Talk:Criticism of Facebook/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

CIA

Hahaha there is no discussion of the news stories linking Facebook with the CIA. I wonder if they were true? ;-) Someone should dig up this episode and it should be mentioned on the page, as well as on the main Facebook page. -- Sdfijiuefh (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bathroom Wall content section

I do not know how to cite things, sadly, so I need someone to back-up this section and add some citations.

Removal of Network pages and demographic search functionality

Many users are upset about the removal of network pages, and the ability to search demographics of their networks or groups. IE: you can no longer search for "married men interested in bowling between the ages of 18-35" - the search feature was discretely pulled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.93.109 (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of Student Athletes section

The section on student athletes seems to be slightly biased and opinionated, it could also seem to do with a general clean-up and to be made concise. It has the style of someone knowledgeable on the subject but unfamiliar with Wikipedia style? Would anyone agree, and have the knowledge to alter this? Cjeam (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC) This was addressed, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owikibama (talk • contribs) 03:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the Board Member for his Politics

What is the point of this section.? Every company has 10 to 12 board members with various political positions. Why choose this one director of one company to comment on them? This is not a neutral POV comment. It assumes some normative left-wing belief that includes the idea that neo-cons are so evil that they must be shunned.

The company itself is not active in politics, doesn't promote a particular political agenda, etc. Even the fellow in question isn't listed as top contributor to PACs.

This should be deleted, in my opinion.

Even though I added this bit - I actually agree with you. The section should be re-titled and centre instead on the agressive business actions of Thiel (eg against moveon.org), and his tax-dodging ways, which I am sure most people would be critical of. I would like to rewrite the section rather than have it deletd though. Templetongore (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also is it even accurate. This section refers to Thiel as a neoconservative yet he endorsed Ron Paul for President. Ron Paul is a libertarian/paleoconservative and the two groups do not get along. Either way this section is ridiculous and should be deleted. If Templetongore wants to comment on Thiel's 'tax dodging ways' (and good on him), then it should be done on thiel's own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.63.97 (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone reads the article it is an oped that is not factually accurate. --24.98.5.45 (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This entire article is called Criticism of Facebook, it's only natural that certain persons affiliated with Facebook appear on the article when being criticised for whatever reason. If there are accusations against this guy of censoring user groups which he politically despises, then this should be mentioned on here. Whether such accusations are justified or not is irrelevant - apparently they do exist and should thus be included here. If there are news releases contradicting or even rebuting those claims, please add them here so we can extensively cover the topic. De728631 (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Copywrite Violation

The text you have entered has been deleted for copyright violation. It was taken from another website without reference and certain quotes were intentionally manipulated to completely change the content. As the owner of the original content, I have deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farshadros (talk • contribs) 06:51, November 24, 2007

Removed "Lack of Political Choice Section" as original research

This section had no citations and seemed likely to be a sort of in-universe complaint that some users have about facebook. If any independant sources can be produced confirming the concern of this lack of choice, then it can/should be re-added. Until, please don't add back.Gwynand (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note

I removed all of the student athlete sections because it kept mentioning High-School athletes, when the articles mention College, and they had all caps headings. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 01:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Had to change my password, sorry about that. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 02:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Facebook controversy

I propose to merge the article with Facebook controversy due to the significant overlap. --Edcolins (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge Sure. Gary King (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge "significant overlap" thats an understatement. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

IDF and Facebook

This story about a Isreali squady getting 19 days in prison for misusing face book. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7364091.stm hope that helps. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 07:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Group names cannot be changed

An interesting quirk is that you cannot change the name of a group once it is established. Thus, some groups exist with hundreds of members that have a typo in the name, but no one wants to go through the trouble of remedying the situation by taking the group secret, starting a new one, and getting all those members to join. The rationale is, "Sorry, but once the group is created the name can't be changed. No one wants to wake up one morning and notice that their "Chuck Norris Rules" group has been changed to the "Tony Danza Fan Club." However, in practice, you can email them and they will correct obvious typos. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit from CIPPC

I added this ongoing just filed suit: The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, 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). 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."ap.google.com, Canada launches privacy probe into Facebook 4 University of Ottawa law students initiated the "minefield of privacy invasion" suit which was investigated by Canadian Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, who will submit the report and recommendations within a year. She will utilize negotiation to resolve privacy disputes, but can ask for court injunctions.news.bbc.co.uk, Facebook 'violates privacy laws'--Florentino floro (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

stalker list feature

has anyone tested if this stalker feature is still up. I tested it on multiple facebook accounts and neither the down arrow nor the "." cause a list of 5 people anymore, just a random list of people with a "." in their name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.59.17 (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up

This article needs some serious work. The biggest problems I see are length, redundancy, non-encyclopedic essay-like style (offering personal opinions, uncited claims, and direct observations instead of sourced third party secondary sources), reporting things as controversies/criticism without actually showing that it has lead to notable criticism, and generally sloppy writing style. Some things are far too detailed as well.

