Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Facebook Votes 4 Stupidity

More hypocritical and redundant "democracy", this time from Facebook.  A vote is up for a "governing" document, called Rights and Responsibilities, that includes the following two rules:

3.8 You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.
4.4 You will not use Facebook if you are a convicted sex offender.

The later is unnecessary given the former.  Combining to two implies that Facebook can discriminate but its members cannot.  And how is 4.4 enforced?  It implies than a non-member could browse facebook.com and be in violation, so Facebook is extending its "jurisdiction" to action performed outside those who signed up?!  Does this fall under the legal concept of theft?? or thought-crime?  "I'm sorry officer.  I saw Pamela's big titties on the billboard.  I didn't know one wasn't suppose to stop and gawk."

This kind of hyper-morality undermines the ethical changes needed to actually prevent something like rape.  Today, a 16 year old guy can "sext" his 15 year old girlfriend, be convicted as a sex offender, registered for life, and not join Facebook.  This is not the same as a 35 year old teacher luring a student into sex.  This is silly.

What about this revision:

3.8  Both Facebook (governing members) and its members will read the laws of their respective governments, from national to local, and act accordingly.
4.4  If you have ever been registered as an officer of a company that has filed for bankruptcy, or if you have ever litigated on behalf of a company filing for bankruptcy, or ever acted on behalf of a bankrupt company to liquidate debts, or sat as a judge who ordered a company's bankruptcy, then you may not create a Facebook account.  Sorry; you failed.

Cast your vote, and say silly things like them.


( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
Apr. 17th, 2009 07:39 pm (UTC)
The United States of Facebook

How many votes does it take to ratify the "Document of Governance?"
Apr. 17th, 2009 11:10 pm (UTC)
Apr. 20th, 2009 08:10 pm (UTC)
The later is unnecessary given the former.

No. You could be a sex offender without using facebook to do it. i.e. You could take your clothes off and strip across a football field and be convicted as a sex offender.
Apr. 21st, 2009 03:00 am (UTC)
This is why philosophers ... suck. Context obviates the intent of the rules as 'use of Facebook'. One cannot use Facebook whilst flashing football kids; one can post pictures of yourself mooning the audience. My point was why separate one kind of felon that is contextually meaningful to Facebook, like fraud? or theft? It was probably put there to satisfy parents, but Facebook could stick to its guns and require a minimum age of 18.

Note that the rules actually imply that posting a picture, even privately, implies that no one can steal it. However, posting a private picture of one's bum and a 13 year old member somehow looking at it -- despite hacking or fraud or however they got to it -- could spell time in the slammer for *you*. The rules have gone too far in seeming to protect while actually protecting people less.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )