Talk:Facebook

Has anyone ever thought to create a Conservapedia Facebook account? JY23 20:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Concerns

Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that the privacy controls on Facebook are much better than on other networking sites? The article as it stands makes it sound like anyone's personal information will be available for everyone on the internet to see (as with MySpace), but in truth under the default privacy settings it would only be viewable by people in the same university or network, and privacy levels for every item can be customized. The Bob Jones article about employers using Facebook to research applicants does not seem to take this into consideration either, which makes me question its reliability as a source. The article is completely devoid of details (which employers are doing it), and seems not to notice that it would be mostly impossible for an employer to do this on Facebook.
I'm giving this one 48 hours for debate, and will trim the "concerns" section accordingly if no one objects. JDWpianist 17:49, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

Done. JDWpianist 16:50, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Okay, but that's like saying using a condom while being promiscuous is less risky than not using one. It's still risky (among other things).

If there's a social networking website with less risk (and higher morals), let's identify and promote it. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

See Main Page news item I just placed. The Marine Corps has identified all major social networking sites as too vulnerable to malware and other malicious problems, and blocked them from its entire network..... --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 15:25, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

Privacy

The Privacy Issues section only has one source, and that AllExperts page looks out of date... For example, it says only people with a valid school-email address (or from certain other organizations) may sign up, not true anymore... Also un-sourced: "Facebook refuses to admit that its privacy settings that apparently allow only "friends" to see certain information are completely bogus and can easily be cracked by people with little to no hacking experience. Instead, Facebook actually encourages young users to only allow "friends" to see certain information, rather than just warning them that what they post can be seen by the world and to not post what they wouldn't want people to see."

Liberal?

This website seems to be vehemently opposed to facebook, claiming it is liberal. Is allowing people to have their relationship status with another of the same sex really enough to make the website "liberal"? Also the page mentions that the site leads to divorce. What does that have to do with liberalism? If the site really does lead to divorce it is only because people can see what their spouses are doing when they think no one is looking, something that has nothing to do with facebook's policies but rather infidelity in and of itself. This is probably the most bizzare article on conservapedia.--Jasonb242 19:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

By almost any measure, Facebook is a liberal company/project. Take your pick: whom Facebook hires (former Clinton Press Secretary Joe Lockhart), to whom Facebook caters (Obama), the impact of Facebook on relationships, to which candidates Facebook employees contribute, how Facebook is run, the effect of Facebook on productivity, etc.--Andy Schlafly 15:13, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

I was with you, Asch, until you got into things that can't be backed with fact. I see a lot of potential in Facebook. It can be used to bring people of similar thinking together, though not in the strictly political idea as with FreedomConnecter. I am part of a LOT of conservative groups in Facebook and my productivity is not suffering in the least by me being part of it. If someone suffers from the inability to pull themselves away from the program, that is the fault of the individual, not the whole.

blaming the whole for the fault of an individual is a very liberal way of thinking, Andy. Just an FYI. MHarris

I don't doubt that some people can use facebook productively and not waste time on it, just as there are conservative people and groups. But on the whole, FB is exactly as it's described in the article. I realize this comparison is out of proportion, but it's analogous to drug use - some may be able to use drugs without ruining their lives, but that doesn't change the fact that drugs in general are very destructive. I suggest adding some information to the article about the more reasonable uses of FB, and perhaps examples of conservative political groups; then the article would show that, as you say, there's a minority on FB who aren't unproductive liberals, without denying the general nature of the site. Jcw 18:21, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

My point still remains, don't blame the group for the fault of the individual. MHarris

A.Sch, regardless of the views of their employees, facebook not a partisan group. Obama may take advantage of the site, but so do Sarah Palin and many other conservative groups. And what does facebook's "impact on relationships" or "effect on productivity" have to do with liberalism?--Jasonb242 19:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

The structure of a forum can have inherent political biases. That's already been seen on Wikipedia, for example. Facebook is another example. When something is inherently gossipy, self-centered and unproductive, it's going to be more liberal than conservative in result.--Andy Schlafly 21:59, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

Don't blame the whole for the faults of the individual. If people gossip, are self-centered or unproductive then it is their faults, not the fault of the tool that can be used to do so. All forms of communication can be used to exhibit those traits.

A.Sch, ignoring the fact that you run a website with an inherent political bias, your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy. "Begging the question" to be more specific. You are arguing on the assumption that A) Facebook is unproductive; and B) that unproductiveness leads to liberalism, neither of which do you provide proof. --Jasonb242 23:03, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

(edit conflict) "All men are created equal," but not all systems of government, not all constitutions, not all schools, not all websites and not all encyclopedias. Different rules have different biases. The National Enquirer is not equal to the Christian Science Monitor. Facebook is more like the National Enquirer.--Andy Schlafly 23:12, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

"The National Enquirer is not equal to the Christian Science Monitor. Facebook is more like the National Enquirer" And why is that? (and what does that have to do with anything?) You have yet to provide any proof or evidence to any of your assertions, further suggesting that your argument is based on the logical fallacy "begging the question"--Jasonb242 23:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

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?
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. --Church of the Trail 23:36, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

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! --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:44, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

(edit conflict) Facebook encourages people to waste time with gossip and other self-centered, mindless activity. It destroys marriages, and displaces healthy social gatherings. Facebook lowers academic achievement. No one is doubting Facebook's "right" to waste people's time and disrupt marriages, but surely there is full free speech to criticize it.--Andy Schlafly 18:58, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

This is gonna be the first time I say this to anyone besides an Evolutionist or a Liberal but Aschlafly.. PROVE IT! MHarris

(edit conflict) Which do you doubt, and have you looked for studies on the issue yet?--Andy Schlafly 19:24, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

Heh, conservative beat me to it. v If those stats are true, then TV is more of a Liberal tool than Facebook for pulling away from productivity than Facebook. And you have yet to supply your statements with facts so I question if you sir are just trying to stir up a baseless issue. Is that a red herring or a strawman?

Facebook problems seem to be a small societal issue

Facebook problems seem to be a small societal issue. I cite: "Back in June 2009, Nielsen estimated that the average U.S. user spent four hours and 39 minutes on Facebook per month. That’s about 9.3 minutes per day in a 30-day month. In August, that number rose to five hours and 46 minutes, or 11.5 minutes per day."[1]

Here is the June 2011 stats for TV watching and it seems people watch far more TV:

"Nielsen polled about 2,600 people who said they watched videos online in the first three months of the year, and divided them into fifths based on how much they watch. The fifth that watched the most video online consumed nearly 19 minutes a day, and also watched the least amount of television, at about four hours and 32 minutes a day. The fifth that watched the least online video _ at less than a tenth of a minute a day _ watched the most TV at 4 hours and 50 minutes.

Nielsen said such a finding doesn't indicate that people are about to drop their pay TV packages to watch video only online, a notion known as "cord cutting." About 91 percent of TV households still paid for a TV subscription in the first quarter, and most of the changes had to do with people switching between cable, telephone and satellite companies.

Overall, TV viewing crept up by 0.2 percent from a year ago to 158 hours and 47 minutes a month, while video watching on the Internet jumped 35 percent to 4 hours and 33 minutes per month. Watching on mobile devices such as smartphones rose 20 percent to 4 hours and 20 minutes a month."[2] conservative 19:23, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

Reversion explained

We don't delete factual information here, or downplay it by placing it later in an entry.--Andy Schlafly 22:56, 16 June 2011 (EDT)