Criticism of Facebook relates to how Facebook's market dominance has led to international media coverage and significant reporting of its shortcomings. Important issues include Internet privacy, such as the use of a widespread "likes" button on third-party websites that track users, possible unlimited user information records, automatic face recognition software, and their role in the workplace, including employee-employee disclosure.
The use of Facebook can have psychological effects, including feelings of jealousy and stress, lack of attention, and social media addiction, in some cases comparable to drug addiction.
Facebook's corporate tactics have also received prominent coverage, including electricity use, tax evasion, real-world user terms policy, censorship, and involvement in US PRISM surveillance programs.
Because it allows users to publish their own material, Facebook has been under surveillance for the amount of freedom it provides to users, including copyright infringement and intellectual property, hate speech, rape and terrorism incitement, false news, Facebook killing, crimes and violent incidents broadcast live through its Live Facebook function.
Facebook has been banned by some governments, including Syria, China, and Iran.
The company has also experienced several litigation cases for years, with the most prominent case of allegations that CEO Mark Zuckerberg violated an oral contract with Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss and Divya Narendra to build a social network "HarvardConnection" later renamed in 2004, instead of allegedly choosing to steal ideas and code to launch Facebook months before HarvardConnection begins. The original claim was finally settled in 2009, with Facebook paying approximately $ 20 million in cash and 1.25 million shares. The new lawsuit in 2011 was dismissed. Some critics make Facebook's final predictions based on the issues they identify.
Video Criticism of Facebook
Privacy issues
Widening member information exposure 2011-12
In 2010, the Electronic Frontier Foundation identified two personal information aggregation techniques called "connections" and "instant personalization". They show that anyone can get access to the information saved to a Facebook profile, even if the information is not intended to be published. "Connections" are created when the user clicks the "Like" button for a product or service, either on Facebook itself or on an external site. Facebook treats such relationships as public information, and user identities can be displayed on Facebook pages of products or services.
Instant Personalization is a pilot program that shares Facebook account information with affiliated sites, such as sharing a list of "liked" band users with a music website, so when users visit the site, the music they love will play automatically. The EFF notes that "For non-opt-out users, Instant Personalization is an instant data leak.As soon as you visit sites in the pilot program (Yelp, Pandora, and Microsoft Docs) the site can access your name, your image, your gender, your current location, your friends list, all the Pages you like - all that Facebook classifies as public information.Even if you opt out of Instant Personalization, there is still data leak if your friends are using the Instant Personalization website - activities can provide information about you, unless you block the app one by one. "
On December 27, 2012, CBS News reported that Randi Zuckerberg, the brother of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, criticized a friend for being "not cool" in sharing his personal Facebook photos on Twitter, only to be told that the image appeared in a friend's Facebook news feed -friend-a-friend. Commenting on this misconception of Facebook privacy settings, Eva Galperin of the EFF said "Even Randi Zuckerberg can be wrong, that's an illustration of how confusing they are."
Issues during 2007
In August 2007, the code used to generate the home page and search Facebook as visitors who crawl the site was inadvertently published. A configuration issue on the Facebook server causes PHP code to be displayed instead of the web page that code should generate, raising concerns about how secure the personal data on the site is. A visitor of the site is copying, publishing, and then deleting the code from his web forum, claiming that he has been served and threatened with legal notice by Facebook. Facebook's response is quoted by the site that solves the story:
In November, Facebook launched Beacon, a system (discontinued in September 2009) where third-party websites can include scripts by Facebook on their sites, and use them to send information about Facebook user actions on their sites to Facebook, prompting serious issues privacy. Information such as purchases made and games played are published in the user's news feed. Informative notices about these actions appear on third-party sites and give users a chance to cancel them, and users can also cancel them on Facebook. Initially if no action is taken, the information is automatically published. On 29 November it was changed to request confirmation from users before publishing each story collected by Beacon.
On December 1, Facebook's credibility with the Beacon program was further tested when it was reported that the New York Times basically accused Mark Zuckerberg of lying on paper and leaving Coca-Cola, which reversed courses on the program, similar. A security engineer at CA, Inc. also claimed on November 29, 2007, a blog post that Facebook collects data from affiliate sites even when consumers opt out and even when not logged onto the Facebook site. On November 30, 2007, the CA security blog posted a Facebook clarification statement addressing the use of data collected in the Beacon program:
The Beacon Service ended in September 2009 along with a class action action filed against Facebook resulting from the service.
News Feed and Mini-Feed
On September 5, 2006, Facebook introduced two new features called "News Feed" and "Mini-Feed". The first of the new features, News Feeds, appears on every facebook page of Facebook members, displaying recent Facebook activity from friends of members. The second feature, Mini-Feeds, keeps a record of similar events on each member profile page. Members can manually remove items from their Mini-Feeds if they wish to do so, and through privacy settings can control what is actually published on their respective Mini-Feeds.
Some Facebook members still feel that the ability to not use the entire News Feed system and Mini-Feed is required, as evidenced by the statement of the Student Group on Facebook News Feed, which reached over 740,000 members in 2006. Reacting to user concerns, Facebook is developing a new privacy feature to give users control over information about those broadcast by News Feed. According to the next news article, members have widely considered additional privacy options as acceptable compromises.
