3 ms·

>But by making Safety Check a default expectation Facebook flips the norms of societal behavior and suddenly no one can feel safe unless everyone has manually c

>But by making Safety Check a default expectation Facebook flips the norms of societal behavior and suddenly no one can feel safe unless everyone has manually checked the Facebook box marked “safe”. I'm not buying this statement. Where is the evidence of this? The article features two tweets from nondescript people stating they think the feature spreads unnecessary fear, but features no tweets from people who actually felt unnecessary fear. Are there any cases of people who felt afraid because their loved ones didn't check in even though they could have? Otherwise to me this argument is just speculation.

SeeDave 9y ago
It's not speculation, in my opinion, because the "Safety Check" feature gives the impression that every human being potentially affected by a terrorist attack/natural disaster/unfortunate circumstance is completely and totally unsafe (killed, raped, beaten, burned, and so on) lest they broadcast their safeness to Facebook. It's one thing to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, but is it not equally damaging to imply that loved ones are in danger lest they broadcast their safety on your platform?
- clusmore 9y ago
  >but is it not equally damaging to imply that loved ones are in danger lest they broadcast their safety on your platform? Facebook aren't implying this, you're suggesting that people are inferring this. Again, without any evidence. I have yet to hear anybody actually complain that they were afraid because one of their loved ones didn't check in. I haven't been on either end of this feature yet, but from the article it looks like the wording to potential victims is "We want you to know that you can use Safety Check to post that you're safe" and for the loved ones of potential victims, that they are "not marked as safe yet". This doesn't sound like an implication of anything to me, but then again I'm not the sort of person to infer that my friends are unsafe because they haven't told me explicitly that they are safe, Facebook or otherwise.
- statictype 9y ago
  >It's not speculation, in my opinion If its not speculation, then presumably there is some evidence of people actually complaining about this? The complaints are all of the form 'I think people may not like it because of the following rational reasons' rather than 'I was in a disaster and failed to mark myself as safe and all my family became worried about me unnecessarily ' For whatever its worth, I've been in disaster areas a couple of times - Facebook asked me to mark myself as safe, I ignored it - and literally nothing happened. Because when there's a disaster, people have better ways of communicating their safety than posting on facebook.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  It seems you mistyped "Facebook" where you meant "mainstream media". The very reporting on that stuff is what makes you feel everyone is affected. What Facebook's Safety Check does is reduce the number of people calling everyone they know potentially in the area - potentially helping to avoid overloading the cellphone networks.
huac 9y ago
I was in Paris during the bombings, and the Facebook interface then showed 'friends in the area, who haven't checked in' - it goes out to all your friends, which increases the number of people who get worried.

SeeDave 9y ago

It's not speculation, in my opinion, because the "Safety Check" feature gives the impression that every human being potentially affected by a terrorist attack/natural disaster/unfortunate circumstance is completely and totally unsafe (killed, raped, beaten, burned, and so on) lest they broadcast their safeness to Facebook. It's one thing to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, but is it not equally damaging to imply that loved ones are in danger lest they broadcast their safety on your platform?

clusmore 9y ago
>but is it not equally damaging to imply that loved ones are in danger lest they broadcast their safety on your platform? Facebook aren't implying this, you're suggesting that people are inferring this. Again, without any evidence. I have yet to hear anybody actually complain that they were afraid because one of their loved ones didn't check in. I haven't been on either end of this feature yet, but from the article it looks like the wording to potential victims is "We want you to know that you can use Safety Check to post that you're safe" and for the loved ones of potential victims, that they are "not marked as safe yet". This doesn't sound like an implication of anything to me, but then again I'm not the sort of person to infer that my friends are unsafe because they haven't told me explicitly that they are safe, Facebook or otherwise.
statictype 9y ago
>It's not speculation, in my opinion If its not speculation, then presumably there is some evidence of people actually complaining about this? The complaints are all of the form 'I think people may not like it because of the following rational reasons' rather than 'I was in a disaster and failed to mark myself as safe and all my family became worried about me unnecessarily ' For whatever its worth, I've been in disaster areas a couple of times - Facebook asked me to mark myself as safe, I ignored it - and literally nothing happened. Because when there's a disaster, people have better ways of communicating their safety than posting on facebook.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
It seems you mistyped "Facebook" where you meant "mainstream media". The very reporting on that stuff is what makes you feel everyone is affected. What Facebook's Safety Check does is reduce the number of people calling everyone they know potentially in the area - potentially helping to avoid overloading the cellphone networks.

huac 9y ago

I was in Paris during the bombings, and the Facebook interface then showed 'friends in the area, who haven't checked in' - it goes out to all your friends, which increases the number of people who get worried.