My topic was about the affects of social networking on society. I believe that there are many negative as well as positive aspects that have to do with social networking. There are dangers with using Facebook, as well as any other social networking site simply because you are releasing your information to the Internet, and as long as you have put your information up, someone will be bound to find a way to get to it. I have learned many things from this, such as all of the dangers that are involved with using social network sites. There are many people who can manipulate users (pedophiles, hackers, advertisers, etc.) online, and get as much information as they want and need. This has made me learn to never add someone on Facebook if I do not know exactly who they are. But there are also positives, people have started to work together to find kidnapped children, learn about other cultures, and connect with friends and family from around the world.
I believe that in the future, social networking will have found a way to make everything much more private. Users will be able to go on the Internet without having to fear who they might meet. I also believe that we will find a way to track down pedophiles and hackers much more easily in the future, allowing us to eliminate the dangers that they involve. Hopefully this will happen soon, but we will just have to wait and see.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Public Warned of Social Networking Dangers
http://www.insurancedaily.co.uk/2010/12/13/public-warned-of-social-networking-dangers/
This article is about how most of the public is unaware of how dangerous social networking is. In this article it says that 82% of people are unaware that their email addresses can be sold publicly on the Internet. These addresses can be very helpful to professional burglars. Last month, on Facebook, they launched a new application that allows us to state our exact location at all times of the day. Over half of users would not use these services if they knew that their address could be given out publicly.
This article is about how most of the public is unaware of how dangerous social networking is. In this article it says that 82% of people are unaware that their email addresses can be sold publicly on the Internet. These addresses can be very helpful to professional burglars. Last month, on Facebook, they launched a new application that allows us to state our exact location at all times of the day. Over half of users would not use these services if they knew that their address could be given out publicly.
This is an important issue because it shows just how ignorant Internet users can be. Using a simple site like Facebook, Twitter, or Myspace can allow us to be searched by burglars and used against us. There are many dangers that are involved in these, as shown in previous articles, and I don't think that enough of the people who use them are aware of them.
I want to know why these websites aren't making people more aware of the dangers. I also want to know why we don't have to accept legal conditions that show that giving our email address away on the Internet can have horrible consequences (also shown in the previous articles that I have posted). These websites seem to be more corrupted with every danger discovered, and they are doing nothing to try to change it.
Facebook Privacy
http://memeburn.com/2010/12/is-there-really-a-desire-for-social-network-privacy/
This article is about the privacy, or lack there of on Facebook. In the 90s, Internet use reached a new high, and we were spending increasing time online. With social networking, this number has continued to grow. Facebook has often been targeted for criticism based on the lack of privacy we have on the website. The website has changed based on the amount of people who use it, and one of the main incomes of Facebook is advertising. Facebook began with no advertising, and then there was some. Soon, the advertisements were user specific, meaning that the advertisements that you were seeing were specifically tailored to you. All that Facebook has said on the matter is "if you don't like it, you are free to leave us".
This article is about the privacy, or lack there of on Facebook. In the 90s, Internet use reached a new high, and we were spending increasing time online. With social networking, this number has continued to grow. Facebook has often been targeted for criticism based on the lack of privacy we have on the website. The website has changed based on the amount of people who use it, and one of the main incomes of Facebook is advertising. Facebook began with no advertising, and then there was some. Soon, the advertisements were user specific, meaning that the advertisements that you were seeing were specifically tailored to you. All that Facebook has said on the matter is "if you don't like it, you are free to leave us".
I think that this is an issue because if advertisers can tell what your interests are and who would be interested in buying their product, this means that basically anyone could be finding out your interests, where you live, and how old you are, anybody could. Facebook has really shown that they aren't interested in whether you really care about privacy, because people are not leaving the website, even though they are upset about it. Facebook currently has over 630-million users, and they know that they will continue to grow whether they care about privacy or not.
I want to know why these people who are criticizing and complaining about the lack of privacy on Facebook have not updated their privacy setting. Facebook has recently come out with a setting that you can change if you want, and there are many things you can do to make yourself feel safe (only allowing yourself to add others, instead of others adding you, not allowing strangers to see your pictures, birthday, age, where you're from, email, etc). I also want to know why Facebook hasn't done anything more. If they made everything more private, I'm sure that would have many more users.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Facebook Divorce
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Break-up-in-marriage-Blame-it-on-your-social-network-site/articleshow/7125184.cms
This article is about how Facebook is involved in one out of five divorces in America. Facebook is one of the primary sources of evidence in 66% of divorce cases. Pictures and videos off of Facebook are admissible in court. Using pictures of young married people with classmates, friends, and colleagues makes it easier to charge with infidelity. In a recent case, a man took photos of his wife to court of her with male colleagues before they were married and used them against her in court.