In May 2010, Facebook added privacy controls and simplified its privacy settings, giving users more ways to manage status updates and other information broadcast to the public News Feed. Among the new privacy settings is the ability to control who sees each new status updating a user post: Everyone, Friends from Friends, or Just Friends. Users can now hide any status updates from certain people as well. However, users who suppress "likes" or comments on a photo or a friend's status update can not prevent the action from appearing on a news feed of all the user's friends, even those who are not together. The "View As" option is used to show users how privacy control filters what friends can see, only shows the user's time line and gives no indication that items missing from the timeline may still show up in friends' own feeding news.
Cooperation with government requests
Governments and local governments rely on Facebook and other social networks to investigate crime and get evidence to help establish crime, provide location information, establish motives, prove and disprove alibis, and disclose communications. Federal, state and local investigations have not been limited to profiles that are publicly available or voluntarily given to the government; Facebook has been willing to provide information in response to a call or request from the government, unless it relates to unlocked inbox messages that are less than 181 days old, which will require a warrant and the possible finding of the cause under federal law under Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). One article 2011 notes that "even when governments do not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and users choose the most stringent privacy controls, Facebook users still can not expect federal law to stop their 'personal' content and communications from being used against them".
Indeed, Facebook's privacy policy states that "We may also share information when we have confidence in good faith that it is necessary to prevent fraud or other illegal activities, to prevent urgent body hazards, or to protect ourselves and you from those who violate the Statement Our Rights and Responsibilities This may include sharing information with other companies, lawyers, courts or other government agencies ". Because the US Congress has failed to significantly change the ECPA to protect most of the communications on social networking sites like Facebook, and because the US Supreme Court largely refuses to recognize the privacy rights of Fourth Amendment for information shared with third parties, there is no federal law or constitutional rights that prevent the government from issuing requests for fishing expeditions and no Facebook privacy policies that prohibit companies from submitting personal user information indicating any illegal activity.
Disclosure of mass surveillance in 2013 identifies Facebook as a participant in the US National Security Administration PRISM program. Facebook now reports the number of requests it receives for user information from governments around the world.
Complaints from CIPPIC
On May 31, 2008, Canada's Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), as per Director Phillipa Lawson, filed a 35-page complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner against Facebook based on 22 violations of the Protection of Personal Information Canada and the Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Ottawa University law students Lisa Feinberg, Harley Finkelstein, and Jordan Eric Plener, started a "privacy invasion minefield". Chris Kelly from Facebook opposed the claim, saying: "We have reviewed the complaint and found that it has a serious factual error - especially ignoring the fact that almost all Facebook data is voluntarily shared by users." Assistant Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham released his findings report on July 16, 2009. In it, he found that some CIPPIC complaints reasoned. Facebook agrees to comply with some, but not all, of its recommendations. Assistant Commissioners find that Facebook does not do enough to ensure users are given meaningful approval for disclosure of personal information to third parties and does not place adequate security to ensure unauthorized access by third party developers for personal information.
Data excavation
There are several concerns expressed regarding the use of Facebook as a means of monitoring and data mining.
Two Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) students are able to use automated scripts to download publicly-posted information over 70,000 Facebook profiles from four schools (MIT, NYU, University of Oklahoma and Harvard University) as part of a research project on Facebook privacy published on December 14, 2005. Since then, Facebook has stepped up security protection for users, responding: "We have built a lot of defense to combat phishing and malware, including a complex automated system that works behind the scenes to detect and tag Facebook. compromised (based on anomalous activity such as many messages sent in a short time, or messages with known links). "
The second clause that brings criticism from some users allows Facebook the right to sell user data to a private company, stating "We may share your information with third parties, including responsible responsible companies." This concern was overcome by spokesman Chris Hughes, who said, "Simply put, we never give our users information to third party companies, nor do we mean it." Facebook finally removes this clause from its privacy policy.
In the UK, Trades Union Congress (TUC) has encouraged companies to allow their staff to access Facebook and other social networking sites from work, provided they proceed with caution.
In September 2007, Facebook attracted criticism after it began allowing search engines to index profile pages, although Facebook's privacy settings allow users to turn them off.
Concerns also surfaced on the BBC Watchdog program in October 2007 when Facebook was shown as an easy way to collect one's private information to facilitate identity theft. However, virtually no personal information is presented to non-friends - if users leave privacy controls on their default settings, the only personally identifiable information visible to non-friends is user name, gender, profile picture, network, and username.
The New York Times article in February 2008 shows that Facebook does not actually provide a mechanism for users to close their accounts, and raises concerns that private user data will remain indefinitely on Facebook servers. In 2013, Facebook gives users the option to disable or delete their accounts. Disabling accounts may be recovered later, while deleting them will delete the account "permanently", although some data sent by that account ("like posting to a group or sending someone a message") will still exist.
