just another club for the cavemen among us.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2010
It's exactly this stance of belittling indiscriminately billions of people through more than 1000 years which makes one look stupid outside of one's world.

Wise people know how to explain without hurting.
And wise people get the hint.
Armed men don't appreciate wisdom, however. That's why they are doomed.
And that is why they are ridiculed.

Frajo, tell me, does a wise man point out the differences between himself and a radical to those who lump them together, or does he simply go on his merry way defending murderers with quotes from a holy book and assume all is well?

Derision is my weapon when it comes to idiocy. Embarassment is the language they understand best.
Negative
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
"You all... need to get a life."

how conveniently all these charming counsellors forget to define the concept "getting a life".

i continuously wonder if they consider themselves successful recipients of the much desired "life"...
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2010
It's exactly this stance of belittling indiscriminately billions of people through more than 1000 years which makes one look stupid outside of one's world.
Wise people know how to explain without hurting.
And wise people get the hint.
You don't mind to induce hatred into the unwise, naive, benevolent people?
Armed men don't appreciate wisdom, however. That's why they are doomed.
And that is why they are ridiculed.
I don't ridicule you.
Frajo, tell me, does a wise man point out the differences between himself and a radical to those who lump them together,
You seem to assume that "radix" doesn't fit wisdom. I don't agree.
or does he simply go on his merry way defending murderers with quotes from a holy book and assume all is well?
We should be more precise: Defending murderers or defending murder? Hiroshima?
Derision is my weapon when it comes to idiocy. Embarassment is the language they understand best.
Your coll. damages are too high.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2010
You don't mind to induce hatred into the unwise, naive, benevolent people?
Quite the opposite. I induce pity and instill education for one cannot hate what they pity.
I don't ridicule you.
Well what is your definition of armed? I don't see knowledge as a weapon, but as the removal of the need for weapons. Through knowledge we gain greater systemic understanding of how greatly interconnected all of life, and in turn all of reality really is. When one recognizes connection, the will to do harm decreases via virtue of said connectedness. Semi-cryptic, my apologies for that.
We should be more precise: Defending murderers or defending murder? Hiroshima?
I agree, precision is necessary, however, under what objective framework can one seperate the act from the actor? Hiroshima was a tragedy that was easily preventable. No war, removes the need and use of atomic weaponry. There is no good way to look at Hiroshima, murder and death are never positive.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2010
Derision is my weapon when it comes to idiocy. Embarassment is the language they understand best.
Your coll. damages are too high.
Might I ask that you enlighten me as to what those collateral damages are?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.