Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Social Networks

Facebook Abstainers Could Be Labeled Suspicious 625

Posted by samzenpus
from the why-are-you-different? dept.
bs0d3 writes "According to this article printed in tagesspiegel.de, not having a Facebook account could be the first sign that you are a mass murderer.(German) As examples they use Norwegian shooter Anders Breivik, who used MySpace instead of Facebook and the newer Aurora shooter who used adultfriendfinder instead of Facebook. They already consider those with Facebook accounts, who lack friends to be suspicious, but now they are suggesting that anyone who abstains from Facebook altogether may be even more suspicious."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Abstainers Could Be Labeled Suspicious

Comments Filter:
  • Overblown (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jbmartin6 (1232050) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @12:28PM (#40808911)
    I submit that this sort of story is overblown.Yes, this is one out of hundreds of characteristics on a list. Just having one or even fifty from the list doesn't mean any individual has crossed the threshold of "suspicious". Everyone on /. should be familiar with this sort of thing from spam filters.
  • by hawks5999 (588198) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @12:28PM (#40808917)
    That you are old.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29, 2012 @12:29PM (#40808923)

    They're a commercial enterprise making their money off profiting from the private data of others. I've had libertarians proclaim the company to be an example of the value of the free market, but I consider them an example of how a private company will manage to find something valuable about others and get money for it with a higher cost than you might realize.

    Now maybe you consider the service Facebook provides worth it, but I consider the cost of being on Facebook not worth any service.

    So...count me out of it. I could even be convinced to shut them down, though it would probably take some serious abuses before enough public support could trump the propaganda for it.

  • FB (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pitchpipe (708843) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @12:30PM (#40808933)

    This line of thinking could sure help Facebook's stock value.

    Uhm ... no. The more that Facebook is seen as something that you need to do (institutionalization) instead of something you do because it is cool, the less cool it will be. In fact this line of thinking may even make it cool to 'rebel' against the establishment (Facebook). This is how these social networking sites die. The cool kids leave first, everyone else follows soon after.

  • Re:Two words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by istartedi (132515) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @12:30PM (#40808949) Journal

    Oh, and parent should not be modded down. "Fuck You" is pretty much the only valid response to that bullshit.

  • by Jahf (21968) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @12:34PM (#40808993) Journal

    I'll admit the MySpace to Facebook comparison was closer. However ... comparing Facebook to AdultFriendFinder? Either I don't hang out in the "right" Facebook groups or this is total bull. They are not even close to interchangeable in purpose, audience nor function.

    I suppose the reason I find the concept of this article sad is that we're moving to a place where instead of an expectation of privacy ... we now have an expectation of no privacy. I post photos, sure, and status updates and events. But I'm careful about the permissions on them and I don't post EVERYTHING nor will I. If that makes me suspect, well, I guess suspect me. But it -should- show I have a reasonable level of intelligence on what I keep private.

    While I do use Facebook, I have a number of friends, neighbors and co-workers who do not. And I don't consider them suspect. Why would I? I don't go "oh, my neighbor is always frequenting that gaming site but refuses to use Facebook, he must have something to hide".

    I also have a number of friends who either maintain multiple accounts (because they hate dealing with permissions) OR keep their account obscured so that you have to know that it is their account (different name, odd profile photo, different email account, etc). Purely because we ALL have people in our lives we don't want to know EVERYTHING. Is that the next step for being suspected?

    Glass walls. You don't want them. At least not until everyone in power can give up their judgements about peoples' personal lives.

  • Re:Two words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by game kid (805301) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @12:38PM (#40809045) Homepage

    Right on. This whole thing is very thoughtcrimey--I guess I should expect "lemme see your passport, SSN, and Facebook account while I wand and grope you" real soon.

  • by dryriver (1010635) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @12:44PM (#40809111)
    So using megadoses of peer-pressure to get everyone on Facebook isn't enough anymore... Now not being on Facebook is actually considered to be a serious clue that there is something seriously wrong with you? What a load of bullshit. What a load of bullshit. What a load of bullshit. ------ Many ordinary people who are smart about privacy do not put their lives on Facebook for a very good reason: Zuckerbook exists purely to make money, and cannot be TRUSTED with the details of your life, however mundane they may be. 3 cheers for everyone who abstains from Facebook for privacy reasons. Hip-Hip-Hooray. Hip-Hip-Hooray. Hip-Hip-Hooray. ------- End of message -----------
  • by EdIII (1114411) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @12:53PM (#40809221)

    Or have principles which prevent you from engaging in such behavior.

    Valuing privacy and refusing to participate in information sharing with a company that will only use it in ways you don't approve of hardly makes you suspicious. If some people really do find that suspicious and can't understand the reasons... screw em. You will have as much success changing their minds as changing ultra-religious fanatics minds about their intolerance and bigotry.