Inability to end accounts voluntarily
Facebook has enabled users to disable their accounts but does not actually remove the account content from their servers. A Facebook representative explained to a student from the University of British Columbia that users should delete their own account by manually removing all content including wall posts, friends, and groups. The New York Times article notes this issue and raises concern that email and other private user data remain unlimited on the Facebook servers. Facebook then began allowing users to permanently delete their accounts in 2010. The Facebook Privacy Policy now states, "When you delete an account, it's permanently deleted from Facebook."
Some of these warning groups have also caused legal problems. Specifically, on January 1, 2008, one of the memorial groups posted the identity of Toronto adolescent murdered Stefanie Rengel, whose family has not given the Toronto Police Service their consent to release her name to the media, and the identity of the murder suspects, contrary to the Justice Judiciary Act The Canadian young man, who prohibits the publication of the names of underage defendants. While police and Facebook staff sought to comply with privacy regulations by removing the posts, they noted difficulties in effectively monitoring individual users who repeatedly republished deleted information.
Adjustment and security
In July 2007, Adrienne Felt, a graduate student at the University of Virginia, discovered a cross-site scripting hole (XSS) on the Facebook Platform that can inject JavaScript into profiles. He uses holes to import custom CSS and shows how the platform can be used to violate privacy rules or create worms.
Sign out of Facebook Day
Sign out of Facebook Day is an online event that takes place on May 31, 2010 (coinciding with Anniversary), where Facebook users state that they will be out of social network due to privacy issues. It is estimated that 2% of Facebook users coming from the United States will delete their account. However, only 33,000 (about 0.0066% of about 500 million members at the time) users exit the site. The number one reason for users to quit Facebook is privacy issues (48%), followed by general dissatisfaction with Facebook (14%), negative aspects about Facebook friends (13%), and Facebook addiction feelings (6%). Facebook's founder is found to be more concerned about privacy, more internet addiction, and more thorough.
Facial recognition and tagging
Facebook enabled the auto face recognition feature in June 2011, called "Tag Suggestions", a product of a research project called "DeepFace". This feature compares newly uploaded photos with a Facebook friend's photo uploader, to suggest photo tags.
National Journal Daily claims "Facebook faces new scrutiny of its decision to automatically enable new face recognition features aimed at helping users identify their friends in photos." Facebook has defended the feature, saying that users can disable it. Facebook introduced this feature opt-out. The EU data protection regulator said they will investigate the feature to see if it violates the privacy rules. Naomi Lachance states on the web blog for NPR, All Tech Considered , that Facebook face recognition is exactly 98% of the time compared to FBI 85% out of 50 people. It also notes, however, that Facebook's search accuracy is due to larger, more elaborate photo selection than the FBI's closed database. Mark Zuckerberg showed no concern when speaking about AI Facebook, saying, "Unattended learning is the long-term focus of our AI research team on Facebook, and that remains an important challenge for the entire AI research community" and "It will save lives by diagnosing disease and make us more secure - this will allow breakthroughs by helping us discover new planets and understand the Earth's climate, which will help in areas we have not even thought of today. "
Investigation by Ireland Data Protection Commissioner 2011/2012
In August 2011, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) began an investigation after receiving 22 complaints by europe-v-facebook.org, founded by a group of Austrian students. The DPC stated in the first reaction that the Irish DPC is legally responsible for privacy on Facebook for all users in the European Union and that he will "investigate complaints using full legal force if necessary". The complaint was filed in Ireland because all users who are not residents of the United States or Canada have a contract with "Facebook Ireland Ltd", located in Dublin, Ireland. Under European law Facebook Ireland is a "data controller" for facebook.com, and as such, facebook.com is governed by European data protection laws. Facebook Ireland Ltd. founded by Facebook Inc. to avoid US taxes (see Dual Irish setting).
The 'europe-v-facebook.org' group makes access requests on Facebook Ireland and receives up to 1,222 pages of data per person in 57 categories of data Facebook stores about them, including data previously deleted by users. Despite the amount of information provided, the group claimed that Facebook did not give them all the data. Some non-inclusive information is "likes", data about new face recognition functions, data about third-party websites that use "social plugins" visited by users and information about uploaded videos. The group currently claims that Facebook has at least 84 categories of data about each user.
The first 16 complaints target different problems, from the old "pokes" that are not deleted to the question if new sharing and functionality on Facebook must be included or opted out. The second wave of 6 more complaints targets more problems including one against the "Like" button. The most severe can be a complaint that claims that the privacy policy, and approval for the privacy policy are nullified under European law.
In an interview with Irish Independent, a spokesman said the DPC would "go and audit Facebook, enter the building and discuss in great detail every aspect of security". He went on to say: "This is a very significant, detailed and intense effort that will last for four or five days." In December 2011, the DPC has published its first report on Facebook. The report is not legally binding but suggests changes to be made up to July 2012. DPC plans to conduct a review of Facebook's progress in July 2012.
Changes
In the spring of 2012, Facebook has to make many changes (for example, having an extended download tool that allows users to use European rights to access all stored information or privacy policy updates around the world). These changes are deemed insufficient to comply with European law by europe-v-facebook.org. Download tools do not allow, for example, access to all data. The Group has launched our-policy.org to suggest improvements to the new policy, which they see as a privacy background on Facebook. Because the group managed to get over 7,000 comments on Facebook pages, Facebook had to vote all over the world for proposed changes. Such voting will only bind if 30% of all users will take part. Facebook does not promote voting, earning a participation of only 0.038% with about 87% voting against Facebook's new policy. The new privacy policy applies on the same day.
