12-17-2011 Colorado:
I feel compelled to applaud the Coloradoan for the recent change to Facebook-only online comments. Go Coloradoan! Fewer methods of commenting are always preferable to opening comments up to the masses.
Homogeneity and agreement are certainly preferable to unconstructive, widespread dissent. The loss of anonymity and elimination of "selective censorship" is sure to result in a much nicer tone, an important priority.
Going Facebook-only is simply recognizing a trend, like starlets' lip augmentations. And don't even get me started about Facebook's security and privacy practices - we should all feel so safe.
Thanks also to the Coloradoan for helping increase Facebook membership in advance of next year's IPO. More membership will increase the IPO value, supporting the 1 percent of job creators such as Mark Zuckerberg.
While the jobs created aren't local and no "concrete" product is produced by Facebook, all in all it's still a very clear message of where the Coloradoan places its priorities.
Is it safe for me to assume that fewer online comments will mean the Coloradoan is planning to devote more printed space for comments? I won't hold my breath for an answer and lest anyone wonder, I am now removing my tongue from my cheek quite easily (no puffy lips)! ..Source.. by Susan Perry, Fort Collins
Showing posts with label (.Censoring the Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label (.Censoring the Internet. Show all posts
December 17, 2011
Facebook comments like lip augmentation
December 15, 2011
Facebook comments on "censorship"
Notice how they fail to address their "Social Plugins" which seem to violate their own Policies (See their link below)12-15-2011 National:
Amid the ongoing storm about the government's request to internet firms to screen user content, Facebook has released a statement that says:
"We want Facebook to be a place where people can discuss things freely, while respecting the rights and feelings of others, which is why we have already have policies and on-site features in place that enable people to report abusive content.Read Facebook's rules for what it allows online ..Source.. by NDTV Correspondent
We will remove any content that violates our terms, which are designed to keep material that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity off the service.
We recognize the government's interest in minimizing the amount of abusive content that is available online and will continue to engage with the Indian authorities as they debate this important issue"
Stoeffler: Change in comments procedure sets off debate
Maybe these News sites, and Facebook, need to read what the U.S. Supreme Court has to say about "Annoynmous Commenting" see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, prohibiting anonymity violates constitutional rights. As to the question of federal involvement, are their federal laws governing the Internet, are their federal discrimination laws and yes they control private parties as well.12-15-2011 National:
Last Sunday's column on the end of anonymous commenting at News-Leader.com generated nearly 400 mostly anonymous comments from mostly unhappy people.
Offline, and in feedback on Facebook, the conversation was much more supportive.
Of course, since we're switching to a system using Facebook, you would expect people already there to be comfortable with the move.
In a change scheduled to take effect Friday, you will need to have a Facebook page -- and be logged into that page -- in order to comment on News-Leader.com content.
The change is being made across all Gannett websites. The goal is to eliminate anonymity in the hopes of increased civility and conversation in comment threads.
Many of our regular commenters are unhappy with the change.
"HowAboutTheTruth" wrote: "I'm disappointed they don't understand, or care, why the right to express thoughts anonymously is so important for some. Some have much to lose by openly expressing an opinion that might differ from someone they are subordinate to in the work environment. ..."
"Ethicsadvocate" added: "Sometimes things need to be written to generate thought and provoke introspection. Sometimes the objectivity of the press and those it quotes needs to be challenged. Your policy sets our community back on each of these fronts. Sad."
"Parrij" wrote: "Oh, I wonder if this is NL's way of cutting freedom of speech and controlling the media so no one says anything 'out of line' that might offend the politicians? (on both sides)"
"53068cowboy" did not think the move would change his participation. "Won't stop me! I love watching politicians and the elite squirm and pound their fist because they can't do anything about my comments of non-support."
On a Facebook post linking to my column, reaction was quite different. For example, Aleah Weltha wrote: "I, for one, applaud the change. It may not be the perfect solution but it's most definitely a step in the right direction. As it is I make a point of NOT reading the comments in N-L because they are vitriolic. Maybe now I'll be able to participate!"
Aleah is on the right track.
In the long run, we hope the change results in more people sharing ideas -- not fewer. But even if it is fewer, we expect the quality of the conversation will improve as we provide a more welcoming environment.
