5 ms·

That was weird. I stopped using Facebook a few years ago (don't remember when), because something trivial about the site annoyed me (don't remember what). The

by phaemon 11y ago

That was weird. I stopped using Facebook a few years ago (don't remember when), because something trivial about the site annoyed me (don't remember what). The author seems to have written many accounts of what a terrible company Facebook is, how LGBT people are treated appallingly by them, how they're starting in on refugees and how they're ruining privacy for everyone. And then jumped through every possible hoop in order to keep using their website! Is she just confused about how boycotts work?

hasenj 11y ago
Maybe she thinks using Facebook is a basic human right or something. I say if you hate a website just don't use it. It's really simple.
- 5ilv3r 11y ago
  Public shaming _has_ proven to be very effective
- trhway 11y ago
  a lot of people are gullible, naive, insufficiently informed, etc... This is why along with basic "buyer beware" policy most developed societies have strong consumer protection laws in place too. Facebook is just preying on such people as there are no laws to protect them from it.
morganvachon 11y ago
> And then jumped through every possible hoop in order to keep using their website! I don't think you read the entire article. Her goal at this point is to delete her account[1], which she cannot do until she regains control of the account. She's at a stalemate right now. [1]"But now I just want out. I want my account deleted. I want the bullshit, inaccurate pages Facebook creates about me without my consent gone, too, but that’s just a bitter little joke for the ages, isn’t it? Facebook is just going to do whatever the fuck it wants to me. And to you."
- phaemon 11y ago
  I did read the whole thing. Her goal now is to get the account deleted. She was trying to keep using the site before they asked for an official ID. "Facebook is just going to do whatever the fuck it wants to me. And to you." Perhaps, I don't know what Facebook is doing to me. I didn't delete my account, I just stopped using it. It fact, I still get emails from them that are redirected to a 'facebook' folder that I haven't checked in a while. I'll check now. Hmm 1,558 unread messages...ok... Oh well, if it was important, they would have phoned or emailed or something :)
- hugh4 11y ago
  I tried reading the entire article, I really did. But it kept jumping around and losing focus from one thing to another that she was upset about. Eventually I figured out the answer to the question I came here for. It turns out that the reason the author is sitting at home crying on a Saturday night is because he/she/it is an emotionally unstable wreck who can't deal with life's minor inconveniences and enjoys creating drama where none exists. If you get locked out of your account and refuse (out of paranoia) to prove your identity to get back into it... well, there's not much that they can do for you. Don't like it? Don't use facebook.
  - morganvachon 11y ago
    Facebook's mistreatment of LGBT folks is a real, documented thing that has existed for many years, and one of their pain points for that group is forcing a person to provide government ID and a "real name", which can then be used to ban the account for "misrepresenting" their sexual orientation as well as expose them to harassment from hate groups. The author is an outspoken advocate for LGBT rights, so I can see where she is coming from with this. > It turns out that the reason the author is sitting at home crying on a Saturday night is because he/she/it is an emotionally unstable wreck... "he/she/it", really? The author clearly identifies as female, and you just outed your own bias against the very class of people she is fighting for.
    - techdragon 11y ago
      What's hilarious to me is this is one of the times, linguistically speaking, where you have an "easy out". The author could have used "they" without it being insulting since it's valid mostly normal English. I'm not a otherwise biased person here. I seriously can't understand why anyone feels the need to make make life harder for someone over a petty thing. Except when language matters. I often feel something I've started calling "pronoun paralysis" and it's not because I'm talking to someone that doesn't care about this and I'm attempting to "inject" bias into the conversation by awkwardly referring to a male to female post op female who identifies as female as anything other than "she". It's the opposite, when I want to talk in detail with someone about this topic who does care, or who is a member of the LGBT community, it's time to put on the linguistic bomb disposal suit and waddle my way awkwardly through a conversation like I'm recreating a scene from The Hurt Locker. Can we all just be more accepting of the use of they/them/theirs and end this mess? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
Buge 11y ago
She was using it for business and journalistic reasons, as she mentioned. And she didn't jump through every hoop. She didn't upload her ID.
mindslight 11y ago
I too can't help but mentally shout "Stop using Facebook!!" after reading every paragraph. But obviously Violet finds it more beneficial to use rather than not. I know she has long had a web presence, so it's not that she's lazy (although this post is on tumblr? sigh...). Presumably being a writer/blogger/etc, there is a huge audience of people who will "follow" her since it's already in their "workflow", yet won't expend the effort to check a proper blog or learn about RSS. But what she needs to do instead of crying, or perhaps after crying, is to get angry. Productively angry. This is the state of established webcrapps in 2015. This has been the inevitable result ever since "web 2.0" became a thing. This is why concerned hackers have been telling people to avoid webcrapps the whole time. Of course, many others sold their morals in lieu of money and social acceptance - it's so easy to use, even your parents can opt in to extra surveillance! The tide is starting to turn as more and more people realize what they're actually giving up by living under the yoke of proprietary software 2.0. And it is going to take people who are "in it" to reverse the trend. Assuming she is willing to start putting in more effort, how exactly can she replace all these "convenient" sharecropper "apps" she's gotten used to with self-administered technology that preserves her autonomy - while still engaging the lazy people who haven't learned how to use a personal computer, and even encouraging them to make the jump to the free world? One possible solution that comes to mind is publishing authoritatively on one's own platform, then syndicating to facebook/tumblr/whatever. Perhaps delayed by hours/days so that it's clear that the walled gardens are second class citizens. Make Facebook want your content more than you need them - similar to how unknown AOL keywords just redirected to .com. For text this actually seems pretty straightforward. Other types of media (mobile pictures etc) are going to be harder because thorough development and advertising take money, and investors (especially VC) obviously aren't looking to fund anything that isn't a trap ready to be monetized. But that is what freedom costs - the alternative is to continue to abdicate your autonomy one polished UI hipster crapp at a time.

by phaemon 11y ago

hasenj 11y ago

Maybe she thinks using Facebook is a basic human right or something. I say if you hate a website just don't use it. It's really simple.