This article is about how Facebook is involved in one out of five divorces in America. Facebook is one of the primary sources of evidence in 66% of divorce cases. Pictures and videos off of Facebook are admissible in court. Using pictures of young married people with classmates, friends, and colleagues makes it easier to charge with infidelity. In a recent case, a man took photos of his wife to court of her with male colleagues before they were married and used them against her in court.
This article is about how Facebook is involved in one out of five divorces in America. Facebook is one of the primary sources of evidence in 66% of divorce cases. Pictures and videos off of Facebook are admissible in court. Using pictures of young married people with classmates, friends, and colleagues makes it easier to charge with infidelity. In a recent case, a man took photos of his wife to court of her with male colleagues before they were married and used them against her in court.
This article is about how Facebook is involved in one out of five divorces in America. Facebook is one of the primary sources of evidence in 66% of divorce cases. Pictures and videos off of Facebook are admissible in court. Using pictures of young married people with classmates, friends, and colleagues makes it easier to charge with infidelity. In a recent case, a man took photos of his wife to court of her with male colleagues before they were married and used them against her in court.
I believe that this issue is important because there is no longer any privacy in young couples' relationships. Jealousy is a natural feeling, and when seeing pictures of their husbands or wives with the opposite sex, it starts fights and causes the relationship to crumble. If couples' respected each other's privacy and trusted each other, I don't think that this would be an issue.
I want to know why couples' give their partner their passwords to these websites. Obviously people want to be optimistic about their relationships but they should also be realistic. If things don't work out with their partners, and love becomes hate, their ex's can and will use pictures off the internet against them. I also want to know why Facebook can be used as evidence in court. Pictures can be taken from any time period and can also be manipulated. I don't understand why Facebook pictures are admissible in court.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
You've Got To Have 150 Friends
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26dunbar.html
This article is mainly about how Facebook has revolutionized how we interact with one another. Scientists have discovered Dunbar's number, which is the number of people we can have meaningful relationships with; around 150. People leave your life and enter your life, allowing someone who was once one of the most important people in your life to be one of the most distant of your 150 friends. Facebook helps to connect people, who otherwise we would lose contact with. The article states that in the real world, we devote 40% of our time each week to the 5 most important people we know, and that it is impossible to have more than 5 best friends when interacting face to face, one person at a time. Facebook allows us to speak to many people at once.
Dunbar's number is very thought provoking, simply because it makes a lot of sense. There are few people that I interact with every day. Having more Facebook friends does not mean that one has more friends in the real world, because they cannot maintain more than approximately 150 relationships. This means that they could know a person, but never really interact.
I believe that this is one of the most positive aspects of Facebook, simply because it allows us to connect with people around the world that we normally would lose contact with. Personally, I met people from many countries when I was in Africa, and Facebook has let me continue to contact with them. I also know many people (from past sports teams, vacations, etc.) that I can still talk to because of the social networking site.
This article is mainly about how Facebook has revolutionized how we interact with one another. Scientists have discovered Dunbar's number, which is the number of people we can have meaningful relationships with; around 150. People leave your life and enter your life, allowing someone who was once one of the most important people in your life to be one of the most distant of your 150 friends. Facebook helps to connect people, who otherwise we would lose contact with. The article states that in the real world, we devote 40% of our time each week to the 5 most important people we know, and that it is impossible to have more than 5 best friends when interacting face to face, one person at a time. Facebook allows us to speak to many people at once.
Dunbar's number is very thought provoking, simply because it makes a lot of sense. There are few people that I interact with every day. Having more Facebook friends does not mean that one has more friends in the real world, because they cannot maintain more than approximately 150 relationships. This means that they could know a person, but never really interact.
I believe that this is one of the most positive aspects of Facebook, simply because it allows us to connect with people around the world that we normally would lose contact with. Personally, I met people from many countries when I was in Africa, and Facebook has let me continue to contact with them. I also know many people (from past sports teams, vacations, etc.) that I can still talk to because of the social networking site.
Facebook Child Pornography
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/policing-predators-vigilantes-blast-facebook-for-failing-to-protect-children-20101214-18w8m.html
This article is about Facebook predators who are sharing child pornography pictures and videos, and internet safety experts who believe that the social networking site has failed to put an end to it all. A group page has been made, called Social Network Safety Watch (SoNeSaW) in which they search out pedophiles and report them until their account has been deleted. Unfortunately, it usually takes 50 to 100 reports before a profile is removed, and it can still take a few days after that. Then, the person who has been reported can simply make a new profile, come back and do it all again. Some in the group SoNeSaW want the US government to lay charges on those swapping child pornography.