From my experience on Facebook, people are not shy about sharing differing views. But they do tend to be more respectful.
Won't you please join us? ..Source.. by David Stoeffler is executive editor of the Springfield News-Leader.
December 13, 2011
Say what? Google now indexing Facebook comments
12-13-2011 Global:
Your name might be a little more searchable these days, as Google now indexes comments you publish on Web sites using the Facebook Comments platform.
The change came to light Monday, when Digital Inspiration noticed that Googlebots, the technology that scans Web pages, now recognizes comments encased in JavaScript platforms like Facebook Comments, Disqus, and Echo.
Matt Cutts, a Google team member, later confirmed this discovery, tweeting: "Googlebot keeps getting smarter. Now has the ability to execute AJAX/JS to index some dynamic comments."
Web sites like DailyBeast, Patch, and Examiner, which use the Facebook Social Plugin, let readers leave comments using their Facebook profile instead of forcing them to create a new account.
Comments published using the platform are accompanied by the user's name, profile picture, and a link to his or her Facebook profile.
To many users, Facebook Comments is a convenience, eliminating the need to create a unique account, username, and password each time they comment on a different Web site or blog.
The Social Plugin also makes Web site managers happy, as the convenience to leave comments without creating a new account encourages user engagement. But until today, the benefit of Facebook Comments came at the expense of SEO (search engine optimization), as comments left via Facebook were not indexed by Google.
Now that Google Search indexes Facebook comments on third-party sites, we'll likely see an increase in Web sites implementing the platform in an attempt to boost their searchability. But what does this mean for users?
For the remainder of this article: by CNET News, Sharon Vaknin is a CNET How To expert focusing on mobile devices, Web services, and computing.
----A Google search for your name may reveal your comments. Since your Facebook account is tied to your (presumably) real name, anyone googling you may stumble upon your political, religious, or general views expressed in comments you've left across the Web. Consider this when leaving comments using the Facebook Comments platform.
----Log out. If you're logged in to Facebook while visiting a site with Facebook Comments enabled, the site will automatically make you leave comments using your profile. However, there's a workaround.
December 8, 2011
Is Facebook "Censoring" the Internet or is this smart marketing?
12-8-2011 National:
Since my article KETV Omaha Nebraska Requires a Facebook Account in Order to Comment: BIG DEAL or not? I have received dozens of e-mails showing other sites where this is also happening. This is blossoming into a National Freedom of Speech issue, where political and religious commenting, and more, is being censored. How? Read on!
Lets begin with these newspapers (All owned by Gannett Co. which has National websites), recently they have informed readers that, a Facebook account is required in order to comment on stories:
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (Their Notice:)The Journal News has this to say:
Binghamton Press and Sun Bulletin (Their Notice:)
The Journal News (Their Notice:)
Beginning Thursday, we will start to phase out our current reader comment system. Our new article comments will require readers to employ software powered by Facebook. The era of anonymous commenting on LoHud.com is coming to a welcome end.Maybe these News sites, and Facebook, need to read what the U.S. Supreme Court has to say about "Annoynmous Commenting" see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, prohibiting anonymity violates constitutional rights.
With that said, how is this censorship being accomplished? Put your technical hat on!
It appears that Facebook has developed what they call "Social Plugins (Click to see them)" which websites and blogs can install on their sites (whether use of 'Social Plugins' requires a Facebook account is yet to be determined). One of those "Social Plugins" is a "Commenting System," which has it's own settings. One setting -if enabled- can allow users of Yahoo, AOL and Hotmail to use their signins, instead of a Facebook signin; it appears the above newspapers do not have this turned on. See the following:Social Signals and Highest Quality Comments, neither of which are clearly defined, but, as best I can figure from a programming standpoint, is, they are using individual account Facebook Friends, who comment the most and where they comment, to decide what is relevant in the world.How do I enable users to comment using other login providers?Now, from the Facebook Developers Blog comes this technical piece which also gives us an idea of what Facebook is focusing on:
On the settings section of the plugin, you can choose to enable third party login on your comments boxes. Currently this will enable users to comment using a Yahoo!, AOL or Hotmail account.(From Facebook Developer's blog)More Social Relevance:The upgraded Comments Box uses social signals to surface the highest quality comments for each user. Comments are ordered to show users the most relevant comments from friends, friends of friends, and the most liked or active discussion threads, while comments marked as spam are hidden from view. (Also Facebook Developer's blog).
