Talk:Facebook

Agreement with Iran and Syria

FACEBOOK WON'T LET KARA KLOSS AND KYLE STRICKENBERGER LOG IN!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.154.2 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not usually find myself agreeing with the abovementioned states, but I will on this issue. Facebook, and all other applications like it, are iniquitous. They encourage self-promotion, egoism, abuse, scandal, prostitution and even public riot, as the girl who advertised her party on the site found out when over 100 gatecrashers turned up. I personally have no idea why someone would wish to advertised themselves in this way, and can only expect trouble if they do.

I understand the point you are making but the fact remains that free speech, which is what facebook for all intents and purposes is, should not be restricted. And while self-promotion and egoism can be seen as negative personality traits, no one has the right to say you can not practice them. The issue here is not whether the concept of facebook is "right" or wrong, rather the issue is people need to learn more personal responsibility. A knife can kill. But a knife can also cut you a nice piece of pie. Jersey John (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't people be satisfied by email, a letter or a telephone call? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.10.43 (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

People have the right to chose what satisfies them. Facebook satisfies a vast majority of people. Anyone who questions why could be seen as a snob. Jersey John (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Let's pick and chose our battles, folks. Facebook really isn't worth a cultural crusade...

The fact that you propose censorship because a website is not to your taste is shocking (158.223.169.40 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

CIA funding

Would anyone mind sorting out how exactly the CIA is linked to Facebook. What is true is that there are people who have sat both on the boards of CIA funded companies and on the board of Facebook. I think the interesting questions are : Who are these people? Are the tightly linked to the CIA? Or are the just rich people who have gotten in involved in many new companies? 141.150.252.200 (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• hehehe well the term 'CIA' doesn't appear at all on the article page, so I hope that answers your questions! hahahahahahaha -- Sdfijiuefh (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, and the page is locked. I think we have our final answer. -- Sdfijiuefh (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't answer a thing. Something tells me that the CIA has nothing to do with Facebook, unless you're talking about the spies that are hidden within Facebook management. DeathNomad 04:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Facebook becoming a paysite?

I've heard from various sources, that Facebook will no longer be free. Whats the status on this?--67.150.52.92 (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine a billion dollar company changing their MO at this point. I see nothing credible that indicates they will charge in the future. ^Law _shoot! 03:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Care to clarify "sources"? DeathNomad 04:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Facebook page language

My facebook signin page is coming up in Japanese and I don't know how to change it back to english. Can anyone give me a clue? Thanks, 97.90.55.36 (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Tom

use en.gb.facebook.com that should work it out Lukelouvon (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A discussion page is for the discussing of the article, not Facebook tech support. DeathNomad 04:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Spying, stealing data

Has anyone else noticed that the ads he is presented with on Facebook are strongly correlated to the content he/she's been viewing on Youtube??? Well, I have. It's kind of scary that about every third ad that I see on Facebook connected to what I've been watching on Youtube and these things are usually uncommon, so it can't be accident.

iPhone

Does this really merrit a reference? Facebook is available on many mobile platfroms such as Blackberry. If it is to be included should we not just blend it in to the Platform section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macutty (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of just blending it in the platform section. It's not very common for websites to have non-computer access that is both highly supported and regularly used so I think that it's still worth calling out the dual-use. But I completely agree that this doesn't warrant a whole section.Jopo sf (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that mobile use of Facebook is worth mentioning, but specific mention of the iPhone's app is unnecessary and unfair. Other platforms (WM, BB, Nokia) support Facebook apps and have high usage statistics. See last paragraph of [1] in which usage statistics indicate significant competition in this market. Anon user23 (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC) But isn't important about apple not letting facebook update the app? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.4.3 (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Just added a short section detailing Facebook on the BlackBerry, Nokia S60 and Android. Hopefully this goes at least some way to solving the discrepancy! Thecurran91 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is out-of-date: There is an app for Android: http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=74769995908 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.35.42 (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

face-book.com

"The company dropped The from its name after purchasing the domain name facebook.com in 2005 for $200,000."

That's not true and it's by your own reference. They already owned facebook.com and wrestled face-book.com away from a spammer. You might want to correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.213.91.220 (talk • contribs)

Banned in Iran?

I don't think that facebook is banned in Iran. I have many friends living in Iran using facebook without any problems. Even official statesmen are using this plattform. For instance, Mousavi used it in his election campaign and is still using it. www.facebook.com/mousavi Also former president Chatami has got an official account. Please correct it in the article.

outdated employee count

the number of employees that work for facebook is out of date the number of employees has gone from 700+ in 2008 to 900+ in 2009 here is the referance 200.32.232.37 (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Gabe 24/8/09

Banned in Syria ?

Due to the open nature of Facebook, several countries have banned access to it including Syria, China and Iran? This information is incorrect.

Facebook is NOT banned in Syria, searches on Facebook will still show users, groups and pages for Syria and contact is still available. Furthermore the references are in fact 2 years old, this information should be updated. Delly54 (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Separate articles for website and business

The article, and related articles, could be improved by creating separate articles about Facebook as a website, social networking mechanism, and internet phenominon; separate from an article about Facebook, Inc. as a business. Then, re-incorporate information from the article Criticism of Facebook into each article. It would be better to have balanced articles about narrower topics then to divide larger topics into pro and con articles. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

New Alexa Rank

As of today it is not the third ranked site, as stated in the article and template, but the second follow here for proof: http://www.alexa.com/topsites

== Facebook Owns You == Or at least they can without your permission for using your photographs from your personal profile. Facebook has changed their Terms of Service, and it now OWNS what was once your personal property. Check this out. In their Terms of Service -- which you agree to when you sign up for an account -- they say "Facebook members now release full control of their social networking content to the company including the right to copy, modify, distribute, use images and descriptions for commercial use or advertising." In a nutshell, this means that if you've uploaded images of yourself and/or your kids, Facebook may decide to use them in any way they choose: including putting them in one of their advertising campaigns without compensating you or maybe even letting you know about its use. Approximately 20,000 protest groups have formed on the site -- all strongly opposed to the new terms. One outraged member had this to say: "If I decide to close my account and have all associated data deleted, that should be my choice. If I want to yank a blog post, I have that ability. Why should Facebook be any different?" Prior to these changes, FB said it only had rights to use content while the user was a member of the service. Now, FB will hold those rights even if a user cancels their membership. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg posted a blog entry in an attempt to explain the new terms saying: "We wouldn't share your information in a way you wouldn't want," he said. "The change was designed to reassure users that account deactivation would not mean that data they had shared with friends would be wiped from the site." This is supposed to reassure users? It seems like it would be more of a concern to have lingering peronal property floating around the web. If you decide to close your account, shouldn't your information be yours and not theirs? BTW: Did you know Facebook can also share your information with lawyers, companies and government agencies?