5 ms·
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 peopl
by 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 agoWell 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 agoYes, 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 agoAnd 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...)?