4 ms·

Is not joining Facebook a sign you're a psychopath?

6 points by baha_man 14y ago

mooism2 14y ago
At best: not proven. At worst: "no smoke without fire"--style prejudice. A couple of high profile criminals haven't had Facebook accounts. From this some people have inferred that people without Facebook accounts are up to no good. This is incorrect reasoning. It would be an interesting study that compared a random sample of people with Facebook accounts to a random sample of people without Facebook accounts. But no such study appears to have contributed to these claims.
- to3m 14y ago
  Well it's the Daily Mail, innit? What else did you expect when you clicked the link? Sex offenders aren't allowed on facebook, so expect a headline very soon that anybody without a facebook account is probably a rapist or a paedophile - if not both.
  - mooism2 14y ago
    Yes, it's the Daily Mail, and yes, it's a headline ending in a question mark. But I'm not the person who trawls the Daily Mail for links to post to HN. I was curious about what their rationale was. I wasn't expecting it to be particularly justified.
- tokenizer 14y ago
  And what about other social networks. This is favoritism at best, and prejudiced at worst. I use twitter, so wouldn't that substitute the social network need (that we didn't need 20 years ago but now determines our mental health...)?
ksec 14y ago
What about those with non Active Facebook account? Same Treatment?
pferde 14y ago
"The common concern among bosses is that a lack of Facebook could mean the applicant's account could be so full of red flags that it had to be deleted." "lack of Facebook", is that some kind of newspeak, as in "not enough Facebook", or "take 200 grams of Facebook every four hours"? DailyMail, you go lower and lower.
beeneto 14y ago
Since I can't believe that someone linked a Daily Mail article on HN for the content, I assume this was posted as an example of how incompetent reporting can lead to the spread of ignorance? It is quite an interesting example of that.

6 points by baha_man 14y ago

At best: not proven. At worst: "no smoke without fire"--style prejudice. A couple of high profile criminals haven't had Facebook accounts. From this some people have inferred that people without Facebook accounts are up to no good. This is incorrect reasoning. It would be an interesting study that compared a random sample of people with Facebook accounts to a random sample of people without Facebook accounts. But no such study appears to have contributed to these claims.

to3m 14y ago
Well it's the Daily Mail, innit? What else did you expect when you clicked the link? Sex offenders aren't allowed on facebook, so expect a headline very soon that anybody without a facebook account is probably a rapist or a paedophile - if not both.
- mooism2 14y ago
  Yes, it's the Daily Mail, and yes, it's a headline ending in a question mark. But I'm not the person who trawls the Daily Mail for links to post to HN. I was curious about what their rationale was. I wasn't expecting it to be particularly justified.
tokenizer 14y ago
And what about other social networks. This is favoritism at best, and prejudiced at worst. I use twitter, so wouldn't that substitute the social network need (that we didn't need 20 years ago but now determines our mental health...)?

ksec 14y ago

What about those with non Active Facebook account? Same Treatment?

pferde 14y ago

"The common concern among bosses is that a lack of Facebook could mean the applicant's account could be so full of red flags that it had to be deleted." "lack of Facebook", is that some kind of newspeak, as in "not enough Facebook", or "take 200 grams of Facebook every four hours"? DailyMail, you go lower and lower.

beeneto 14y ago

Since I can't believe that someone linked a Daily Mail article on HN for the content, I assume this was posted as an example of how incompetent reporting can lead to the spread of ignorance? It is quite an interesting example of that.