    The real concern is if businesses or governments start using the lack of social networking presence as grounds for investigations or refusal to be employed.

  • by DERoss (1919496) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @12:56PM (#40809261)

    I consider my self a pioneer in the use of computers but also modern. My experience covers the range from plug boards and punched cards to client-server networks and remote operation of PCs.

    I do not participate in any social network. I have little interest in "friending" someone I never met face-to-face. I do not tweet. Now retired, I have no real use for LinkedIn. See my http://www.rossde.com/internet/surf.html#missing [rossde.com].

  • Re:Two words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by omfgnosis (963606) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @01:07PM (#40809367)

    Profiling people based on their internet usage - for "national security" - is likely to become a reality in some countries before long.

    I'm fairly sure the NSA has been doing this for years. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out they regard anti-social indicators with similar suspicion. It's not a very novel notion.

  • That was 1990s online culture, where parents would caution kids not to use their real name or info online, that kind of thing. Today, the parents are using their real name online themselves, and are more likely to demanding legislation against anonymous postings because of "cyberbullying" than to encourage anonymity.

  • by QuasiEvil (74356) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @01:41PM (#40809645)

    Or that you don't give a rat's ass about 99% of the stupid shit your "friends" post on FB. Most of those people who instantly tried to friend me were people from high school, many of whom were too cool to talk to my nerdy self back then. I didn't like them then, and they've been out of my life for 15 years. I couldn't care less that their baby did something today. Heck, my aunts, uncles, and grandparents use it all the time, so I don't think age is the delineating factor. It's more that I have way more things in my real life than I can keep up with, and I'd much rather be social over a pint at a pub or a MakerFaire or a reprap get-together than on some website with people that don't matter in my life anymore.

    I kept my account for about three months, mostly to see if I could find a couple old girlfriends and see what they were up to after my ex and I split. After that, I removed any content I could (I basically only ever uploaded one bland picture and some trivial details) and then told them to delete it. It was just adding to the noise side of the SNR in my life, so I just decided I was done with it. It does seem to be deactivated, but I suspect the Eagles were right on this one - you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

    Oh, and just for good measure...
    GET OFF MY LAWN, YA DAMN KIDS!

  • Stupidity rules (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @01:45PM (#40809673) Journal

    and if routine identity control on the street finds an abstainer then a deep cavity search should performed - who knows what such abstainer can hide there...

    His/her privacy, for one (the horror!).

    A Facebook abstainer could be a future mass murderer. And so could a Facebook participant.
    A Facebook abstainer could be a saint and a scholar. And so could a Facebook participant (OK, that's a bit dodgy).
    The whole thesis of judging people by whether they are on Facebook or not is ridiculous.

    Out of 7 billion persons on this planet, let's say 4 billion are adults but not yet too decrepit to handle a PC or smartphone - i.e. of suitable age for Facebook. There are less than 1 billion Facebook participants (probably quite a bit less, due to fake accounts, etc.). So by a conservative estimate, 3 billion persons on the planet are Facebook abstainers, and therefore are potential mass murderers or something. Such an intellectually vacuous conclusion can only be reached by digesting utterly absurd bullshit.

  • Re:Stupidity rules (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stanlyb (1839382) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @02:29PM (#40809995)
    A Facebook participant IS an idiot. But a Facebook abstainer COULD be an idiot. I hope you see the difference.
  • Re:Overblown (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Johann Lau (1040920) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @02:57PM (#40810309) Homepage Journal

    No, I didn't mean that at all. I was simply questioning the arrogance/delusion/insanity of someone implying they belong to "normal society".

    Especially when talking about mass murder. Yes, it takes a rather fucked up person to open fire on random people, much less children. But the fact that a (supposedly) "well-adjusted individual" can make a career out of the collateral death of orders of magnitudee more people, and most people don't even fucking blink, makes the notion of "normal society" kind of ridiculous. This kind of lunacy is a steady and ever-present killer... you can steal the life of people by leading them in circles or down dead ends no problem, that's a-okay. But when some psycho does that on a much smaller scale, we're kind of relieved because we have someone we can feel morally superior to. Which kind of makes me sick.

    In short: fuck mass murderers, but also fuck people :P

  • by Z34107 (925136) on Sunday July 29, 2012 @06:02PM (#40812163)

    Gee, thanks for posting this in every article. Do you have anything on hosts files and GNAA membership, or should I wait for APK?

  • Re:Overblown (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29, 2012 @06:51PM (#40812597)

    Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Krishnamurti

"The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." -- Nathaniel Howe

Working...