Social media

[Richard Barrett]

That'll bring tears to his eyes!

That's right, lower the tone why don't you.

[Flay]

Yeah, GCHQ are on to that

I'm fleeing the country as I write this...

Going skiing

[Old Grumpy]

That's right, lower the tone why don't you.

But, nabbing his heirlooms would raise the tone, surely?

[MrGongGong]

I'm fleeing the country as I write this...

Going skiing

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear: Mr Pee

Who vanished and is now washing dishes in a Siberian gulag ?

[StephenMcK]

Yeah, GCHQ are on to that

I have never had a FB account. I dislike FB with a vengeance - I'll perhaps explain why in a few moments.

I have had several Twitter accounts - which I used to test the system, and I once or twice tried to use it to achieve some sort of "result". Decided it was/is a wast of time. I also read a book about how Twitter was developed, which was interesting.

I have had a linkedIn account - but I never use it.

What irritates me about some of these is that some try to take over one's whole online life. The assumption that everyone has a FB account, so one can log into other sites via FB - that struck me as very opportunistic. When Spotify tried to make log in "easier" by only allow access by FB, I complained - and it seems that others did too, as the policty was changed afterwards.

I have heard of Twitter being used for useful purposes, and I hear good reports of some useful FB sites. For me there are a few issues, particularly with FB, so I'll address the issues taking FB as the main target of my criticism.

1. Sites which form walled gardens, and which try to expand their user base by "ease of use" features such as log ins to other sites. Walled gardens are perhaps very good for very small local groups, but there is no need for the data to be handled either nationally or internationally. An example might be a small intranet for use within a school. Just because there are technical and resource issues with running such a system is no reason to outsource such activities to a possibly untrusted third party organisation.

2. Privacy. Data and information which is made available on the internet is now global. I don't necessarily want the whole world to know that I went to the toilet at 9.50am on 16th September, 20014 - either now, or for ever more. I don't trust any web sites to honour privacy now, or in the future, or even if they do, they can be hacked.

This is unfortunate - as I can see the use of a real closed user group for real friends and family, but but trusting a third party organisation (web site) with commercial interests to provide that and keep my data/privacy secure - NO!

3. Many of the sites are administered within the US. This means that data traffic goes across the Atlantic, and also that data security and privacy are dealt with under the US regime. In itself that needn't be an issue, as there wouldn't necessarily be a better situation if the companies were based in the UK or the EU. My view - see point - is that if I don't want people to know that I went to the toilet at 9.50am on September 16, 2014, I shouldn't post that anywhere. People who give information away carelessly are foolish.

4. There has been a history of some sites folding, or merging with others, or being relocated to other jurisdictions. Rules can change. These can - almost certainly will - have an impact on the issues mentioned in points 1-3.

5. Re time wasting - I've seen many people spend hours on FB, not always perhaps to good effect.

6. I have limited presence on the web - this board, and one other, and I also use a couple of photo sites. I do waste time with these, but for my purposes I don't think this is totally unreasonable.

That provides a very good overview, Dave2002.

Re. time wasting, I always say that so much of internet browsing contains empty calories. Like grazing, one successfully passes the time but only on a diet of limited nutritional value.

There is an insidiousness about the walled garden. Quite why, I'm not too sure, but it seems to be a very American concept to want to to coral groups. In the universities they have all these fraternities while amongst the professions there are Lodges and the like.

It seems to be born of an an assumption that everyone is of the same standard, outlook, ambition. Herding seems to be the ultimate social model. It extends also to a commonality of language. In AOL land everyone is reduced to 'buddy' or 'bud' and a term such as 'what's up' is copied and replicated and even becomes the name of a social application (Whatsapp).

Maybe it is endemic of America as the great nation of salesmanship. There was scarce a remotest corner of the new frontiers to which a Sears catalogue could not reach, hardly a neighbourhood that could not be cajoled into the vibrant hum of tupperware parties.

Now that herding instinct has become entrenched with much of social media. I mean herding in the active sense as opposed to the passive ie. we are being herded by third party agents.

Social media users are now the product. Notice how on Facebook there's no upgrade option such as you might have on the likes of 'Spotify' where you can opt out of the advertising in return for a subscription.

No, they absolutely don't want you to be turning things off by which they can silently introduce you to all sorts by their various back channels and algorithms.

Similarly, for all the various privacy options that are available, these have to be opted into. What's more, should you venture down that path you'll be confronted with a lot of 'are you really sure you want to do that?', 'You're about to turn off x, this means you won't have access to y'. Are you sure you want to do that?' or 'turning off this option could well result in social isolation, boycotting by your neighbours and a definite and major decrease in the number of Xmas cards you'll receive next year, if you any at all, that is. Are you REALLY sure you want to do that??!!'.

