April 21, 2015Organizations should treat social media as they would any other electronically stored information and assume it is potentially discoverable. Und...
March 26, 2015Feeling overwhelmed by the massive amount of customer feedback data you’re collecting? You’re not alone! Many businesses are struggling to find...
February 20, 2015Symantec, the global technology security provider, needed to provide its global customer base access to social customer service. They were...
February 20, 2015An Employee Advocacy program has value beyond your company’s marketing department. The community you build will be the single most important...
Nov 21 Posted 3 months ago
I agree with your article. I've been hearing news about what Facebook does to innocent people. In fact, we are giving them millions. They don't even care to help. So I did use a VPN (Virtual Private Network), to protect my online identity. I get my VPN from https://ironsocket.com -- I've used many providers before but I find them very slow, so I switched to ironsocket which makes me happy. VPN are created for Security, Privacy, and Freedom. At this time, I am protected on Facebook and I get to enjoy my Freedom, Privacy, and Security.
May 22 Posted 9 months ago
Jenny I agree with this post. I have been using facebook. Now, I can see how evil it is. My cousin is not accepting the fact and he loses his temper when somebody says facebook is evil. Facebook exploited my cousin against me.
Jan 25 Posted 1 year ago
Aloha, How importaint is Facebook for social media?
Jan 3 Posted 1 year ago
Jenny, I would have to say I very much agree with the general sentiment of this post. I've had an issue with Facebook for some time now and recently wrote an article about its relentless pursuit of profit, putting the safety of Facebook users at risk.
An example was one of those irritating and numerous, right hand side of the page Facebook adverts, "3 simple amazing ways to melt belly fat!" i'm sure you've seen similar. Well, one such Facebook ad went to a page designed to look like the website of a well know, trusted health magazine, It had nothing to do with them and made outrageous claims in direct violation of Facebook’s own published advertising guidelines.
The health magazine was aware of fraudulent use of their branding in the advert and on the landing page, and were in the process of taking legal action. Some of the claims made in the advert were simply absurd, including losing very large amounts of weight in the matter of days. Even if a human were to stop eating all together, that amount of weight loss in such a short time would not be possible.
As well as putting this sort of rubbish in front of impressionable young girls, the claims were fraudulent as was the business behind the advertising. When reported to Facebook, they did nothing at all, allowing the fraudsters to continue advertising using someone else’s identity for many months.
This shows a blatant disregard for Facebook users and it angers me that no one is holding Facebook accountable. If a TV or magazine was running adverts it knew full well were fraudulent and full of lies, they would be held accountable - how is it that there are different rules for Facebook?
Add to this their control over the newsfeed leading to an estimated 2.5% of posts ever being seen by followers. EdgeRank, essentially rewards popularity and totally ignores quality and relevance, giving enhanced visibility to big popular brands and those able to pay. As a profit making organisation, they are of course free to make money using whatever business model they choose, and continual tweaks and changes are normal, but you ask anyone on the street and they don't have the faintest idea about EdgeRank or just how severely Facebook restricts what they ever actually see in their newsfeed.
Facebook is highly socially irresponsible and they are not transparent in the slightest. Next consider Google's latest algorithm changes, that make it nigh on impossible for a small, start-up or independent internet retailer to obtain any sort of meaningful organic search visibility; I see claims of both Facebook and Google anti-competitiveness becoming more frequent over the coming months.
They have essentially created a system where big brands that are popular or have large budgets are given the lions share of visibility, whilst small businesses struggle and are forced into paying (e.g. AdWords or Facebook advertising) for some small hope of visibility - the thing is, paid advertising isn't a magic wand - quite aside from it being prohibitively expensive for most independents, start-ups and small businesses, often it just doesn't provide a good enough ROI to make it viable.
Google won't rank you well in organic search unless you are an authority (i.e. a thought leader or big brand), but you can't become an authority if you have no visibility. Facebook won't show your content in newsfeeds unless it is 'valuable' which basically means, paid for, or popular and you can't pay for visibility with no budget or without a good ROI and your content won't ever be 'popular' unless you have thousands of followers; and it can take a new business years to build a community of any meaningful size.
Something has got to give, the creation of this two-tier system favours big budgets and big brands. Just like the UK high street, the internet (or Google at least) is increasingly about homogeneity; with the same old big brands demanding attention leading, to indie internet retailers being unable to reach or even find a market.
Jan 3 Posted 1 year ago
Though some of the points here are valid, the way they are presented is very, very basic and short-sighted. As an example: "They change them constantly whenever they want and don't seem too concerned about what some of their users think about the changes." In fact, every other social network (website, for that matter) makes continual changes and refinements. Some will be well-received, others not so much. That is ok, and Facebook has asked for feedback at times. It is part of the evolution of social media and the overall online media ecosystem.
I am in no way defending Facebook - I hardly use it for personal purposes anymore. However, this article isn't particularly effective in proving Facebook is "evil." Rather, it is another in a set of (valid) arguments that Facebook may be losing its luster.
Jan 3 Posted 1 year ago
I too agree that Facebook is a real evil.Facebook has monopoly in social networking and it is expoliting its users for money.It has created a whole new virtual world and disconnected people from the real world.