Not sure I agree with that method, especially since that seems to bypass local issues in favor of the bigger picture in today's world. The bigger issues (National and Global) are mostly covered by larger News sites with high hit counts (CNN, USA, etc.).
So overall this amounts to either, a clever way to censor the Internet, or a marketing scheme which ultimately wraps more sites (people and businesses) around the Facebook Brand. Illegal? Maybe, since it does amount to censorship of sorts; lawyers need to rally around this and study it more.
It appears, to this writer, that the effect of this scheme is "Internet Censorship" of issues and commenting on them, by Facebook (as to what signins are allowed in their Social Plugin) and Sites using the Facebook Commenting Social Plugin (their setting choices, again, as to permissible signins).
When I started this expose, it was to find out why registered sex offenders were being prevented from exercising their first amendment rights to comment on news and TV sites on issues that affect them. However what I have found is, this is affecting far more than registered sex offenders. This is a global problem affecting millions of people.
Is it legal? Not sure! Its one thing to say, Facebook has a right to not allow someone an account on their site, but this "Facebook Social Plugin" commenting scheme -as designed and made available- encroaches and maybe abrogates Freedom of Speech rights of millions of people. Is it time for Congressional Hearings? Advocates of free speech rights need to jump on this wagon and get Congress to review this scheme!
Finally, I can understand why individual websites would want efficient ways to handle the needs of a website (i.e., a commenting system for one), but when efficiencies erode constitutional rights, its time to get priorities straight! "Annoynmous Commenting" is a right! McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
I am hoping others will jump in and look at this scheme and add their opinions. There is no doubt something needs to be done, but I am sure it is going to take lawyers who have the resources to attack this censorship problem. Will Facebook becomes known as The Government of Facebook?
Thanks,
eAdvocate
PS: PRIVACY ISSUES: Most Facebook account holders do not realize how this affects what they thought was private information, there have been complaints that "Job, Employer, and Location" is showing up on other Facebook accounts; some may be businesses. And there are folks out there who are finding ways to opt-out -for Facebook users- see "How to disable Facebook's Social Plugins" and I am sure there are others. Businesses might want to read "Facebook Commenting Platform: Pros and Cons For Businesses."
December 7, 2011
KETV Omaha Nebraska Requires a Facebook Account in Order to Comment: BIG DEAL or not?
12-7-2011 Nebraska:
Recently registered viewers of KETV.com (Omaha Nebraska) received a message from KETV which is very disturbing and may be a trend, the message was:
"We wanted to take a moment to tell you about an important site improvement that will affect the way in which users comment on news stories on our website. Following a site improvement on October 20 commenting on news stories will require signing in through a Facebook account. This improvement will allow even more of the community to engage in news story commenting and provide a better overall site experience for all of our users. Because of the transition, existing commenting accounts will no longer be able to login.Now, most folks would say, so what, and not comment if they do not have a Facebook account. Remember, Facebook prevents any registered sex offender from having a account, so they will automatically be prevented from expressing their opinions on any news story, especially important are those about sex offender issues which affects registrants.
This change does not affect your ability to upload photos and videos to u local with your existing u local account. We encourage you to continue to do so. You will also continue to be able to engage other u local members and comment on media within the u local section using your existing account.
Thank you "
This issue should not be dismissed lightly, because look who apparently owns KETV.com (at the very bottom of their site) (click on "KETV Jobs" THEN "Hearst Television Inc Careers Home" and see what comes up), this is shocking, dozens of other stations across the country.
The question now is, is this change in "Commenting Policy" just for KETV.com or does it apply to all stations apparently owned by Hearst Television? If there is any doubt that Hearst owns KETV.com just review their "Privacy Policy" and there is nothing in the the "Terms of Use" for KETV.com with respect to a requirement of a Facebook account in order to comment.
Folks may want to contact KETV.com (they say they want to hear from folks) and complain about this apparent selection of who in the public may comment on news stories.
Finally, is this a local Omaha Nebraska Policy or nationwide? Likely only individual registered users of all their stations nationwide will know because they are not making it known publicly.
I would like to hear from folks if this is happening in other areas, please include the paper in question.
Thanks,
eAdvocate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