Non-member Facebook tracking
An article published by USA Today in November 2011 stated that Facebook creates a log of pages visited by both its members and by non-members. Relying on tracking cookies to track visited pages, the United States Congress and the World Wide Web Consortium are attempting to set new guidelines for addressing Internet privacy issues, potentially giving users the ability to restrict or discontinue technology companies from tracking their activity.
In early November 2015, Facebook was ordered by Belgian Privacy Commissioners to stop non-user tracking, citing European legislation, or risk up to Ã, Â £ 250,000 per day. As a result, instead of deleting tracking cookies, Facebook prevents non-user users from viewing any material on Facebook, including publicly posted content. On the grounds that cookies provide better security, Facebook says in a statement: "We are disappointed we can not reach an agreement and now people will be asked to sign in or register for an account to view publicly available content on Facebook."
Divorce
Social networks, such as Facebook, can have a detrimental effect on marriage, with users becoming worried about their partner's contacts and relationships with others online, causing marital harm and divorce. According to a 2009 survey in the UK, about 20 percent of divorce petitions include several types of references to Facebook. Facebook has given us a new platform for interpersonal communication. The researchers propose that high levels of Facebook use can lead to conflicts and divorce/divorce related to Facebook. Previous research has shown that romantic relationships can be undermined by excessive Internet use, Facebook jealousy, partner supervision, ambiguous information, and intimate online portrayal. Excessive internet users are reported to have greater conflict in their relationships. Their spouses feel neglected and there is a lower commitment and a lower feeling of passion and intimacy in relationships. According to the article, researchers suspect that Facebook can attribute increased levels of divorce and infidelity in the near future because of the amount of accessibility to connect with past partners.
Stalking
According to statistics, 63% of Facebook profiles are automatically set to "visible to the public", meaning anyone can access profiles that have been updated by users. Facebook also has its own built-in messaging system so people can send messages to other users, unless they have disabled the feature "only from friends". Stalking is not just limited to SNS reconnaissance, but can lead to further "in-person" surveillance as nearly 25% of live casualty stalkers report it starting with online instant messaging (e.g., Facebook Chat).
Performance monitoring
Active monitoring is the notion that people are well aware that they are being hidden on websites, such as Facebook, and using oversight as an opportunity to describe themselves in ways that connote a particular lifestyle - where, the individual may, or may not, distort how they are felt in reality.
application privacy violation 2010
In 2010, Wall Street Journal found that many top-rated Facebook apps transmitted identification information to "dozens of advertising and Internet tracking companies". Applications use HTTP referrers that expose the identity of the users and sometimes the identity of their friends. Facebook says that "While the knowledge of user IDs does not allow access to anyone's personal information on Facebook, we plan to introduce a new technical system that will dramatically limit the sharing of User ID". A blog post by a Facebook team member further stated that "press reports have exaggerated the implications of sharing user IDs", although it still recognizes that some apps pass IDs in ways that violate Facebook policies.
Facebook and Cambridge Analytica data violations
In 2018, Facebook acknowledged that an app created by Global Science Research and Alexandr Kogan, associated with Cambridge Analytica, was able in 2014 to harvest personal data up to 87 million Facebook users without their consent, exploiting their friendship connections with users who sold their data through the application. Following the revelations of the violations, several public figures, including industrialist Elon Musk and WhatsApp partner Brian Acton, announced that they deleted their Facebook account, using a "#deletefacebook" hashtag.
Facebook is also criticized for allowing President Barack Obama 2012's campaign to analyze and target selected users by providing campaigns with friendship connections from users who sign up for an app. However, users who sign up for the app are aware that their data, but not their friends data, will go to a political party.
Employee-employee privacy concerns
In an effort to keep an eye on current personal life, or candidates, employees, some companies have asked employees to disclose their Facebook login information. This resulted in the passage of the bill in New Jersey making it illegal for employers to ask potential employees or current employees to access their Facebook accounts. Although, the US government has not yet passed national laws protecting prospective employees and their social networking sites, from employers, the fourth amendment of the US constitution can protect potential employees in certain situations. Many companies see Facebook profiles from job candidates looking for an excuse not to hire them. According to a survey of recruitment managers by CareerBuilder.com, the most common problem solvers they found on Facebook profiles included references to drinking, poor communication skills, inappropriate photos, and lying about skills and/or qualifications.
User is violating minimum age requirement
A 2011 study in the online journal First Monday examined how parents consistently allow 10-year-olds to register accounts, directly violating a Facebook policy that prohibits younger visitors. This policy complies with United States law, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act 1998, which requires minors under 13 to get explicit parental consent to access commercial websites. In jurisdictions where the same law imposes a lower minimum age, Facebook imposes a lower age. Of the 1,007 households surveyed for the study, 76% of parents reported that their children joined Facebook at the age of younger than 13, the minimum age in terms of site services. The study also reported that Facebook removes about 20,000 users every day for violating its minimum age policy. The study authors also noted, "Indeed, Facebook takes various good steps to restrict access to children and remove their accounts if they join." The findings of this study raise questions primarily about the shortage of US federal law, but also implicitly continue to raise questions about whether or not Facebook is sufficient to publish its terms of service with respect to minors. Only 53% of parents said they were aware that Facebook has a minimum age of registration; 35% of these parents believe that the minimum age is only a recommendation or think the age of registration is 16 or 18, not 13.