I've reorganized the content and headings thematically so all the privacy, censorship, etc., concerns are each in the same place. Next step is to condense the material by about 1/2 or 1/3 without losing any significant content...just by writing more clearly. After that it should be more obvious what's unimportant or redundant. After that we should consider removing or summarizing a few of the issues - a single instance of a single person having a problem with Facebook isn't really a criticism or commentary. It's more of an event. We may or may not want to devote a section of this article or a new article to "events on facebook" but as some of these things stand here they aren't very telling or important. I won't do that quickly or unilaterally because that needs some consensus.

I think this has the makings of a decent article. The subject is fairly important, not just about facebook but for an understanding of all social networks. Many of them have similar problems, but a few problems are unique to Facebook. It just needs a little fixing around the edges. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Section order

I just finished a series of edits aimed at putting the array of issues covered into a more coherent order. I did each change in a separate edit & summary so anybody who cares can more easily see how it unfolded. Cgingold (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"Data Mining" heading is too long

I think the Data Mining section needs to be slightly reduced in text. It is too much context in one section. Whoever wrote this would probably be the best person to fix this in order to keep the material that is most important in that section. Kdtrell (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Added Subheading 'Sexual Predators" in Privacy Concerns

I added this paragraph to this article because I believe that it is a very important that people know that sexual predators are not just something you see in movies, it really happens so be careful. If anyone thinks this paragraph is persuasive at all feel free to adjust it where needed but I think we should keep this subheading in there and play around with the wording.

Kdtrell (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Government Censorship

United Arab Emirates did not block Facebook! 86.96.226.14 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

wooster collective

anyone think this relevent plese feel free to post it..

http://www.woostercollective.com/2008/08/if_youre_one_of_the_1400_people_followin.html

August 12, 2008 If you're one of the 1400 people following us on Facebook...

...we're very sorry.

Today, without any warning, Facebook completely wiped out our profile (Wooster Art) because - so we've learned - we created an account presenting the Wooster Collective as a single person (Wooster Art) rather than as a "group" or a "page".

For us, this really sucks because the sole reason we created a profile for Wooster on Facebook was that we really enjoyed getting daily updates on what everyone else was doing around the world. We enjoyed seeing photos uploaded, new groups created, messages being sent, etc..

In short, the cool thing for us about Facebook is seeing what everyone else is doing.

And because of this we're bummed tonight because suddenly - without any notice - we've lost touch with over a thousand people living in places all across the globe...

Damn.

Posted by marc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.59.60 (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of "Criticism" articles

In every case where an article is split to have a separate article for the criticisms, wikipedia ends up having two POV articles instead of a single balanced article.

The nature of research online places this information out of view of the casual googler, and into an article which is removed from the subject article, and gives a reason to remove critical information from the subject article. Further, it gives a venue for even the most trivial criticisms which would not stand muster in the context of useful information about the subject article.

This article, along with all the others where the criticism is placed in a separate article from the subject, should be merged with the subject article. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, no! The last thing the main Facebook article needs is a criticism section. Most of the material here is encyclopedic and notable, but it creates undue weight for the article that is supposed to be about the company and its web service, to turn into an assortment of complaints about it. However, I do notice that a number of the items here are not criticisms but rather controversies and incidents. I wonder if the title and purpose of the page could be retooled that way. Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Poor UK Networks

I think there should be mention that faebook's regional UK networks are a MESS! Practically anyone within 150 miles of London has to join the London network. Which is stupid in a country the size of the UK. It is also very unprofessional, considering that this company it trying to get advertisers to advertise on their website. The website itself targets users based on their profile information, so with more networks that were relevant to where people lived, they could actually target those adverts more appropriately. Here is an example of the random nature of networks in the UK:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1139841&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=2405872927&aid=-1&id=722420096&oid=2405872927

Bear in mind that the UK is a big market for facebook. This whole thing also makes it look like facebook doesn't care about markets other than the US and even implies a knowledge of the world akin to that of George W Bush.Paullloydjohnson (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Paullloydjohnson, I certainly agree that this could be a section. The problem is that I've not come across it in any verifiable source. But if you can find something in a newspaper or respectable website about it then, by all means, it's a section worth having. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing really big out there, a few blogs comment on it. Mainly about how Facebook go on about London being their big successful city network, but in actual fact those people are scattered all across the south of the UK because there is no other network to choose from. I wish I could find something bigger, partly because I hoped facebook might take a little more notice if it was on Wikipedia. There are huge groups on facebook campaigning for new networks and they are ignored. We don't even have county (they are the equivalent to states) networks. it's really silly, it makes Americans look like they don't know or don't care about geography outside the US.Paullloydjohnson (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

Per a comment I made a few sections above, I propose to change the name from "Criticism of Facebook" to "Facebook criticism and controversies" to reflect the actual scope of the article. Some of the items listed here are controversies that are not actually notable incidents or common occurrences of somebody criticizing Facebook, but rather controversies in which Facebook became involved. We may also want to add the word "incidents" to cover trouble that occurred on or involving Facebook that was not really a criticism, and where Facebook itself was not controversial (i.e. a "notable things that happened on Facebook" section). Any thoughts? Objections? I'll wait a few days before doing anything too bold... Wikidemon (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I propose to spin the "Intellectual property rights" section to its own article because it is out of place in an already long article - it is neither a criticism, or a controversy (except for the people involved, a small set, and even there it is a settled controversy). Wikidemon (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Headings/Subheadings need to be fixed.

