More about the LA Times' "Facebook only" commenting test

I recently wrote about the idiotic test the LA Times is running, whereby only Facebook members can post comments on the LA Times site. I thought I'd post yet more ammunition against this stupid idea.

---

UPDATE 09/26/11: Here's yet ANOTHER story from the LA Times about Facebook killing its users' privacy...yet I can't comment on the story because--you guessed it!--the LA Times only allows comments from Facebook members!

---

Today's LA Times has this story, Facebook apps may have leaked millions of users' personal data to third parties, which says:

"Facebook apps may have inadvertently leaked the personal data of millions of Facebook users to third parties such as advertisers, according to the Web security firm Symantec.

Among the information that could have been accessed is data from user profiles, pictures and Facebooks chats between users..."

Last month the LA Times ran this article, Facebook looks to cash in on user data, which says:

"Julee Morrison has been obsessed with Bon Jovi since she was a teenager.

So when paid ads for fan sites started popping up on the 41-year-old Salt Lake City blogger's Facebook page, she was thrilled. She described herself as a "clicking fool," perusing videos and photos of the New Jersey rockers.

Then it dawned on Morrison why all those Bon Jovi ads appeared every time she logged on to the social networking site.

"Facebook is reading my profile, my interests, the people and pages I am 'friends' with, and targeting me," Morrison said. "It's brilliant social media but it's absolutely creepy."

Three days ago, the LA Times ran this editorial, Internet data collection: The privacy line, which says:

"A good example is what Facebook is doing with the "Like" button it has persuaded more than 2.5 million websites to display. The button ostensibly lets Facebook users recommend things they encounter online — a blog post, for example — to their friends on the social network. But researcher Arnold Roosendaal of the Netherlands found that once a Facebook user has clicked on a single "Like" button, Facebook will be alerted to all of his or her subsequent visits to any Web page with a "Like" button. The company even tracks individuals who aren't Facebook members, Roosendaal reported, although it cannot identify them by name..."

Today, the LA Times published this article, Congressmen Edward Markey and Joe Barton ask Facebook to explain security vulnerability, which says:

"Congressmen Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas) have asked Facebook Inc. CEO Mark Zuckerberg to explain a security vulnerability that gave advertisers and other third parties access to users' accounts and personal information.

Security company Symantec Corp. discovered the vulnerability and alerted Facebook, which said it was fixed.

Facebook faces growing scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators concerned how it protects personal information shared by its users..."

Yesterday's LA Times ran this article, Consumer Reports: Facebook has 7.5 million underage users, which says:

"About 7.5 million active Facebook users are lying about their age -- they're younger than 13. And among those preteens, more than 5 million are under 10, according to a recent Consumer Reports survey.

That violates Facebook's own policy, meant to avoid federal regulations that apply to websites with young members. Those regulations require people who sign up to be 13 or older, the report says..."

I cite the above not because it proves privacy leaks--as is so common with Facebook--but because it proves how easily Facebook's own policies can be circumvented. So if the LA Times thinks that forcing people to have Facebook accounts in order to post comments on its web site will somehow keep things honest...um, NO! If little kids can figure out how to sign up illegally, I'm sure adults can, too.

You'd think that after publishing all of the above, the LA Times would maybe get a clue.

Here's something I guess they missed, which quotes Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, 'Facebook is the most appalling spying machine ever invented,’ says Assange, which says:

"Facebook in particular is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented. Here we have the world’s most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations, their communications with each other, their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US Intelligence. Facebook, Google, Yahoo, all these major US organisations have built-in interfaces for US Intelligence.

It’s not a matter of serving a subpoena, they have an interface they have developed for US Intelligence to use. Now, is it the case that Facebook is actually run by US Intelligence? No, it’s not like that. It’s simply that US Intelligence is able to bring to bear legal and political pressure to them and it’s costly for them to hand out records, one by one, so they have automated the process. Everyone should understand that when they add their friends to Facebook they are doing free work for United States intelligence agencies in building this database for them..."

Should I go on? I can! "Facebook" and "privacy leaks" go hand in hand. And the LA Times thinks it's a *GOOD* idea to force its users to join Facebook in order to post comments on its web site?

.

Facebook: Why?

I don't get the whole Facebook phenomenon. Really. Let me explain.

First of all, I don't understand why companies that already have their own web sites--as ALL companies do these days!--want to send their customers/viewers to a DIFFERENT web site to contact them, comment about their TV show, or whatever. What's the point? For example, SomeCompany has their own domain, somecompany.com. It's easy to say and everybody knows they can just type somecompany.com into their browser and go to their site. But now SomeCompany has a Facebook page--and they're advertising it and telling people to go to Facebook.com/SomeCompany to post on their wall or whatever. Why? I don't want to be bothered going to some OTHER web site to contact the company! Why wouldn't I just go to their own web site? It doesn't make sense. It's redundant, and for those of us who've chosen to rid Facebook from our lives, or who never had an account to begin with and don't want one, it's impossible since we can't post without an account. I don't want an account. That's why I deleted mine. (You've heard about all the privacy issues, the use of your personal info for targeting ads, etc., right?)