Student privacy issues
Students who post illegal or inappropriate material have faced disciplinary action from universities, colleges, and schools including dismissal. Others post defamatory content related to faculty also face disciplinary action. The Journal of Education for Business states that "recent studies of 200 Facebook profiles found that 42% had comments about alcohol, 53% had photos involving alcohol use, 20% had comments on sexual activity, 25% had photos seminude or provocative sexual, and 50% including profanity. "It is concluded that Facebook posts are negative or burdensome can affect the perceptions of alumni and prospective employers of them. This perception can greatly affect a student's relationship, ability to get a job, and maintain school enrollment. The desire for social acceptance leads to individuals wanting to share the most intimate details of their personal lives along with the use of drugs and binge drinking. Too often, the depictions of their daily lives are exaggerated and/or beautified to attract others as they think of them.
Effects on higher education
On January 23, 2006, The Chronicle of Higher Education continued the ongoing national debate on social networking with a section of opinion written by Michael Bugeja, director of the Journalism School at Iowa State University, entitled "Facing Facebook". Bugeja, author of the Oxford University Press Interpersonal Divide (2005), cites representatives of the American Association of University Professors and colleagues in higher education to document student disruptions using Facebook and other social networks during class and elsewhere in wireless campus. Bugeja was followed up on January 26, 2007 at The Chronicle with an article entitled "Distractions in Wireless Class", citing educators across the country banning laptops in the classroom. Similarly, organizations such as the National Association for Campus Activity, the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, and others have organized seminars and presentations to discuss the consequences of using Facebook by students and other social networking sites.
The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative has also released a short pamphlet entitled "7 Things You Should Know About Facebook" aimed at higher education professionals who "describe what [Facebook] is, where it goes, and why it's important to teach and learn".
Some research on Facebook in higher education indicates that there may be some minor educational benefits associated with using Facebook students, including increasing engagement related to student retention. The 2012 study found that the time spent on Facebook is related to involvement in campus activities. The same study found that certain Facebook activities such as commenting and making or RSVPing to the event were positively associated with student involvement while playing games and checking out negative related friends. Furthermore, using technology like Facebook to connect with others can help students become less depressed and overcome feelings of loneliness and longing.
Effects on student grades
As of February 2012, only four studies reviewed by colleagues have examined the relationship between Facebook usage and value. There are many differences in findings. Pasek et al. (2009) found no relationship between Facebook usage and value. Kolek and Saunders (2008) found that there was no overall difference in mean score (GPA) between users and non-users of Facebook. Kirschner and Karpinski (2010) found that Facebook users reported an average GPA of lower than non-users. The Junco Study (2012) clarifies the differences in these findings. While Junco (2012) found a negative relationship between time spent on Facebook and student's GPA in a large sample of students, the real-world impact of the relationship was negligible. Additionally, Junco (2012) found that sharing links and checking related friends positively with GPA while posting negative status updates relate. In addition to noting differences in how Facebook usage is measured among four studies, Junco (2012) concludes that the ways in which students use Facebook are more important in predicting academic results.
Phishing
The term phishing is one type of online fraud in which criminals try to trick people into revealing passwords, credit card information, and other sensitive information. Phishing takes the form of a Wall message or post that appears to be coming from someone on the Friends List of users but actually the message was sent by phishers using friend's login information. The phishers expect users to take a feed that results in phishers gaining access to Facebook user accounts. Soon after, other friend's friends will start getting phishing messages from what appears to be from a Facebook user. The point of posting is to get Facebook users to visit websites with viruses and malware.
Maps Criticism of Facebook
Psychological effects
Envy
Facebook has been criticized for making people jealous and unhappy because of constant exposure to the positive spotlight but not representing their peers. Such highlights include, but are not limited to, posting journals, videos, and photographs that depict or refer to positive, or other positive activity or experience. This effect is mainly due to the fact that most Facebook users typically only display positive aspects of their lives while excluding negative ones, although also strongly associated with inequalities and differences between social groups because Facebook is open to users of all classes of society. Sites like AddictionInfo.org state that this type of jealousy has a profound effect on other aspects of life and can cause severe depression, self-hatred, anger and hatred, hatred, low self-esteem and insecurity, pessimism, suicidal tendencies and desires, social isolation, and other problems that proved very serious. This condition is often called "Facebook Envy" or "Facebook Depression" by the media.
A joint study conducted by two German universities showed jealousy up and found that as many as one in three people actually feel worse and less satisfied with their lives after visiting the site. Vacation photos are found as the most common source of feelings of hatred and jealousy. After that, social interaction is the second biggest cause of jealousy, as Facebook users compare the number of birthday wishes, likes and comments to their friends. Visitors who contribute the least tend to feel the worst. "According to our findings, passive triggers annoying emotions, with users especially jealous of others, the way people spend their vacations, and socializing," the study said.