First off the way this page is set up already confuses me. The headings need to be reorganized in a way that is easily readable to the users. I believe the first heading has way to many subheadings in it. Either make a new heading that about half of the subheadings would fall into or combine a few of the subheadings together. Right off the bat the subheadings Student Privacy Concerns and Anorexia and Bulemia are way too short to be their own subheadings, and could easily be combined into another subheading. Not only does the first heading subheadings need to be combined but likewise through out the entire article. I believe this will help condense the article as a whole and then make it easier to reorganize the article itself. Kdtrell (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Stalker List Feature.

I deleted this section because there was not enough real information to be it's own subheading. It was confusing and I felt that it did not fit very well in this article. Maybe if someone found more information about this topic and then put it in there it would make more sense. Kdtrell (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sociological

What about the sociological criticism of Facebook ? I can't write it since I'm not a native english speaker, but I'm afraid this highly relevant critism is not even mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.0.178 (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was very surprised to not see any mention at all about the feature to "Find Your Friends on Facebook" that other social networking sites also seem to have. This feature gives potential new users the possibility to provide their username and password to their email account so Facebook can tell if their contacts have accounts on Facebook. This is something that is very bad practice since it teaches the users to give away their passwords which should never be done. Even if Facebook does not miss use this information it teaches people to fall for Phishing which is one of the hardest security issues to do anything about. Shouldn't this be mentioned as well on this page? /Niklas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.39.220 (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I second that. When looking for criticism i thought it wasn't there at first and i was like "wtf??" - who would have expected an extra page.. Unfortunately there's no extra page for the sociological part however well deserved. Maybe it would also be a good idea to build a page that details the generic problems found with most social networks and link to there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.141.156 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

New Facebook Controversy

I have updated the stats in this section as the existing ones were out of date. There is no real way reference the 6,000,000 figure in article, but I'll put the maths here for anyone who wants clarification. The five biggest English Language protest groups are (at time of writing):

1,000,000 AGAINST THE NEW FACEBOOK LAYOUT! - 1,958,082 members

Petition Against the "New Facebook" - 1,347,179 members

I Hate The New Facebook (www.new.facebook.com) - 1,217,742 members

5,000,000 against the new version of Facebook ( Please Forward ) - 760,631 members

Please Keep the Old Facebook. The New Version is A Disaster - 355,243 members

Total: 5,638,877

I've rounded up because of multiple smaller groups with 50,000+ members each, and also to keep the figure roughly accurate for longer, as membership of the bigger groups is currently rising by around 100 people per minute, meaning this stats are out of date even as I'm typing this, but there as close as I can get without typing faster than the speed of light!

I'm going to keep an eye on the stats and try and keep them roughly up to date, because if group membership keeps increasing at the current rate, this could be a major embarrassment for Facebook and therefore a big story. Faerie Queene (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, why is this even being included on the page? It is hardly well referenced from reliable sources - the only "reference" is to a group on facebook. Per WP:RS that is NOT a reliable source. The point is perhaps too trivial - unless you can actually find reliable, published sources that satisfy the guidelines I suggest that this section be removed. As it stands this entire section smacks of OR. ABVS1936 (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I cannot think of one good reason why this should not be included in the criticisms section. Just because nothing has been published from a "reputable" newssource does not mean that 5 million people do not share a common criticism. ~~ Elakhna 02:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elakhna (talk • contribs)

As there has been no response to my comment here I have removed the section until it can be cleaned up a little (the section as it appeared on the page follows)

New Facebook

In August 2008 it was announced that Facebook would be permanently switching to a new profile layout in September 2008. As of September 9, 2008, there were over 700,000 people in a group called "Petition Against the 'New Facebook.'" and a day later this group had grown to accommodate over 980,000 members. It reached 1,000,000 members on September 11, 2008, and 5 days later, reached 2,000,000 members. A further investigation into user groups opposed to the change revealed that a significant number of users have joined groups in protest against the new layout. At least 49 groups have appeared (5 English, 23 French, and 21 Spanish), and the membership numbers of the five biggest English language groups alone suggest that nearly 6,000,000 Facebook users are unhappy with the plan to switch to the new layout. However, it is likely that some users are in multiple groups.

As of September 12, Facebook no longer allowed users to choose between the old and new versions of Facebook. However, a workaround was discovered that used a Facebook application to go back to the old version of Facebook, which has since proved popular with users dissatisfied with the New Facebook. Facebook has since disabled this workaround. Another workaround was discovered but was quickly stopped by Facebook.

The main criticism draws from the fact that despite the unhappy users of Facebook, the development team has thus far refused to accommodate the problem.

