I am concerned and you should be TOO!!

[Fcseven]

Gotta love the weird symbols on the inside of Zukerberg's hoodie

I suspect he's working for some government agency. I deleted my facebook page a few weeks ago.

 

[Randall]

Gotta love the weird symbols on the inside of Zukerberg's hoodie ... I suspect he's working for some government agency. I deleted my facebook page a few weeks ago.

Who really needs Facebook anyway? It's just one more thing you have to deal with in a day, and for what ... to make Zuckerberg even richer? Personally I'd like to see the whole thing crash. You couldn't pay me to go on that thing ( unless maybe it was literally a dump truck full of money ... after all we're not made of stone ), but it would have to be one of those really big dump trucks like the ones they use up in the Alberta Tar Sands, and no small change either ... and the deal would have to include letting me drive it over Zuckerberg's car ( not while anyone was in it of course ). Then maybe ... just maybe ... I might sign up again just so I could post the video.

 

[stonehart]

Who really needs Facebook anyway? It's just one more thing you have to deal with in a day, and for what ... to make Zuckerberg even richer? Personally I'd like to see the whole thing crash. You couldn't pay me to go on that thing ( unless maybe it was literally a dump truck full of money ... after all we're not made of stone ), but it would have to be one of those really big dump trucks like the ones they use up in the Alberta Tar Sands, and no small change either ... and the driver would have to let me drive over Zuckerberg's car too ( not while anyone was in it of course ). Then maybe ... just maybe ... I might sign up again just so I could post the video.

I am far to old school anon to touch Facebook ever .. never had an account and never ever will.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

But they did not delete you.

Go away please.

 

[mike]

For me its like any tool, useful if used properly, dangerous if not.

Like fire it can be a good servant, but poor master.

Ive used it to track down long lost friends, but i dont log in 8 times a day like some do.

Some of my friends cant catch a bloody bus without posting where and when, thats just sad.

 

[Muadib]

For me its like any tool, useful if used properly, dangerous if not.

Like fire it can be a good servant, but poor master.

Ive used it to track down long lost friends, but i dont log in 8 times a day like some do.

Some of my friends cant catch a bloody bus without posting where and when, thats just sad.

Exactly, used in moderation, there's nothing wrong with it. People that constantly post where they are or where they are going are opening themselves up to someone breaking into their house, criminals do use Facebook to find out when you aren't going to be home so they can break into your house just like they use the obituaries in your local newspaper.

People talking about the NSA reading their Facebook make me laugh so hard my balls hurt, you really aren't that important, I hate to burst your bubble. My profile consists of things like my favorite movies, music, and quotes, that's about it, if the NSA wants to keep track of that useless information be my guest, I seriously doubt they would bother though. Used wisely, it's a great tool to keep in touch with old friends and family members who don't live close to you.

 

[Muadib]

"Facebook is not above using its platform to tweak users' behavior, as it did by nudging them to register as organ donors. Unlike academic social scientists, Facebook's employees have a short path from an idea to an experiment on hundreds of millions of people."​

​

Facebook info. Be scared.​

​

What Facebook Knows - Technology Review​

Roflmao. If you're so easily influenced that you go out and do something just because someone suggested it to you, then Facebook is the least of your problems. You know who else suggests that people become Organ Donors, the DMV, zomg it's a conspiracy! It's an evil NWO plot to rob us all of our organs after we die and become useless, rotting meat in the ground! Those dastardly bastards!

 

[Randall]

Exactly, used in moderation, there's nothing wrong with it.

Hmm ... that depends on your definition of "wrong". I think it's wrong to have to pay Facebook's legal fees if some third party sues them even if you've done nothing wrong. I think it's wrong that they essentially milked their investors to line their own pockets when they went public. I'm not really sure how anyone can think there's nothing "wrong" with Zuckerberg when he's at the top of the whole freaking pyramid. But in this day where everyone wants instant gratification, and feels they need to keep up appearances as part of some pretentious "social status" in order to promote some hypocritical corporate or personal image ... well I guess it's not really all that "wrong" ... compared to say any one of the people on this list.