A 2013 study by researchers at the University of Michigan found that the more people use Facebook, the worse their feelings are afterwards.
Stress
Research conducted by psychologists from Edinburgh Napier University suggests that Facebook adds stress to the lives of users. Causes of stress include fear of losing important social information, fear of offending contact, discomfort or guilt for refusing user requests or removing unwanted or unfriendly contacts or being blocked by Facebook friends or other users, displeasure due to friend requests denied or ignored, pressure to entertain , criticism or intimidation from other Facebook users, and must use proper etiquette for different types of friends. Many people who start using Facebook for positive purposes or with positive expectations have found that websites have a negative impact on their lives.
In addition, the increasing number of messages and social relationships embedded within the SNS also increased the amount of social information that demanded the reaction of SNS users. As a result, SNS users feel that they are giving too much social support to other SNS friends. The dark side of the use of the SNS is called 'social overload'. This is due to the level of usage, the number of friends, the norm of subjective social support, and the type of relationship (online-only vs offline friends) while age has only an indirect effect. The psychological and behavioral consequences of social overload include the perception of SNS addiction, low user satisfaction, and high intent to reduce or stop using SNS.
Facebook Addictions
The "World Unplugged" study, conducted in 2011, claims that for some users who quit social networking sites it can be compared to quitting smoking or stopping drinking. Another study conducted in 2012 by researchers from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business in the United States found that drugs like alcohol and tobacco can not compete with social networking sites about their addiction rate. A 2013 study in the journal CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking found that some users decided to quit social networking sites because they felt they were addicted. In 2014, the site is down for about 30 minutes, prompting some users to call 9-1-1.
Other psychological effects
It has been recognized by many students that they have experienced bullying on the site, leading to a psychological hazard. High school students face possible bullying and other bad behaviors on Facebook every day. Many studies have sought to discover whether Facebook has a positive or negative effect on the social life of children and adolescents, and many of them have come to the conclusion that there are different social problems that arise with the use of Facebook. British neurologist Susan Greenfield is caught up in the problems facing children on social media sites. He says that they can replay the brain, which causes some hysteria about whether the social networking site is safe or not. He does not support his claim with research, but does cause some research to be done on the subject. When the self is subsequently knocked down by others by shame, criticism, harassment, criminalization or slander, intimidation, demonization, demoralization, belittling, or attacking someone on the site can cause a lot of jealousy, anger, or depression.
Sherry Turkle, in his book Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less Than One Other , argues that social media brings people closer and further apart at the same time. One of the main points he makes is that there is a high risk in treating people online by sending such items. Although people network on Facebook, their hopes for each other tend to decrease. According to Turkle, this can cause feelings of loneliness though together.
Attempt user impact
Academic researchers and Facebook have collaborated to test whether messages people see on Facebook can influence their behavior. For example, in the "61-Million-People Experiment in Social Influence and Political Mobilization," during the 2010 election, Facebook users were given the opportunity to "tell your friends that you chose" by clicking the "I choose" button. 2% users are more likely to click the button if it's related to a friend who has already chosen.
Much more controversial, a 2014 study on "Emotional Contagion Through Social Networks" manipulates the balance of positive and negative messages viewed by 689,000 Facebook users. The researchers concluded that they have found "some of the first experimental evidence to support controversial claims that emotions can spread throughout the tissue, [though] the effect size of small manipulations."
Unlike the "I choose" study, which has a tip that is considered beneficial and raises some concerns, this study was criticized both for ethics and methods/claims. As a controversy about this study, Adam Kramer, lead author of both study and a member of the Facebook data team, defended work on Facebook updates. A few days later, Sheryl Sandburg, Facebook COO, made the statement while traveling abroad. While at an Indian Chambers of Commerce show in New Delhi he stated that "It is part of an ongoing research company to test the various products, and that is what it is.That is poorly communicated and for the communication we are sorry for. intends to upset you. "
Shortly thereafter, on July 3, 2014, USA Today reported that the privacy control group Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) had filed an official complaint with the Federal Trade Commission claiming that Facebook had violated the law while conducting research on the emotions of its users without their knowledge or consent. In its complaint, EPIC alleges that Facebook has tricked its users by secretly performing psychological experiments on their emotions: "At the time of the experiment, Facebook did not state in the Data Usage Policy that user data would be used for research purposes and that Facebook failed to notify users their personal information will be shared with researchers. "
Beyond ethical issues, other scholars criticized the method and reported the research findings. John Grohol, writing for Psych Central, argues that regardless of the title and the claim of "emotional contagion," the study does not see any emotion at all. Instead, the author uses an application (called "Linguistic Request and Word Count" or LIWC 2007) which only counts positive and negative words to infer user sentiment. He writes that the lack of LIWC tools is that he does not understand negation. Therefore, the "I'm not happy" tweet will be judged positively: "Because LIWC 2007 ignores the subtle reality of this informal human communication, so does the researchers." Grohol concludes that by this subtlety, the size of the findings effect is little more than "statistical blips."