Okay, so I may have made the last one up, but you get the idea. It's a classic 'fear of missing out' strategy that social media applications love to use.

My personal approach has been to tightly control what I will disclose on the likes of FB and remind myself that I am conversing with the world on a open phone line.

[Old Grumpy]

That provides a very good overview, Dave2002.

Similarly, for all the various privacy options that are available, these have to be opted into. What's more, should you venture down that path you'll be confronted with a lot of 'are you really sure you want to do that?', 'You're about to turn off x, this means you won't have access to y'.

I find this on my Android phone. I don't "do" any of the major social media. When I try and clear space on my phone by removing unused apps for the major social media providers (which were already on the phone when I got it), I am met with a message to the effect that removal of that particular app could affect the remainder of the phone's functionality - why? To date I have not had the courage to delete these apps, in case the phone goes into meltdown.

OG

[StephenMcK]

I find this on my Android phone. I don't "do" any of the major social media. When I try and clear space on my phone by removing unused apps for the major social media providers (which were already on the phone when I got it), I am met with a message to the effect that removal of that particular app could affect the remainder of the phone's functionality - why? To date I have not had the courage to delete these apps, in case the phone goes into meltdown.

OG

You can remove most apps with impunity, OG. They can always be loaded up again.

[Frances_iom]

don't forget that Google (who control Android) are only interested in being able to use your info so as to sell targeted adverts - much of Android software is devoted to tracking you both geographically (via GPS, nearby WiFi links all mapped by tat Google car photographing your street) and in terms of web sites visited (look at google tags, the additional tracking added to most web pages (this page may be exceptional tho I do block the yahoo refs), google docs etc etc) - google has set up its chrome system such that it is almost impossible to avoid these trackers - under Android it is impossible to avoid them

[Dave2002]

don't forget that Google (who control Android) are only interested in being able to use your info so as to sell targeted adverts - much of Android software is devoted to tracking you both geographically (via GPS, nearby WiFi links all mapped by tat Google car photographing your street) and in terms of web sites visited (look at google tags, the additional tracking added to most web pages (this page may be exceptional tho I do block the yahoo refs), google docs etc etc) - google has set up its chrome system such that it is almost impossible to avoid these trackers - under Android it is impossible to avoid them

Also don't forget that when Unix was invented the originators were quite happy not to have any security, or special features, as they never imagined that their system would be misused. It took a while before they realised that their assumptions were wrong. Now we have web sites, and I don't suppose many thought way back then that these would become global, and that "useful" features would actually be abused. I used to like technology, but now, although I still want to use computers, either as stand alone devices or connected to very few services which I (perhaps misguidedly) trust, I don't want all of my activities to be made to conform to other peoples' (organisations) ideas of what I should be doing. Nor do I want someone in a far off land taking over control of my microwave, my fridge, freezer, lawn mower, heating or vacuum cleaners. I don't even want the people next door doing that.

[Frances_iom]

Dave - Unix did have security features - eg it marked file access rights as accessible to owner, owner's group + rest of world; it had a special user called root who had 'god powers' - all users had passwords; admittedly these were somewhat simple but recall unix would run on a PDP-9 which probably is equivalent in compute power to at best a model A raspberry pi - compute power was very limited and just could not support today's cryptographic based security features - however the BSD system (derived from Unix) is seen as today's most secure system.

It was the initial internet protocols that did not forsee a world with numerous bad actors who for various reason - theft, devilment or delight in wanton destruction - would emerge once the internet escaped outside of academia

[MrGongGong]

It was the initial internet protocols that did not forsee a world with numerous bad actors who for various reason - theft, devilment or delight in wanton destruction - would emerge once the internet escaped outside of academia

Are you suggesting that everyone INSIDE academia is 100% benign ?

(asking for a friend)

[Nick Armstrong]

That'll bring tears to his eyes!

Eric Morecambe is not dead, just running the R3 Forum!

I junked Facebook a while back, I was rarely interested in the procession of stuff, wasted time on idly amusing things, most of the people I know have left it or never used it, plus I don’t like the cut of Zuckerberg Inc.’s jib.

Having said that, I do use messaging apps owned by Facebook (Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp) and there seem to be links (see below) between Facebook and Skype which I also use sometimes. The main purpose of these for me is to stay in direct contact with family and friends both elsewhere in the UK and notably abroad and I find that a huge plus. The messaging service on Twitter and Snapchat I also use for the same thing. The multiplicity of these platforms is slightly annoying, but a response to the media preferred by those I know, often as a function of their age group: x only chats on Messenger, y on Snapchat, z on Instagram etc etc. The groups available on WhatsApp are useful, e.g. for family or for the motor racing activities I’m involved with.