 

[Muadib]

Hmm ... that depends on your definition of "wrong". I think it's wrong to have to pay Facebook's legal fees if some third party sues them even if you've done nothing wrong. I think it's wrong that they essentially milked their investors to line their own pockets when they went public. I'm not really sure how anyone can think there's nothing "wrong" with Zuckerberg when he's at the top of the whole freaking pyramid. But in this day where everyone wants instant gratification, and feels they need to keep up appearances as part of some pretentious "social status" in order to promote some hypocritical corporate or personal image ... well I guess it's not really all that "wrong" ... compared to say any one of the people on this list.

I never said there wasn't anything wrong with Zuckerberg himself or Facebook's business practices, I was speaking strictly about the site itself. I don't know where you're getting the idea that you'd actually end up paying Facebook's legal fees, most user agreements have the same clause be it Facebook, or online games like WoW or EVE Online. I doubt you could find one example of anyone who was completely blameless having to pay Facebooks legal costs as a result of them being sued by a third party.

My point was simply that if you don't do stupid shit like post where you are 24/7 and you limit the amount of personal information that you post on Facebook itself, there's really no risk involved with using the service to keep in touch with people who you don't normally see in your day to day life.

 

[Randall]

I never said there wasn't anything wrong with Zuckerberg himself or Facebook's business practices, I was speaking strictly about the site itself. I don't know where you're getting the idea that you'd actually end up paying Facebook's legal fees, most user agreements have the same clause be it Facebook, or online games like WoW or EVE Online. I doubt you could find one example of anyone who was completely blameless having to pay Facebooks legal costs as a result of them being sued by a third party.

My point was simply that if you don't do stupid shit like post where you are 24/7 and you limit the amount of personal information that you post on Facebook itself, there's really no risk involved with using the service to keep in touch with people who you don't normally see in your day to day life.

So what if you can't think of a specific example case? That's not the point. Why agree to abide by something so stupid just to be on facebook? Think about it ... you're agreeing that if some dude you don't even know and you've never even talked to decides to sue Facebook just to screw with you, you've already agreed to pay Facebook's lawyers for it. Only a complete idiot ( don't take that personal ) would agree to that just to be part of a website. BTW According to the Pacific Research Institute, frivolous lawsuits cost American businesses over $865 billion per year, and a Google search for "lawsuits against facebook" ( in quotes ) returned nearly 80,000 results. How sure are you that there isn't a frivolous lawsuit against facebook in there someplace? If I was asked to place a bet one way or the other, I know where I'd put my 5 bucks.

 

[Muadib]

So what if you can't think of a specific example case? That's not the point. Why agree to abide by something so stupid just to be on facebook? Think about it ... you're agreeing that if some dude you don't even know and you've never even talked to decides to sue Facebook just to screw with you, you've already agreed to pay Facebook's lawyers for it. Only a complete idiot ( don't take that personal ) would agree to that just to be part of a website. BTW According to the Pacific Research Institute, frivolous lawsuits cost American businesses over $865 billion per year, and a Google search for "lawsuits against facebook" ( in quotes ) returned nearly 80,000 results. How sure are you that there isn't a frivolous lawsuit against facebook in there someplace? If I was asked to place a bet one way or the other, I know where I'd put my 5 bucks.

If you can't find a specific example, it's likely because what you're talking about has never happened. Soon as I hear about someone who's completely blameless having to pay Facebook's legal fees because they were sued by a third party I'll close my account. You agree to terms like that all the time on the internet, if you've ever played an online game, you signed a similar agreement, if you ever signed up for an email service you probably signed a similar agreement, check your agreement with your web hosting company, I'll bet you'll find similar terms. Companies do that to cover their asses, I'd say it's pretty rare to almost non existent for anything to come of it when it can't be proven that you're at fault. I'm not here to convince you to use or like Facebook, but your reason for not using the site not only reeks of paranoia but it's probably one of the silliest I've ever heard. It's not quite as bad as the guy who thinks the NSA is spying on him, but it's pretty close.