I wrote recently that the LA Times is experimenting with a Facebook only commenting system, and how stupid that is. It requires that you have a Facebook account and use it if you want to post comments on the LA Times site. Why? There's no connection between the two sites--they're separate entities. Like I said in that post, it's like saying you have to open a Wells Fargo bank account if you want to use your Bank of America debit card at Bank of America. Just absolutely stupid.

So right now Facebook is the hot thing. Does anyone remember GeoCities? MySpace? AOL? "Hot" things come and go. It's silly for companies to get all wrapped up in an unrelated site, forcing their users to have accounts at another site in order to use theirs, and so on. At some point Facebook WON'T be hot any more...and then what?

As for individuals whose lives are totally wrapped up in Facebook, what can I say? How about interacting with all those "friends" in real life? In fact, how many of those "friends" do you even know in real life? And why do you want to put your life out for all to see like an open book? Even with Facebook's supposed improvements to its privacy settings, did you know:

"According to CBS News, 15 privacy and consumer protection agencies recently filed complaints against Facebook with the Federal Trade Commission. These companies stated that Facebook 'manipulates privacy settings to make users' personal information available for commercial use.'" [Source]

and:

"Many of the most popular applications, or 'apps,' on the social-networking site Facebook Inc. have been transmitting identifying information—in effect, providing access to people's names and, in some cases, their friends' names—to dozens of advertising and Internet tracking companies, a Wall Street Journal investigation has found." [Source]

Like I said before, I don't get it. At all.

.

The LA Times and their idiotic "Facebook only" commenting system

The LA Times has launched a test on some of its blogs whereby a reader can only post comments if they're a Facebook user. You can read about the [so-called] logic behind this concept in their Testing a new system for online comments article, or at the end of this post where I've pasted it in.

If you're not sure what the big deal is, stop and think about it for a moment. For one thing, being forced to have a Facebook account in order to post comments on the LA Times is just counter-intuitive--the two sites are in no way related. Second, if you're forced to post using your Facebook account, but you don't want your real identity known...well, you're fucked! You can either post and let everybody and their brother know that it's you, or you can not post. Some of us like the relative anonymity provided by aliases and would rather keep that separate from our REAL identities.

Here's the comment I posted at the LA Times article:

"I don't use Facebook. I hated it, so I deleted my account last year. And now I'm locked out of posting comments on the LA Times? Why? What the hell does the LA Times have to do with Facebook? It's like saying, well, if you want to use your Bank of America debit card at Bank of America, first you have to go to Wells Fargo and open an account there. Huh? What kind of logic is that?

This truly sucks.

By the way, I've been online with the LA Times since its "TimesLink" days on Prodigy. Yes, really, that long. And now, instead of seeing LAT as the innovator it's always been, I'm seeing it as something...well, entirely different...and I don't like it.

The old system of requiring registration--and then staying logged in, instead of constantly having to log in to assorted services to post--worked great. Why screw around with something that worked fine?

Please just go back to a registration system for the site and have *ALL* comments fall under its registration."

I really like my Bank of America/Wells Fargo analogy, and wish the LA Times would see that that's what they're saying: If you want to use OUR site and post comments on it, first you have to be a member SOMEWHERE else. It just makes no sense.

If you're unhappy with this idiotic plan, please go to the article about it and leave a comment--which, for now, anyway, can be done without having a Facebook account.

-------------------------

LA Times article:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/readers/2011/03/testing-a-new-system-for-online-comments.html

Testing a new system for online comments

March 15, 2011 | 11:46 am

Having our site built on different content management systems provides some hurdles. One is our commenting system -- there’s not much uniformity.

Some of our stories require registration; some do not. Some of our comments appear right away, while others languish for a moderator to approve or deny. Still others disappear after one day, never to be seen again.

It's not a good practice to make you wait to see your comments. It's also not a good practice to have your comments vanish from an article. All issues we're dealing with.

We need uniformity. And reader engagement is a high priority. Can we get some uniformity? What's the best way to get there?

Facebook has a new commenting system that we're interested in. It allows for "right away" commenting while providing an authentication system no one else can match.

Both are important. By allowing comments to go up in real time, it provides instant interaction among readers. By requiring a Facebook registration, it will cut down on the mean-spirited, profane and sometimes useless responses because one's friends will also see the comments in their newsfeeds.

Sites that have initiated this commenting system have received criticism for being Facebook-centric. The comments have also been seen by critics as being much more sterile.

We're going to test it on two blogs: Technology and the Fabulous Forum. These are two of our more active blogs, and the editors are willing to be guinea pigs. Technology is going to go first (sometime Tuesday), with Fabulous Forum later this week.

Will this move be a "troll-killer" or will it make our blogs seem hollow? We don't know, but we're going to give it a shot. You tell us.

-- Jimmy Orr, managing editor/online

Email: readers.representative@latimes.com
Twitter: @latreadersrep
Facebook: latimes