Kramer et al. (2014) finds 0.07% - it's not 7 percent, it's 1/15 of a percent !! - decrease of negative words in people's status updates when the number of negative posts in their Facebook news feed decreases. Do you know how many words you should read or write before you write one less negative word because of this effect? Probably thousands.
The consequences of the controversy are pending (whether it is FTC or court proceedings) but it encourages "Editorial Expression of Concern" from its publisher, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as a blog post from OkCupid that "We experiment on humans!" In September 2014, James law professor Grimmelmann argues that the actions of the two companies are "illegal, immoral, and mood swings" and filed a notice to the Maryland Attorney General and the Cornell Institutional Review Board.
In the UK, this study was also criticized by the British Psychological Society which says, in a letter to The Guardian, "There is no doubt some degree of harm caused, with many individuals affected by the increase in negative emotional levels, with potential economic cost consequences, an increased likelihood of mental health problems and the burden on healthcare.Physipulation called 'positive' is also potentially dangerous. "
src: cdn.vox-cdn.com
Tax evasion
Facebook uses a series of elaborate shell companies in tax-free countries to avoid paying billions of dollars in corporate taxes. According to The Express Tribune , Facebook is one company that "avoids billions of dollars in taxes using offshore companies." For example, Facebook allocates billions of dollars in profits using the Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich tax avoidance schemes to bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. The Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad concludes from Paradise Papers published in late 2017 that Facebook pays "almost no tax" worldwide.
For example, Facebook paid:
- In 2011, a £ 2.9 million tax on profits of £ 840 million in the UK;
- In 2012 and 2013 there are no UK taxes;
- In 2014 Ã, £ 4,327 taxes on hundreds of millions of pounds in UK revenues are transferred to tax havens.
On July 6, 2016, the US Department of Justice filed a petition in the US District Court in San Francisco requesting a court order to enforce an administrative call issued to Facebook, Inc., under Internal Revenue Code section 7602, in connection with an Internal Revenue Service US federal income tax for fiscal year 2010.
src: i.ytimg.com
Misleading campaign against Google
In May 2011 email was sent to journalists and bloggers who made critical allegations about Google's privacy policies; However, it was later discovered that an anti-Google campaign, conducted by the Burson-Marsteller PR giant, was paid for by Facebook in what CNN called "new-level fraud" and the "Daily Beast" called a "smeary smeary". While taking responsibility for the campaign, Burson-Marsteller says it should not agree to keep the identity of his client (Facebook) as confidential. "Whatever the reason, this is by no means a standard operating procedure and contrary to our policies, and the assignment of those terms should be rejected," he said in a statement.
src: cdn.vox-cdn.com
Content
Andrew Bosworth Facebook Vice President wrote in a leaked memo, "It may be the cost of living by exposing a person to a bully, maybe someone dies in a coordinated terrorist attack on our tool.This is really just what we do.We connect people. That's why all the work we do in growth is justified. "
Intellectual property violations
Facebook has also been criticized for its loose enforcement of third-party copyright for videos uploaded to the service. By 2015, some Facebook pages are accused of plagiarizing videos from YouTube users and re-posting them as their own content using the Facebook video platform, and in some cases, achieving a higher level of engagement and viewing than the original YouTube post. Videos hosted by Facebook are given higher priority and superiority in the platform and user experience (including live embedding in News Feeds and pages), providing a loss for posting it as a link to the original external source. In August 2015, Facebook announced a video matching technology aimed at identifying re-posted videos, and also expressed its intention to improve its procedures for removing infringing content more quickly. In April 2016, Facebook implemented a feature known as "Rights Manager", which allows rights holders to manage and restrict their upload of content to services by third parties.
Violent content
In 2013, Facebook was criticized for allowing users to upload and share videos depicting violent content, including clips of people being decapitated. Having previously refused to remove the clip under the guidelines that users have the right to describe "the world we live in", Facebook changed its stance in May, announcing that it will remove the reported video when evaluating its policy. The following October, Facebook stated that it would allow graphical video on the platform, as long as the intent of the video was "cursing, not glorifying, the actions depicted", further stating that "Sometimes these experiences and issues involve graphic content that is of interest public or concerns, such as human rights violations, acts of terrorism and other violence.When people share this type of graphic content, often cursing it.If it is shared for sadistic pleasure or to celebrate the violence, Facebook removes it. "However, Facebook is once again received a criticism, with the Family Online Safety Institute saying that such videos "crossed the line" and potentially caused psychological damage among young Facebook users, and then British Prime Minister David Cameron called the ruling "irresponsible." ", citing the same concerns about young users.2 Two days later, Facebook removed the beheading video after" worldwide outrage, "and while recognizing its commitment to allowing people to upload bloody material for the purpose of punishment, it also stated that it would further strengthen its enforcement to prevent breeding.Company policy is also criticized as part of this development, with some drawing particular attention to graphic content licenses from Facebook but potentially eliminating breastfeeding images.In January 2015, Facebook announced that new warnings will be displayed on graphic content, which requires users to explicitly confirm that they want to view the material.