The problem here is that, as it stands, this section is entirely original research, references no reliable sources and does not take an NPOV. And, as such, should not be included in this article. However, that doesn't mean it can't be saved. I also removed the two external links that were provided as they both violated WP:EL - one was a blog (that hadn't been updated since June 2008 anyway) and the other was simply a list of links to "news" purportedly related to Facebook, plus links to supposed alternatives to Facebook. If someone is interested enough to take the time and USE the links provided on that page to bring this section up to scratch, then by all means feel free to go ahead - I, however, don't feel that it is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article; it hasn't exactly seen great coverage in the print, television or even internet media. However, if such reliable sources can be found, by all means cite them. ABVS1936 (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is original research, but a source COULD be found somewhere i'm sure. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There is/was a better-sourced version in the parent article (Facebook) that's been repeatedly trimmed. Maybe some sources in there. In addition to deciding whether it's notable we need to decide whether the matter belongs here as a controversy, or in the main article as a description of the feature set. It makes no sense to fork the content. I have a feeling that after this dies down in a month or so even the short version in the main article will be looking like too much weight on a small point. Wikidemon (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-added the section on the New Facebook. It was a mistake to remove the second, as it is a concern shared by millions of users. Concerns about the lack of external sources is valid, but as this topic is so new it is unlikely to gain prompt News coverage, as well as being something only thought to concern a niche of people. However, by deleting the second you remove all imputus to find sources for the section, as well as removing a place for Wikipedia users to find news on the topic. Finding sources for articles and sections relating to the internet is tricky, but by removing the section, you make it impossible to ever be sourced (while not giving it a chance to grow, as it was only there for a few weeks) and remove a topic that's important to a large number of people. Kevin (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"A few weeks" is a long time for unref'd material to stay on WP. It is also incorrect to call it a "mistake" when it was removed - I was following the Wikipedia guidelines regarding reliable sources, original research neutrality and notability - as removing it was the "correct" thing to do. With regard to the notability of the subject - this is not the first, second, third or even fourth time there has been changes to Facebook - though it is arguably the most obvious change since the website was opened to the General Public - this may concern "millions of users" of facebook, however this spurious reference to "6 million-plus" usuers CANNOT be confirmed. There is no way (that I know of) to confirm exactly how many individual users are members of the groups referenced in the article. Therefore, the crux of the entire section - that it affects "millions of users" - is a moot point.

As I stated in my edit summary, I moved the section to the talk page here so that it wasn't completly lost, and so that it could continue to be worked on. Now, if someone was willing to do the work and find the references to even one reliable source to prove notability, then this information could stay on the page. However, until that point reference is found then it should not be included. In current form it is unencyclopedic and poorly written and cannot convey concise, meaningful and accurate information. Please don't re-add this block of information until such time as it is correctly referenced from a reliable source. ABVS1936 (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

After typing the word Facebook into the search at BBC news i got this ---> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7609555.stm that took less time than to write the above two comments. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's as may be - however a line in that article supports one of the key points I was trying to make: that this "controversy" is not notable. As noted in the article (at the time it was written, 2 weeks ago) there are around 100 million users currently on facebook - I don't have the exact number - and currently the LARGEST anti-new-facebook group has a little over 1.6 million members. I know that percentage doesn't equate to the notability (or non-notability) of a topic, however the statistics given in that article begin to paint a picture. The section I removed would not be covered by this reference however as it refers to other groups not mentioned in the article and attempts to put a number on how many people are opposed to the changes in facebook, even though there is no way (that I am aware of) to pull these numbers. As it stands, the section is original research and unreferenced and requires a complete rewrite. ABVS1936 (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And THAT, dear friend, is a reference. Your main qualm with the section of the article was that there wasn't any reference. Now there is. It's an external reference, making the section no longer entirely original research. I'm re-adding the section. Before, I could see your point of view, but now, there's no reason to remove the entire section again (though I might re-word it). Now, if you remove the section again (with the source this time), I'll promptly re-add it. Kevin (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Less time talking, more time finding sources. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It is one reference that takes care of a small part of the section in question. One reference does not, in this case, take care of the entire swathe of information that is still original research. The only users that can be taken into account in this instance are the members of the group Petition Against the "New Facebook". There is no point in edit-warring over information that simply can't be referenced from reliable sources. The section has been brought into line with the reliable source that was provided and unless other sources are found then no other information should be included. ABVS1936 (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"There is no point in edit-warring over information that simply can't be referenced from reliable sources" I question how long you have looked for sources that might call into question your POV. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You can question my research all you want, as much as you like. However, I am merely following the guidelines that make WP the largest and most reliable source of information on any number of topics on the internet. As for the number of sources I have looked for and read:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/09/22/facebook.facelift/

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/22/Facebook_face-lift_rankles_some/UPI-59701222087252/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2008/jul/15/facebooksnewlook

http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/007715.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-thu-facebook-redesign-sep11,0,2214802.story

And they were the articles on the internet related to the subject, discovered just from typing "new facebook controversy" into Google and following the "News" links, that were from reliable sources. Perhaps some of them may call your POV into question. If someone else would like to take an NPOV and read, condense and then include the relevant information in this article then please, feel free. Please don't question my neutrality, on this or anything else. An NPOV does not mean including irrelevant information on a topic that is at best trivial, information that is unsourced and unreferenced and that is clearly OR and entirely biased. Now, there is clearly some more information contained within the sources above that could be included in this section and I am unopposed to it being lengthened - as long as the information that is added can be referenced to reliable sources and is not OR. ABVS1936 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Amendment

I propose an amendment to this section in the following ways:

1. Describe more fully the design change in the "New Facebook". The whole site was redesigned, not just profiles as is implied.
2. Improve the relevance of the section to the article as a whole. The section should explain why this change was considered controversial.
3. Improve the neutrality of the section. It should be noted that there was support for the profile redesign, not just opposition. This is particularly notable in the fact that no-one seems to be complaining about it any more and very few users chose to delete their accounts in place of facing the redesign.
4. Remove the line "A number of users found a work-around that would allow them to use the old Facebook, but Facebook disabled it." The source following supports the rest of the section but does not mention a 'work-around'. I feel this could thus be misleading to readers and may have been confused by the original editor with the option to return to the old design, as found at the top of the page.
5. Possibly give this section its own heading. I'm not sure it could be considered "Content" as it's how the website works, not what is placed on it.

Proposed new article:

In September 2008, Facebook permanently moved its users to what they termed the "New Facebook". This version contained several different features and, more notably, a complete layout redesign. Users had had the option to use the new Facebook in place of the original design since July, but had also had the option to return to the old design.

Facebook's decision to migrate their users was met with some controversy by their community. Several groups were started opposing the decision, some with over a million users. An online petition was also started with over 190,000 signatories. However, the voices against the redesign slowly died down as users got used to it. Whilst some will continue to publicise their dislike for the change, the media coverage of these complaints is minimal and the groups against the new design are loosing thousands of members a day.

Whilst the last point can be seen by looking at these groups on Facebook, a source outside of the website would be appreciated.
Views/opinions/comments? ggt500 16:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I like it. Definitely an improvement - with the proviso that it needs a source for the last part as you say. The last part sounds like original research, probably because it is. Finding and sticking to a reliable source will probably suggest wording that sounds more encyclopedic (i.e. avoiding judgments like "minimal" in favor of more specific statements, quantifying the numbers of members lost, avoiding the present tense because a situation reported as current will grow stale in a few months, etc). I would wait a few days and if nobody objects just be bold and do it. Wikidemon (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone removed some of this section due to the original research completed. Whilst I agree that the last section is original research, the online petitions are very easily found (which I would class as reliable evidence). The reason they are not referenced is that Wikipedia deemed the sites unsafe or unsuitable or some such term and refused to allow citations made to them. Ergo, I ask if people could find an alternative reference to the online petitions and any evidence about the dissolve of the groups against the redesign. Greg ^{(t • c)} 11:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of October 2009 changes

The article mentions a Facebook group set up to oppose the October 2009 changes, with over 600,000 members. There are however larger groups, like this one which currently (see timestamp) has over 900,000 members and is rapidly growing (about 6 hours ago it had only 750,000 members). http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=162102625749&ref=nf As far as I can see this is the largest group at the moment, but it's difficult to check.84.198.246.199 (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dislike button

The dislike button criticisms are actually real. Whoever is removing the section (or wants to remove the section) "Dislike Button" Controversy, please do not remove that section. Before you even remove it firsthand, please, I strongly recommend that you research this. I've even did researching myself too. Not only researching Facebook for this information and investigating the user interaction patterns with regards of this, but also looking it up on the web. I've even did a dislike button app research. I did numerous research lately and the sources I have prooves that there is a demand of some kind for a dislike button.

Please do some researching for the following:

• Facebook Dislike Button
• We need a Facebook Dislike Button
• Facebook Dislike Button plugins
  

I'm not trying to spam you guys, but researching will help you better decide if the section should be deleted or not. There is a point to this really. I mean, just look it up. If you say there is no point, I wouldn't really care about your opinions. I wouldn't add something that isn't real. If you obviously don't think it's really, then you need to look this up, seriously. Not to be harsh (but it just sounds like it is), please look this issue up on the internet, look it up on Facebook, look it up on other social websites, look up for any dislike app plugins, do whatever to find rich information about this. If you do find proof, please revert this page back to 21:56, December 26, 2009 where it says something about "Badly written, few sources and "anonymous" quote".

As a rule of mine, I will revert and in my attempt to add more reliable resources. I can add like 30 more sources if you even care. If the section continues to be removed, I will continue to try hard to get the most relevant, reliable, and wayy more sources and then later revert it and add the information that should be there. I'm not going to give up. I'm not going to face your opinions. I'm going to face what everyone sees in there point of view and translate it to a more neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DSW-X-Groove (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

--DSW-X-Groove 10:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of functionality criticism

It strikes me that the general lameness of Facebook, weak collaboration features, and the general lack of innovativeness of it is missing in this article. There must be megabytes of criticism essentially complaining:

I could do this in X, but not in Facebook.