Those are all private messages. Twitter and Instagram do have a public-facing social media function and I use them to follow events & people. I never post personal stuff, though have been known to issue the odd public tweet

You need to use the FB Purity browser extension, which will magically make all such things disappear. Highly recommended. (Not by Mark Zuckerberg of course.)

I sort of visually tune-out advertising online - there’s so much peripheral junk online (e.g. all the suggestions etc when you use the BBC Sounds app) - I just learn how to get to the page or post I want and ignore everything else.

However this thread made me a touch more aware, and I noticed that sandwiched among the conversations on Skype was an advert which changed each time the app was opened. Looking into it, I found that these are apparently Facebook-generated even though I don’t use Facebook... but that a phone setting can help combat this. On my phone (iPhone) I learned that there is a setting buried at the bottom of a couple of lists which opts out of targeted advertising. On iPhone, it’s at:

Settings > Privacy > Advertising > Limit Ad Tracking

Moving the switch by the latter entry to the On position has so far removed all advertising on Skype. A bonus... if it continues (*crossed fingers emoji*)

In summary, I wouldn’t be without social media for private communications but make less and less use of it for any public purpose.

[Jonathan]

I use Facebook regularly. As someone who has a very niche hobby (shell collecting), it's great for connecting with other people elsewhere in the world. I've done many swaps with people from all over the place and learnt a lot from other collectors. I've joined in numerous musical discussions online sometimes even with people from here!

Wouldn't go anywhere near twitter as it sounds totally pointless.

[Dave2002]

There is an insidiousness about the walled garden. Quite why, I'm not too sure, but it seems to be a very American concept to want to to coral groups. In the universities they have all these fraternities while amongst the professions there are Lodges and the like.

Walled gardens do, or should have, a place - but they should be strongly walled and controlled. I used to work in a place where we claimed we offered a safe place. People could write stuff, post it, make mistakes. We could then review it, and give advice. If the material was in any way difficult we could address the issues, and make sure it was deleted. Many schools and universities, local authorities and other organisations, should be doing this kind of thing, and in the past my guess is that company intranets were quite closely guarded.

I just don't believe that third party sites can offer the level of security, privacy and guarantees for the future which some in-house organisations may desire. The "wisdom" in the computer community is that it is cheaper and safer to outsource data storage to third party organisations. This is something which I have long believed to be false, though a lot does depend on what the data is.

For purely commercial organisations which are not dealing with sensitive data there may be advantages, and indeed this can lead not only to "storage in the cloud", but also "processing in the cloud", with much processing being carried out on very powerful systems, which may be charged by the minute or micro-second. Some small organisations may find this very helpful, as they don't have to employ many IT personnel, and have a lot of equipment, while also some large organisations may find this useful - but hopefully they will have done some sort of risk assessment before deciding on this mode of operation.

I really dislike sites which require me to log in or have a "registration" with them before I'm even allowed to browse them. One I encountered recently is Wish. Facebook is, as far as I'm concerned, a complete No-No, and only this afternoon I actually wanted to check out buying something (simple - not controversial, apart perhaps from some environmentalists - a supply of logs to burn - and since I live in an area where there are many wood offcuts etc. they may be long term more or less carbon neutral ... maybe ...) and I completely ignored one possibly very reasonable supplier as the only way I could find out what was being offered was by a Facebook page. As I don't have an FB account and have no intention of having one, that supplier will not get my business.

There are just so many things wrong with so many web sites, and also the GDPR and general policies which have been developed, supposedly to help users - that I'll stop here, and not write any more for the moment.

[Dave2002]

Wouldn't go anywhere near twitter as it sounds totally pointless.

Agree, but allegedly if you have a complaint about a product or service, it might be more effective to mention this on Twitter as to write a letter of complaint. Can't say I've found that to be the case, but others claim it works, due to companies not liking to be trashed on the tweet bird site.

There have been some quite ingenious and sensible uses of Twitter, but probably a lot of really stupid or bad ones.

One other thing which is really disturbing is that apparently nowadays people can't get jobs if they don't have a presence on one or more social media sites. It used to be the case that employers would scan the web looking for stupid and bad things that potential employees have done (which I think sometimes is very unfair ... most people have done some stupid things in the past ...), but now it seems they also look down on people who don't have social media accounts. Maybe, rather they don't actually look down on them - just not look at all. Probably the first round of shortlisting for job vacancies is now done by an automated robot, rather than a secretary who will bin paper applications at random, before passing a few on for further consideration.