Unfortunately, online predators can easily get to children without them knowing. They pose as children by using pictures of young kids on their profile and listing that they are still in school on their page. This can help them to convince their victims to send naked pictures or videos of themselves to them. This article states that there are over 500 million users on Facebook, and there is no way that the social networking site can keep up with policing all of them.
I believe that this issue is important because it should be so easy to find and arrest those posting child pornography on Facebook, simply because there are so many users, and people should be able to find the pedophiles. Unfortunately, they are able to block their profiles so only their Facebook friends can see it. I think that Facebook should hire people (if they haven't already) to find the dangerous people using the site and get them removed permanently.
I want to know why Facebook hasn't made it so that, if someone gets reported multiple times on charges of child pornography, they are banned permanently from the computer they are using. This would make the search for pedophiles seem much less hopeless, because every time someone got deleted, we would know that they weren't coming back.
This article is about Facebook predators who are sharing child pornography pictures and videos, and internet safety experts who believe that the social networking site has failed to put an end to it all. A group page has been made, called Social Network Safety Watch (SoNeSaW) in which they search out pedophiles and report them until their account has been deleted. Unfortunately, it usually takes 50 to 100 reports before a profile is removed, and it can still take a few days after that. Then, the person who has been reported can simply make a new profile, come back and do it all again. Some in the group SoNeSaW want the US government to lay charges on those swapping child pornography.
Unfortunately, online predators can easily get to children without them knowing. They pose as children by using pictures of young kids on their profile and listing that they are still in school on their page. This can help them to convince their victims to send naked pictures or videos of themselves to them. This article states that there are over 500 million users on Facebook, and there is no way that the social networking site can keep up with policing all of them.
I believe that this issue is important because it should be so easy to find and arrest those posting child pornography on Facebook, simply because there are so many users, and people should be able to find the pedophiles. Unfortunately, they are able to block their profiles so only their Facebook friends can see it. I think that Facebook should hire people (if they haven't already) to find the dangerous people using the site and get them removed permanently.
I want to know why Facebook hasn't made it so that, if someone gets reported multiple times on charges of child pornography, they are banned permanently from the computer they are using. This would make the search for pedophiles seem much less hopeless, because every time someone got deleted, we would know that they weren't coming back.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Chatroulette
http://www.eaglenews.org/taking-your-chances-with-chatroulette-1.2418213
This article is about the social network Chatroulette, in which you are connected with random people around the world. In 2010, Chatroulette was the top searched website on Google. This article shows that even though there are many messed up people that you may be connected with, such as naked men, or people threatening to hurt children or animals, many students like to sign onto the website just for the entertainment purposes. Chatroulette was first created in 2009, with 500 people a day when it first debuted. Now the website has over 1.5 million users a day.
I believe that this website is both a genius and repulsive idea. I think that if there weren't as many frightening people logging on to the website, those who use Chatroulette could learn more about cultural differences and meet many new and exciting people. Unfortunately, I think, the website has been used in a sick way, causing those to go on to just expect to see many naked men and trolls (one who deliberately causes maximum destruction and damage in a conversation on the Internet). There have been users who have threatened to harm their children unless those who have been connected to them remove their clothing. There have also been others who have placed a bird in front of a snake and threatened to let the bird be killed unless, once again, the opposite party removes their clothing.
I want to know why a website like this hasn't been made, just with more protection and monitoring. If there was a website where all the naked men were banned, then people could actually meet someone on the Internet and get to know them. Being able to see the person you are talking to can make it much safer, because you know what they look like, and their age. If someone made a website like this, it might even be safer than social networks like Facebook, where you cannot see who you add.
This article is about the social network Chatroulette, in which you are connected with random people around the world. In 2010, Chatroulette was the top searched website on Google. This article shows that even though there are many messed up people that you may be connected with, such as naked men, or people threatening to hurt children or animals, many students like to sign onto the website just for the entertainment purposes. Chatroulette was first created in 2009, with 500 people a day when it first debuted. Now the website has over 1.5 million users a day.
I believe that this website is both a genius and repulsive idea. I think that if there weren't as many frightening people logging on to the website, those who use Chatroulette could learn more about cultural differences and meet many new and exciting people. Unfortunately, I think, the website has been used in a sick way, causing those to go on to just expect to see many naked men and trolls (one who deliberately causes maximum destruction and damage in a conversation on the Internet). There have been users who have threatened to harm their children unless those who have been connected to them remove their clothing. There have also been others who have placed a bird in front of a snake and threatened to let the bird be killed unless, once again, the opposite party removes their clothing.
I want to know why a website like this hasn't been made, just with more protection and monitoring. If there was a website where all the naked men were banned, then people could actually meet someone on the Internet and get to know them. Being able to see the person you are talking to can make it much safer, because you know what they look like, and their age. If someone made a website like this, it might even be safer than social networks like Facebook, where you cannot see who you add.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)