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Censorship - Joseph Andrew Stack groups

Currently this Facebook group exists, but at least one other, bigger, group that was established shortly after the incident yesterday have been deleted. When I Google his name + "Facebook" several groups show up[1][2][3], however, following the links brings up Facebook's login screen (or the user's own profile if logged in). I'll look for media coverage of this though. I also brought this issue up on the 2010 Austin plane crash article's discussion page. __meco (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There's coverage of this situation on Wikinews: "Facebook takes down groups supporting Austin crash pilot". __meco (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Censorship - Kurdistan

Within this section both references point to two internal facebook groups about 'Free Kurdistan' which would obviously be a biased link; and facebook links often fail anyway due to it being a semi-closed site. But the point would seem to be moot as the very presence of these groups seem to suggest that this section is totally incorrect anyway. Maybe the section could be corrected to suggest so? I would support an alteration here and would do it, but I could be confused, any suggestions? Cjeam (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The passage is written incorrectly. The word is banned though. If you notice the group has to use a different character for i to get around the filter. For what ever reason they removed that restriction on the group but not for their page, which uses î in place of i.

Here's an image showing their filter in process.

http://filesmelt.com/dl/Ban.jpg

I agree though that we would need a better citation than the group itself. However it is obvious, that at least as far as facebook pages are concerned, "Kurdistan" is a forbidden term.

--MercZ (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Many sections of this article are very out of date, such as the section saying "...even though the clause still remains in the policy as of November 26, 2008." Besides updating all of the sections like that one, new sections will need to be added with information about the April 2010 Privacy Policy update.

--Kefrith (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Criticism section of main article

There was a large criticism section on the main Facebook article deleted by User:RaseaC. He called it a merge, but made no effort to combine the two, or, from what I can tell, actually read either of them. The deleted criticism section is here, and I've also restored it to the Facebook article. Please actually make an effort to merge it if you're going to merge it. Do NOT just delete everything and call it merged. It takes time and effort to merge articles, so please take time and consideration. —Pengo 01:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Facebook openly phished millions of email address books

In 2010, it became clear to new users and the general public that Facebook had already persuaded millions of users, and was persuading many new users in an ongoing effort, into uploading their entire email address books. And that Facebook may have sold this data collection somehow, or had traded it to outside concerns. The use of the app employed to upload this data from each user was not widely reported during a time when Facebook use increased dramatically. Mydogtrouble (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Privacy

In the May 2009 section, what on Earth is meant by the following? 'In practice, the functionality restored, combined with the "lists" feature, can force friends to view only the "mutual friends" of the list in which a particular friend is included. As of May 5, 2010 the Privacy Policy still indicated that the last revision was implemented on April 22, 2010.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salopian (talk • contribs) 23:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan bans Facebook

Sources available, at Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day#Pakistan_bans_Facebook. -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies?

Of the three sources currently in place to reference this item only one, a Pakistani television station, asserts that the Facebook group features a competition to draw caricatures of Mohammed. The others simply indicate that it's about drawing the prophet. Unless it can be clearly substantiated that people are being encouraged to draw caricatures I move that this term should not be used. I'm also in doubt whether the term competition is applicable. I can find one "event" with some 14,000 participants ("Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" event) and one "group" with 48,000 members ("Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" group) where there is nothing resembling a competition being announced. __meco (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

[4],  Done. -- Cirt (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Obligatory registration

I'm amazed that the fact that you have to register yourself to FB in order to see in practice any of the content there has not been criticized, at least not to the amount that it would be mentioned here. That's paradoxally the main reason I have not to date registered to Facebook, even after many invites since late 2006. :) Ultrix (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really a forum for discussing how Facebook operates and what's wrong with it, but to address the question, as a social networking service facebook's single most important feature is to map out people who are connected to each other (the so-called social graph) and then facilitate communications among these "friends" (i.e. wall postings, seeing each other's activities, event invites, fanning, private messages, and so on). If you don't register an account then Facebook has no way to know who you are, and therefore, it cannot place you among your group of friends. Although some people choose to reveal their profile and activities for anyone to see, most limit visibility to their circle of friends, so if you don't show up as anyone's friend you won't see very much. In the very early days you could be semi-anonymous, as one is here on Wikiepdia, by creating online identities that are not connected to one's real life. However, that isn't very useful for people and if too many people do it, it gums up the whole system with unreliable connections. So most of the more recent social networks (LinkedIn, Facebook, Yelp, MySpace, Geni, etc) either encourage or require people to use their real identities. The reason this isn't criticized is probably that nearly all social networking services function this way. I hope that makes sense. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So in other words, one seems to be able to publish their FB account public, for anyone to see. I didn't know that before, as most people seem to be privacy-orientated with the r.php spawning on nearly every possible account if not logged in. Ultrix (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Malicious links

I saw some post by Facebook Security regarding malicious links.

Please also conduct research on the following:
  *Malicious links on Facebook
  *Application security (as one application in Facebook was defaced due 
                         to malicious links and spreaded like a worm)
  *Unwanted comments  

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Jazer 13 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

{{olsup> 23:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that fits WP:RS. It discusses declines that existed long before Facebook was created.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Deceased Members

There has been a lot of discussion lately about FB not respecting family members who have died. FB is refusing to allow the family members to take the pages down. It is quite disturbing when you get a "reconnect" suggestion from FB when you know that person has died. There have been a few new reports on it and there is now a petition to hopefully get FB to change their policy. http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=105937872791381&ref=ts207.241.137.116 (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing bias

We need sections dealing with:

1) Facebook deletes users for disagreeing with right-wing posts.