I'm sure there are plenty of silly, frivolous lawsuits against Facebook in there, there are frivolous lawsuits against major corporations, not to mention private citizens, all the time. That doesn't mean that some poor blameless schlub on Facebook is footing the bill because he signed the standard user agreement that plenty of companies on the web use.

 

[Muadib]

A search for these terms via Google:

"If anyone brings a claim against us related to your actions, content or information on Facebook, you will indemnify and hold us harmless from and against all damages, losses, and expenses of any kind (including reasonable legal fees and costs) related to such claim"

Returns about 900,000 results when you remove Facebook from the search, most of them are terms of service agreements from other websites. Pretty standard user agreement terms I'd say, plenty of websites use them, you've probably used at least one or two of them. Sites like scholarpedia, websitetemplates.org, and Time Warner Cable all have similar terms that you have to agree to to use their services, if you don't have Time Warner your cable company probably has the same terms of service, do you think you'll end up footing your cable companies legal bills too?

 

[Randall]

... You agree to terms like that all the time on the internet, if you've ever played an online game, you signed a similar agreement, if you ever signed up for an email service you probably signed a similar agreement, check your agreement with your web hosting company, I'll bet you'll find similar terms. Companies do that to cover their asses ...

Wrong. That's what they ( the lawyers ) want you ( and their corporate clients ) to think, when in reality it's the Company's self-serving lawyers ensuring that either way if anything happens they'll get paid. They could just as easily draft an agreement that requires all users to agree not to sue anybody in the first place. That would "cover their asses" just fine, but lawyers don't want people not to sue each other because that's how they make their living. As for the logic of "everybody does it so it's OK" ... that's no rationale. These online agreements are an insidious legal weaseling that counts on the weak willed masses in need of instant gratification to erode their own rights for them. In cases where I require a service that has an unreasonable TOS I either cross them out on the spot or write a follow up amendment and mail it to them nullifying the parts of the original TOS I don't accept and telling them to deactivate my account if they don't like it. Guess what ... all my accounts are still active, including my credit card. Yup ... that's right ... I crossed out the entire indemnification section of my credit card and the part about them sharing my information with credit reporting agencies, and they sent me one anyway.

 

[Muadib]

Wrong. That's what they ( the lawyers ) want you ( and their corporate clients ) to think, when in reality it's the Company's self-serving lawyers ensuring that either way if anything happens they'll get paid. They could just as easily draft an agreement that requires all users to agree not to sue anybody in the first place. That would "cover their asses" just fine, but lawyers don't want people not to sue each other because that's how they make their living. As for the logic of "everybody does it so it's OK" ... that's no rationale. These online agreements are an insidious legal weaseling that counts on the weak willed masses in need of instant gratification to erode their own rights for them. In cases where I require a service that has an unreasonable TOS I either cross them out on the spot or write a follow up amendment and mail it to them nullifying the parts of the original TOS I don't accept and telling them to deactivate my account if they don't like it. Guess what ... all my accounts are still active, including my credit card. Yup ... that's right ... I crossed out the entire indemnification section of my credit card and the part about them sharing my information with credit reporting agencies, and they sent me one anyway.

That's good for you, I'm not going to argue with you about it, my original point stands, the site is fine if used properly and I'm not paranoid enough to care enough about sending them amended TOS agreements. You do what you feel you have to, I'm not in the least bit worried about Facebook coming after me for legal fees and I imagine the millions of people who use the site aren't that worried about it either. If you want to go on a crusade against online TOS agreements, be my guest, just don't go being such an idiot that you would assume it's because everyone else is a member of the "weak willed masses" because we don't give a shit, we just aren't as paranoid as you are. Also if you think that because you crossed that part of your CC service agreement out that they won't report you to a credit agency, I encourage you to default on your CC and see what happens lmao. You know why nobody deactivates your accounts or doesn't send you a CC when you send them amended terms? It's not because they are acquiescing to your revisions, it's because their TOS supercedes your amended terms and you agree to their TOS simply by using their service whether you send them amended terms or not. I doubt your amended terms would mean jack in a court of law but, thankfully, you'll probably never need to find out.