Facebook Live
Facebook Live, introduced in August 2015 for celebrities and gradually launched for regular users starting January 2016, lets users broadcast live videos, with Facebook intent for features that will feature public events or private celebrations. However, this feature has been used to record various crimes, deaths, and violent incidents, causing significant media attention.
Facebook has received criticism for not deleting videos faster, and Facebook Live has been described as a "monster [Facebook] can not tame" and "terrible crime scene for murder". In response, CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in May 2017 that the company will hire 3,000 people to review the content and invest in tools to delete videos faster.
Pro-anorexia Group
In 2008, Facebook was criticized for its hosting group dedicated to promoting anorexia. These groups promote dramatic weight-loss programs, share extreme diet tips, and post pictures of skinny girls under the heading "Throat". Members report having switched to Facebook from Myspace, another social networking service, because of the higher level of security and intimacy felt on Facebook. In a statement to the BBC News, a Facebook spokesperson stated that "Many Facebook groups are dealing with controversial topics, this alone is not a reason to disable the group.In cases where content is reported and found to be in violation of the terms of use of the site, Facebook will delete it. "
Pro-mafia group case
In Italy in 2009, the discovery of pro-mafia groups, one of which claimed the sanctity of Bernardo Provenzano, led to warnings in the country and led the government to immediately pass legislation that would force Internet service providers to deny access to the entire website within case refuses removal of illegal content. The amendment was passed by the Italian Senate and must now be passed without being changed by the House of Representatives to be effective.
Facebook criticized the government's efforts, saying Bloomberg that it "would be like closing the entire rail network simply because of offensive graffiti on one station", and that "Facebook will always remove content that promotes violence and already has procedures takedown on the spot. "
Trolling
On March 31, 2010, The Today Show runs a segment detailing the deaths of three separate teenage girls and the subsequent troll reaction to their deaths. Shortly after the suicide of high school student Alexis Pilkington, anonymous posters began trolling for reactions on various message boards, referring to Pilkington as "CUSS suicide", and posting graphic images on his Facebook memorial page. This segment also includes a 2006 accident exhibit, in which an eighteen-year-old student came out for a fatal drive crashing into his father's car onto a road pole; the troll sent an e-mail to his grieving family, photographs of his mutilated corpse.
There are cases where Facebook "trolls" are incarcerated for their communications on Facebook, particularly the memorial pages. In Autumn 2010, Colm Coss of Ardwick, England, was sentenced to 26 weeks in prison under S127 of the Communications Act 2003 of the United Kingdom, for "malicious communication" for leaving messages that are considered obscene and painful on the Facebook memorial page.
In April 2011, Bradley Paul Hampson was sentenced to three years in prison after pleading guilty to two charges of using the train service, the Internet, causing a violation, to post on Facebook memorial pages, and one count respectively distributing and possessing child pornography when he posted a picture on the deceased's memorial page with the phallus laid out with phrases like "Woot I'm dead".
Page rape
A series of pro-rape content and 'joke rape' on Facebook drew the attention of the media and women's groups. Rape Is No Joke (RINJ), a group opposed to the page, argues that removing "pro-rape" pages from Facebook and other social media is not a violation of freedom of speech in the context of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the concepts recognized in human rights law international human rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. RINJ repeatedly challenged Facebook to remove the rape page. RINJ then turned to advertisers on Facebook who told them not to let their ads be posted on Facebook 'rape pages'.
Following a campaign involving Women, Action and Media, Everyday Sexualism Projects and activist Soraya Chemaly, who is among 100 advocacy groups, Facebook agrees to update its policy on hate speech. The campaign highlights content that promotes domestic and sexual violence against women, and uses more than 57,000 tweets and more than 4,900 emails to create results like withdrawals from Facebook by 15 companies, including Nissan UK, House of Burlesque and Nationwide UK. The social media website initially responded by stating that "While it may be vulgar and offensive, unpleasant content by itself does not violate our policies", but then agreed to take action on May 29, 2013 after which "it became clear that our system was to identify and remove hate speech failed to function as effectively as we wanted, especially around gender-based hatred issues. "
Image of child abuse
In June 2015, the British National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children voiced concern about Facebook's apparent denial when asked to remove controversial video material that allegedly shows babies under emotional distress.
In March 2017, BBC News reported in the investigation that Facebook only deleted 18 of the 100 groups and posts that have been reported because it contains images of child exploitation. The BBC has been given interviews with Facebook policy director Simon Milner on condition that they provide evidence of such activities. However, when presented with a picture, Facebook canceled the interview, and told the BBC that it had been reported to the National Crime Agency for illegally distributing images of child exploitation (the NCA could not confirm whether the BBC was actually being investigated). Milner then declared to the BBC that the investigation had uncovered the defect in the process of moderating its already handled image, and that all reported content was removed from service.
Women's Objection Source of the article : Wikipedia
Kramer et al. (2014) finds 0.07% - it's not 7 percent, it's 1/15 of a percent !! - decrease of negative words in people's status updates when the number of negative posts in their Facebook news feed decreases. Do you know how many words you should read or write before you write one less negative word because of this effect? Probably thousands.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments