Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 37:
Line 37: − + + + + + + +
problems balanced by good aspects
I too want to register a complaint about the nature of this article which lambasts a company for what it perceives as "liberal" and dangerous tendencies but fails to acknowledges that Facebook is a private company that generates revenue through legitimate and legal means like all other businesses which operate in the United States. An affront on Facebook is an affront on all websites who make their money through advertising which is just about all of them. Secondly, there are valid issues about privacy but this article never considers fact that users are not compelled by anyone to use Facebook and all information entered is voluntarily given up. What happened to "let the buyer beware"? Is that not a tenet of conservative thought? <br>
I too want to register a complaint about the nature of this article which lambasts a company for what it perceives as "liberal" and dangerous tendencies but fails to acknowledges that Facebook is a private company that generates revenue through legitimate and legal means like all other businesses which operate in the United States. An affront on Facebook is an affront on all websites who make their money through advertising which is just about all of them. Secondly, there are valid issues about privacy but this article never considers fact that users are not compelled by anyone to use Facebook and all information entered is voluntarily given up. What happened to "let the buyer beware"? Is that not a tenet of conservative thought? <br>
Facebook represents an online presence for individuals and I hardly believe that makes the company liberal by definition. It seems that the issues raised by the authors of this article are on the amount and types of expression that are capable on the site which can be defined as liberal. Don't forget that Facebook allows people to do what they have been doing for decades (sharing photographs, sending messages, inviting people to events and allowing for RSVPS, etc). My suggestion, rewrite the article to make the claim that Facebook is a privately owned company that allows users to voluntarily post their information for social networking purposes. In subsequent sections go crazy on the the liberal threats Facebook poses to society. --[[User:Churchofthetrail|Church of the Trail]] 23:36, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
Facebook represents an online presence for individuals and I hardly believe that makes the company liberal by definition. It seems that the issues raised by the authors of this article are on the amount and types of expression that are capable on the site which can be defined as liberal. Don't forget that Facebook allows people to do what they have been doing for decades (sharing photographs, sending messages, inviting people to events and allowing for RSVPS, etc). My suggestion, rewrite the article to make the claim that Facebook is a privately owned company that allows for social networking purposes. In subsequent sections go crazy on the the liberal threats Facebook poses to society. --[[User:Churchofthetrail|Church of the Trail]] 23:36, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
:Hear Hear!
:Hear Hear!
::Is the article protected for admins only? If not, happy trails! Go ahead and point out how the private company allows users to voluntarily post their information.
::On the other hand, Facebook does have problems. If we've overemphasized them, then deemphasize them or better yet provide some balance. Less complaining, more writing!
::Here, I'll even help. My own church has trouble finding people who are adept at making websites. So they prefer to use Facebook to publicize church events. Assuming (as I do) that my church has good goals, this is a good aspect of Facebook! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:44, 16 June 2011 (EDT)