 

[Muadib]

I can't fault you for being incredibly naive. To understand the data mining at its blackest is a technological maze.

I'll leave you with this. If you are on Facebook, you're more fully, personally exposed than you can possibly imagine.

If you're truly that worried about data mining you might as well quit the internet altogether, every site does it, including this one. Like I said, Facebook doesn't have anything on me but an email address, my favorite movies, music and quotes, I never post personal information like where I live, went to school, personal pictures or anything like that. I mainly use it to chat with friends and family that I don't see on a regular basis. Not to mention if someone wants to find out who you are and where you live, all they need is an IP address, which you have if you're on the internet, unless you're proxy jumping or using TOR and even then if they really want it, they can still get it.

 

[Muadib]

Good luck often resides with those who live comfortably inside a world of limited knowledge.

Thank you Confucius Jr. Whatever would I do without your wonderful nuggets of internet wisdom. Thank you for providing a valuable service.

 

[Randall]

... That's good for you, I'm not going to argue with you about it, my original point stands, the site is fine if used properly and I'm not paranoid enough to care enough about sending them amended TOS agreements ...

I'm not "paranoid". It's a matter of principle ... the fact that they expect users to agree to it at all in the first place. As for thinking that amending the terms of contracts and initialing them, doesn't change them, it most certainly does. After all it's the terms that makes a contract what it is, and once the other side is notified they are obligated to respond or else their acceptance of the amended terms is indicated by their continued supply of services. I've done it more than once with everything from bills of sale to rental agreements to TOS.

Not only that, I've been through it here with the Provincial Civil Legal Team when my workplace suddenly began requiring employees to indemnify a cell phone provider ( Telus ) just to sell their phones. In that situation I found a case where someone had bought a cell phone from a store, used it while driving, got into an accident and sued the store and cell phone company that sold it to her. I also found case law citing a B.C. Judge who talks about financial compensation being central to the concept of indemnification. The advice of my lawyers was that I would indeed be liable for damages in such a case if I were to agree to indemnify the cell phone provider. So I refused and then my job was threatened. After that, my lawyers said that threatening to fire me over it constituted undue pressure and it nullified the agreement. So if you think it has no relevance, think again. It matters so much to them that companies are now making employees indemnify cell phone suppliers under threat of dismissal if they refuse. Needless to say I don't use a cell phone either. They're yet another fix for instant gratification junkies. I've gotten along fine without one for over 50 years. The last time I needed to make a mobile phone call I used the pay phone at the gas station. It cost me 35 cents. Hows your cell phone bill this month?

 

[Muadib]

I'm not "paranoid". It's a matter of principle ... the fact that they expect users to agree to it at all in the first place. As for thinking that amending the terms of contracts and initialing them, doesn't change them, it most certainly does. After all it's the terms that makes a contract what it is, and once the other side is notified they are obligated to respond or else their acceptance of the amended terms is indicated by their continued supply of services. I've done it more than once with everything from bills of sale to rental agreements to TOS.

Not only that, I've been through it here with the Provincial Civil Legal Team when my workplace suddenly began requiring employees to indemnify a cell phone provider ( Telus ) just to sell their phones. In that situation I found a case where someone had bought a cell phone from a store, used it while driving, got into an accident and sued the store and cell phone company that sold it to her. I also found case law citing a B.C. Judge who talks about financial compensation being central to the concept of indemnification. The advice of my lawyers was that I would indeed be liable for damages in such a case if I were to agree to indemnify the cell phone provider. So I refused and then my job was threatened. After that, my lawyers said that by threatening to fire me over it constituted undue pressure and it nullified the agreement. So if you don't think it has no relevance, think again. It matters so much to them that companies are now making employees indemnify cell phone suppliers under threat of dismissal if they refuse. Needless to say I don't use a cell phone either. They're yet another fix for instant gratification junkies. I've gotten along fine without one for over 50 years. The last time I needed to make a mobile phone call I used the pay phone at the gas station. It cost me 35 cents. Hows your cell phone bill this month?

