[Chester LUG] Chester Digest, Vol 345, Issue 1

Tue Apr 21 12:13:13 UTC 2015

I have seen an article online linking heavy Facebook use to depression.
Facebook envy. People exaggerating how good their lives our makes onlookers
depressed about their own life.
Perhaps mildly bad news on fb will cheer people up.
 On 21 Apr 2015 13:00, <chester-request at mailman.lug.org.uk> wrote:

> Send Chester mailing list submissions to
>         chester at mailman.lug.org.uk
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/chester
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         chester-request at mailman.lug.org.uk
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         chester-owner at mailman.lug.org.uk
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Chester digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. facebook (Robin Hemuss)
>    2. Re: facebook (Les Pritchard)
>    3. Re: facebook (David Holden)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:48:58 +0100
> From: Robin Hemuss <robin592 at yahoo.co.uk>
> To: chester at mailman.lug.org.uk
> Subject: [Chester LUG] facebook
> Message-ID: <201504201548.58707.robin592 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hello people,
>
> I don't know if this is old news for everyone else. The article's a few
> months
> old, but still interesting I think.
>
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/misjudgements-will-drive-social-trials-underground-1.15553?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
>
> It seems that facebook spent some time feeding people disproportionately
> good/bad news in their updates, and monitored if they behaved happy/sad as
> a
> result. Apparently this is ethical because it's pretty much what they
> normally do anyway, and also it's not that much different from regular
> advertising. Sounds a bit iffy to me though.
>
> I just wondered what the general opinion over this kind of stuff is. How
> can
> you keep your facebook activity secret from facebook?
>
> Cheers,
> Robin
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:53:06 +0100
> From: Les Pritchard <les.pritchard at gmail.com>
> To: chester <chester at mailman.lug.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Chester LUG] facebook
> Message-ID:
>         <CAC_G_sDZ5-kLh=
> BpF_1js_3VUr5pZUXsFfa9rrA2MCV2xXVGQg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Yes, it was an interesting 'experiment' but the ethical side is really
> questionable. I'm sure their view is that it is their network and you agree
> to this stuff in the T & C. Facebook certainly does decide what you see,
> but you are able to change that if you 'train' your account. In terms of
> stopping Facebook from watching you, well on Facebook you're obviously
> screwed! To avoid tracking on other sites you'd need to remove all the
> cookies so the like buttons couldn't track your visits. You could run you
> browser in the private mode and restart it after using Facebook, which
> would reduce the tracking ability. Alternatively, use one browser to access
> Facebook and then another for every other site. This would mean Facebook
> could only see what they already know.
>
> There are plenty of other steps you can take, but those are the simple ones
> that spring to mind.
>
> On 20 April 2015 at 15:48, Robin Hemuss <robin592 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hello people,
> >
> > I don't know if this is old news for everyone else. The article's a few
> > months
> > old, but still interesting I think.
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.nature.com/news/misjudgements-will-drive-social-trials-underground-1.15553?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
> >
> > It seems that facebook spent some time feeding people disproportionately
> > good/bad news in their updates, and monitored if they behaved happy/sad
> as
> > a
> > result. Apparently this is ethical because it's pretty much what they
> > normally do anyway, and also it's not that much different from regular
> > advertising. Sounds a bit iffy to me though.
> >
> > I just wondered what the general opinion over this kind of stuff is. How
> > can
> > you keep your facebook activity secret from facebook?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Robin
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Chester mailing list
> > Chester at mailman.lug.org.uk
> > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/chester
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/chester/attachments/20150420/6d669d3b/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:25:35 +0100
> From: David Holden <dh at iucr.org>
> To: chester at mailman.lug.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [Chester LUG] facebook
> Message-ID: <5536259F.10403 at iucr.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> It's a disgraceful exercise IMO. I wonder how many of those experimented
> on were suffering from depression? A "tap tap tap" in the wrong
> direction could lead to devastating consequences if so.
>
> But then it's par for the course with unthinking globocorps like
> FaceBook and Google.
>
> I'm pretty sure I read that Google's identity "merging" around Google+
> lead to people being outed when they were not ready or wanting to be.
>
> We're witnessing a step change reduction in privacy made all the more
> troubling by the internet's pretty permanent memory and governments need
> to surveil.
>
> Ultimately I suspect we're all going to have to become both a lot more
> forgiving of other peoples private peccadilloes or a lot more shameless
> ourselves.
>
>    Dave.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20/04/15 15:48, Robin Hemuss wrote:
> > Hello people,
> >
> > I don't know if this is old news for everyone else. The article's a few
> months
> > old, but still interesting I think.
> >
> >
> http://www.nature.com/news/misjudgements-will-drive-social-trials-underground-1.15553?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
> >
> > It seems that facebook spent some time feeding people disproportionately
> > good/bad news in their updates, and monitored if they behaved happy/sad
> as a
> > result. Apparently this is ethical because it's pretty much what they
> > normally do anyway, and also it's not that much different from regular
> > advertising. Sounds a bit iffy to me though.
> >
> > I just wondered what the general opinion over this kind of stuff is. How
> can
> > you keep your facebook activity secret from facebook?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Robin
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Chester mailing list
> > Chester at mailman.lug.org.uk
> > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/chester
> >
>
> --
> Dr David Holden. (dh at iucr.org)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chester mailing list
> Chester at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/chester
>
>
> End of Chester Digest, Vol 345, Issue 1
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/chester/attachments/20150421/1b502df9/attachment.html>