5ilv3r 11y ago
Public shaming _has_ proven to be very effective
trhway 11y ago
a lot of people are gullible, naive, insufficiently informed, etc... This is why along with basic "buyer beware" policy most developed societies have strong consumer protection laws in place too. Facebook is just preying on such people as there are no laws to protect them from it.

morganvachon 11y ago

> And then jumped through every possible hoop in order to keep using their website! I don't think you read the entire article. Her goal at this point is to delete her account[1], which she cannot do until she regains control of the account. She's at a stalemate right now. [1]"But now I just want out. I want my account deleted. I want the bullshit, inaccurate pages Facebook creates about me without my consent gone, too, but that’s just a bitter little joke for the ages, isn’t it? Facebook is just going to do whatever the fuck it wants to me. And to you."

phaemon 11y ago
I did read the whole thing. Her goal now is to get the account deleted. She was trying to keep using the site before they asked for an official ID. "Facebook is just going to do whatever the fuck it wants to me. And to you." Perhaps, I don't know what Facebook is doing to me. I didn't delete my account, I just stopped using it. It fact, I still get emails from them that are redirected to a 'facebook' folder that I haven't checked in a while. I'll check now. Hmm 1,558 unread messages...ok... Oh well, if it was important, they would have phoned or emailed or something :)
hugh4 11y ago
I tried reading the entire article, I really did. But it kept jumping around and losing focus from one thing to another that she was upset about. Eventually I figured out the answer to the question I came here for. It turns out that the reason the author is sitting at home crying on a Saturday night is because he/she/it is an emotionally unstable wreck who can't deal with life's minor inconveniences and enjoys creating drama where none exists. If you get locked out of your account and refuse (out of paranoia) to prove your identity to get back into it... well, there's not much that they can do for you. Don't like it? Don't use facebook.
- morganvachon 11y ago
  Facebook's mistreatment of LGBT folks is a real, documented thing that has existed for many years, and one of their pain points for that group is forcing a person to provide government ID and a "real name", which can then be used to ban the account for "misrepresenting" their sexual orientation as well as expose them to harassment from hate groups. The author is an outspoken advocate for LGBT rights, so I can see where she is coming from with this. > It turns out that the reason the author is sitting at home crying on a Saturday night is because he/she/it is an emotionally unstable wreck... "he/she/it", really? The author clearly identifies as female, and you just outed your own bias against the very class of people she is fighting for.
  - techdragon 11y ago
    What's hilarious to me is this is one of the times, linguistically speaking, where you have an "easy out". The author could have used "they" without it being insulting since it's valid mostly normal English. I'm not a otherwise biased person here. I seriously can't understand why anyone feels the need to make make life harder for someone over a petty thing. Except when language matters. I often feel something I've started calling "pronoun paralysis" and it's not because I'm talking to someone that doesn't care about this and I'm attempting to "inject" bias into the conversation by awkwardly referring to a male to female post op female who identifies as female as anything other than "she". It's the opposite, when I want to talk in detail with someone about this topic who does care, or who is a member of the LGBT community, it's time to put on the linguistic bomb disposal suit and waddle my way awkwardly through a conversation like I'm recreating a scene from The Hurt Locker. Can we all just be more accepting of the use of they/them/theirs and end this mess? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

Buge 11y ago

She was using it for business and journalistic reasons, as she mentioned. And she didn't jump through every hoop. She didn't upload her ID.

mindslight 11y ago

I too can't help but mentally shout "Stop using Facebook!!" after reading every paragraph. But obviously Violet finds it more beneficial to use rather than not. I know she has long had a web presence, so it's not that she's lazy (although this post is on tumblr? sigh...). Presumably being a writer/blogger/etc, there is a huge audience of people who will "follow" her since it's already in their "workflow", yet won't expend the effort to check a proper blog or learn about RSS. But what she needs to do instead of crying, or perhaps after crying, is to get angry. Productively angry. This is the state of established webcrapps in 2015. This has been the inevitable result ever since "web 2.0" became a thing. This is why concerned hackers have been telling people to avoid webcrapps the whole time. Of course, many others sold their morals in lieu of money and social acceptance - it's so easy to use, even your parents can opt in to extra surveillance! The tide is starting to turn as more and more people realize what they're actually giving up by living under the yoke of proprietary software 2.0. And it is going to take people who are "in it" to reverse the trend. Assuming she is willing to start putting in more effort, how exactly can she replace all these "convenient" sharecropper "apps" she's gotten used to with self-administered technology that preserves her autonomy - while still engaging the lazy people who haven't learned how to use a personal computer, and even encouraging them to make the jump to the free world? One possible solution that comes to mind is publishing authoritatively on one's own platform, then syndicating to facebook/tumblr/whatever. Perhaps delayed by hours/days so that it's clear that the walled gardens are second class citizens. Make Facebook want your content more than you need them - similar to how unknown AOL keywords just redirected to .com. For text this actually seems pretty straightforward. Other types of media (mobile pictures etc) are going to be harder because thorough development and advertising take money, and investors (especially VC) obviously aren't looking to fund anything that isn't a trap ready to be monetized. But that is what freedom costs - the alternative is to continue to abdicate your autonomy one polished UI hipster crapp at a time.