Actually, I don't use one either. There are times when I don't want people to be able to get a hold of me. I have a tablet for mobile computing and email on the go. You are paranoid if you think you're going to end up paying Facebook's legal fees for something you had nothing do with, and you're also delusional if you think your CC company won't be reporting you to a credit agency if you default on your card just because you crossed out some of their service terms and sent it back to them. If you're taking a moral stance, that's one thing, and I wish you the best of luck. Personally, I couldn't care less, I've signed plenty of TOS agreements in my lifetime on everything from websites to online games and I've never gotten burned for something I didn't do and I highly doubt I ever will.

 

[Randall]

Actually, I don't use one either. There are times when I don't want people to be able to get a hold of me. I have a tablet for mobile computing and email on the go. You are paranoid if you think you're going to end up paying Facebook's legal fees for something you had nothing do with, if you're taking a moral stance, that's one thing, and I wish you the best of luck. Personally, I could care less.

Yup ... it's purely on principle ... and is that not what this discussion is about? Let me try to put it in perspective this way. It's not just about Facebook. This issue and others like it have crept up so silently and insidiously, depending on people like you to care less, that now our very livelihoods are at stake. It's simply not fair to expect lowly sales clerks to indemnify multi-million dollar companies against lawsuits over the use of their products. But that's what it's come to, and how many people can quit their job or take getting fired? I'm a living case example of what happens when you refuse. This is an immediate threat from our corporate overlords that directly affects millions of people in a real way. But who's got what it takes to say no to these big bullies? Every time you say yes to yet another unfair TOS you're helping to entrench that system. It's your tacit approval that it's OK ... but it's not. There is no moral defense for it. Unlike the security legislation which can be morally defended. Yet when it comes to that, people get up in arms crying national conspiracy to throw everyone in America into prison camps. How many of those same people think nothing of compromising their rights to use cell phones, Facebook, Netflix, some stupid video game ... whatever. Hypocrites!

 

[Muadib]

Yup ... it's purely on principle ... and is that not what this discussion is about? Let me try to put it in perspective this way. It's not just about Facebook. This issue and others like it have crept up so silently and insidiously, depending on people like you to care less, that now our very livelihoods are at stake. It's simply not fair to expect lowly sales clerks to indemnify multi-million dollar companies against lawsuits over the use of their products. But that's what it's come to, and how many people can quit their job or take getting fired? I'm a living case example of what happens when you refuse. This is an immediate threat from our corporate overlords that directly affects millions of people in a real way. But who's got what it takes to say no to these big bullies? Every time you say yes to yet another unfair TOS you're helping to entrench that system. It's your tacit approval that it's OK ... but it's not. There is no moral defense for it. Unlike the security legislation which can be morally defended. Yet when it comes to that, everybody gets up in arms crying national conspiracy to throw everyone in America into prison camps. How many of those same people think nothing of compromising their rights to use cell phones, Facebook, Netflix, some stupid video game ... whatever. Hypocrites!

That's purely your opinion, nothing more. I happen to enjoy video games very much and always have, they're like interactive novels. Well, the good ones are anyway. I think you're really making a mountain out of a mole hill here, my livelihood isn't at stake because I signed up for Facebook. Personally I think you're taking one case and blowing it way out of proportion, but whatever, like I said, do what you want. Just don't expect me to agree with you, because I don't. Sorry. That case you presented about the woman who used a cell phone, then sued the cell phone company because she was dumb enough to use it while driving and got into an accident is a perfect example of why companies have to protect themselves from lawsuits from total assholes who don't want to accept personal responsibility for their actions. Who could blame them?