2) Facebook refuses to remove a group that openly solicits Obama's assassination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.86.250 (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Have sources? Airplaneman ✈ 00:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Litigation

None of the three examples under the "Litigation" heading could be described as "Criticism of Facebook". Should they be on another Facebook-related page? Earldelawarr (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fine. The Grant Raphael case is a case of identity theft and deceit involving the use of Facebook. The other two show that Facebook sues people. 71.255.94.205 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your precis of the stories is perfectly accurate, but they don't involve any criticism of Facebook. Presumably the people Facebook sued aren't too happy, but that would be the case with any litigation. Should the page be renamed "Controversies involving Facebook"? Earldelawarr (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Customer service

Here is something I found:

• Milian, Mark. "At Facebook, customer help from a real person can be hard to find." CNN. October 26, 2010.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

KNOI Censorship

The article asserts that "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". However, the website that is referenced to back this up does not exist, and archive.org doesn't archive it, either. What should be done? 138.37.191.151 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

by kashif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.158.141 (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Unauthorised inclusion on Facebook

I don't want to be part of Facebook in any way, either as a primary user or part of a thrid person account. What are my legal rights, how can I be assured my privacy and wishes are achieved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.198.2 (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This Talk page is for discussing the article itself, not asking questions about Facebook or your rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Bot decisionmaking

I recently had my account disabled because an 11 year-old kid who lied about his age to get a Facebook profile started pestering me after I accepted a friend request from him on June 22. The next day, I sent him a FB e-mail message to stop IMing me because he does so in an inappropriate manner, but didn't delete him. I described his behavior as being akin to a stalker on one of his numerous posts on my wall, and he then IMed me threatening revenge. When I came home a few hours later, my account was disabled. When I inquired, I was told that I was guilty of harassment and the decision to keep my Facebook account disabled was final. I sent numerous pieces of information from other people who had been bothered by this kid, many of which noted that he had already been banned from the International Wizard of Oz Club's posting board for harassment, sent them information about five friend suggestions, all of whom appear to be underage, that he made for me in the day and a half between the accepting of his friend request and my account's disabling, as well as a post he made on my YouTube page saying that he got his friends together to get revenge, and posts on YouTube page making false accusations about me and another person I know. Surely no human being read my arguments and a robot was simply counting complaints.

Has the issue of bot decisionmaking been handled somewhere such that it could be added without a WP:OR issue? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a similar problem. They disabled my account after someone filed a false report on me. This is legitimate criticism. They also have a lack of customer support. 71.255.82.110 (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:No original research, WP:NOTAFORUM.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Social and psychological issues

I was surprised there wasn't a section or even a mention of the direct psychological and social problems Facebook creates. I added a small mention of the jealousy issue, but there are certainly more issues being discussed like social exclusion, addiction, failure of real relationships, collapse of social boundaries, cyberstalking, etc. There's a growing body of research to back that up and, of course, there's the discourse about it in the media. For example:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904147,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/mental_health/article6972066.ece

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-haisha/is-your-facebook-addictio_b_533530.html

http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/2171/1/Potential-Facebook-addiction/Page1.html

And more...

Is it a time to start a section for these kind of issues and criticisms? 89.139.7.56 (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think there's already Wikipedia coverage on this elsewhere...Jasper Deng (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Where? (I saw the Facebook stalking article, but nothing else.) 89.139.7.56 (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I do believe Wikipedia has articles about controversy over social networking sites in general.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've looked and couldn't find any regarding this topic. 89.139.7.56 (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the sentence in the article (now under its brand-new section): "Facebook was criticized for making people jealous and unhappy due to the constant exposure to positive yet somewhat unrepresentative highlights of their peers." Putting aside that I don't completely understand the sentence (what are "unrepresentative highlights"?), this material doesn't belong in the article.

This article is about criticism of Facebook because of Facebook's policies and practices, not about its very nature as a social networking site. Even if there isn't coverage generally of this elsewhere, it doesn't belong in this article. It's like criticizing a dating service because some people get dates and others don't. A rather banal criticism, but people will write about anything. Even for those who feel there's some validity to this kind of deep psychological insight, it's not relevant here.

I would like to get some consensus to remove it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, you raised four issues:

• First, the phrasing. I agree it's somewhat cumbersome and terse. I welcome edits/suggestions to rephrase.
• Second, the inclusion as per the scope of the article. I don't think this article is or should be restricted to Facebook Inc.'s policies and practices. De facto, its scope goes way beyond p&p. Whole sections deal with Facebook as a social phenomenon and in response to user activity happening on Facebook: Inappropriate content section, Third-party responses to Facebook section (which by its nature is not related to FB's p&p), Student-related issues, and several sub-sections related to privacy. IMHO, it's natural that this article includes criticism for everything that falls under the concept Facebook in general discourse and not just Facebook Inc., the corporation.
• Third, the statement being non-specific to Facebook. Again, much of the sections mentioned earlier can be classified as issues of people posting inappropriate stuff on the internet under a recognizable identity. They fit here specifically because the presence of Facebook is enabling this behavior and because now these kind of issues arise in relation to Facebook and not any other social network. This is because Facebook gained prominence, and in some western societies people are expected to have a Facebook account and to socialize on FB. This, I think, is the main argument to include issues relating to Facebook as a social phenomenon. It's hard to refute that it is one.
• Fourth, the validity of the "insight". I purposely added six citations from different years, sources, and highlights from different perspectives such as research, media discourse, consequences, etc., so it won't come out as a four-in-the-morning-on-weed kind of deep insight. It's an issue just as much as privacy. It is present in the public discourse; it's recognized in reputable research. This is the kind of stuff that Wikipedia covers.

I would much appreciate if we can come to a consensus that keeps this issue in some form. 89.139.7.56 (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

89, thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail. I'm going to respond to your second point because I think it's the most important. In my view all of the pieces you mention are specific to Facebook, not generalized to social networks, although there may be some overlap. Even if the same kind of thing could occur on another social network, the reactions were quite specific to Facebook. Those that aren't specific to Facebook, e.g., Identity theft, and which says so ("This criticism is not unique to Facebook"), should be removed from the article.

By contrast, the psychological section is commenting on generalized phenomena and really just using Facebook as an example because it's a big target. An example from one citation: "You casually slip onto your lover's Facebook page and see that his or her status has been changed from "in a relationship" to 'single.'" That has nothing to do with Facebook per se - it could happen on any social network. Another example from a different citation: "When Jennifer signed up for Facebook, she never expected to stalk her college boyfriend, Chris." This is a phenomenon of the Internet, of social networks, of anywhere on the Internet where people share. None of this belongs in this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you are arguing my (third) point but to a different conclusion. The examples you gave about the relationship status and Jennifer are phenomena which become noteworthy in the context of Facebook, and not because Facebook is just an instrument to an old issue, but rather because those instances are made possible on a large scale due to the pervasiveness of Facebook. People didn't habitually stalk random people online before Facebook, because so few people had an online presence and only a few others knew how to find those few people's website. This was changed with Facebook. Same with having a relationship status - it wasn't a "thing" before Facebook. Facebook didn't invent it, but it made it widespread.

Same thing with privacy or censoring or technical issues or any other issue - if it would have happened on some other small social network, it would be just a private company doing as it pleases with its website, but because Facebook is all pervasive and is becoming a granted medium of communication, these issues become prominent in its context. Same logic applies to the jealousy issue. Facebook is more than a site or a company. It is a social phenomenon that generates social problems around it (aside from the good things it enables). For example, people were putting personal information on the net for many years now, but the privacy issues stick out with Facebook now, not because it's an isolated Facebook issue, but because Facebook is everywhere. 89.139.7.56 (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Defamation

I'll try again to rein in the expansion of this article to include just about anything related to Facebook, as opposed to actual criticism of Facebook. The newest section is about a British libel suit in which someone posted a fake Facebook page. Other than the assertion that the verdict is "believed" to be the first involving a social network site, what does it have to do with criticism of Facebook? It is simply about the content of an Internet site that is libelous. Again, it's confusing a generalized phenomenon with Facebook itself.

I didn't get anywhere with the ridiculous stress/jealousy/etc. expansion. Besides the IP who seems to be intent on adding all this material, does anyone believe this defanation section belongs?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I only added the psychological effects section, which appropriately to its name made you unhappy ;). All the other sections I just reorganized into their (more) appropriate sections. They were all here before I came. I don't agree with some of them either, but I'm not versed in the fine details to feel confident enough to edit their content. I only fixed typos and formatting and moved them around. 89.139.7.56 (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Trolling category?

Why is this in the "Internet trolling" category? It doesn't seem to relate to trolling at all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.96.25 (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I removed it. 46.116.176.5 (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal website removed.

Undid revision 423278455 by Steve Winter (talk) Personal website...inciteful commentary

I removed the above section as it was a personal website and the commentary could be considered libelous. He may undo my undo, and I do not want to start an edit war. Hopefully an admin will investigate the matter. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Splitting Article

This article seems to be longer than the style guidelines wp:article size recommend. I'm trying to expand the "Minor" section, should I make a separate page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kionajp (talk • contribs) 00:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If the article's to be split, it should probably be done similar to the sections. So, Privacy criticism of Facebook, Technical criticism of Facebook, Censorship on Facebook, Content criticism of Facebook, etc. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

In an effort to begin to reduce the size of this page, I've made a separate page, Facebook Users, and moved some of the relevant material from this one to that. Kionajp (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I like the idea of grouping things thematically. It's probably best to keep things here that are truly criticism, and move things like controversies, censorship, and privacy (which may involve criticism, but go beyond criticism) to their own separate pages as they become complete enough to stand alone as their own articles. Privacy on Facebook is a particularly important thing, only part of which is criticism of Facebook itself. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)