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?

.

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

Michael "the killer of innocent beings" Vick and his disgusting, moronic fans

[JUMP TO ANTI-MICHAEL VICK MERCHANDISE?]

There was an excellent article about one of Michael Vick's dogs in the LA Times the other day, and I posted the following comment on it:

Michael Vick is the most disgusting, despicable excuse for a human being on this earth--and his fans are close behind. Every time I see "Mike Vick" trending on Twitter, I throw in my opinion--that he's a heartless piece of scum who TORTURED AND KILLED innocent animals. Then, invariably, I'm bombarded by his moronic fans not only defending him, but telling me that if I'm so bothered by what he did to the dogs I should be REALLY concerned about Kobe Bryant and women. Huh? Just how stupid are Michael Vick fans? Do they not understand the difference between TORTURING, DROWNING, ELECTROCUTING, KILLING sentient beings and having--what was PROVEN to be--consensual sex with another adult? IDIOTS.

I, for one, will NEVER forgive Vick the Dick. I don't care if he walks on water, it will NOT undo the heinous abuse he inflicted on other sentient beings. I hope he burns in hell...and I'm quite sure he will.

Hey, Michael, how would you like to be hung, electrocuted or drowned for not performing well enough? You heartless piece of scum...

Although that's a good summary of how I feel about Michael Vick and his pathetic fans, there's a lot more I'd have written had there been room! So here's some more...

As I said, whenever I see "Mike Vick" trending on Twitter, I jump in and post my opinion of him--that he's a worthless, gutless, heartless, vicious piece of shit. Then, without fail!, I get attacked by his clueless, moronic fans. Want to know how stupid they are? They equate Kobe Bryant having consensual sex with an adult woman with torturing and killing dogs. Really. They're that stupid. I guess they don't know how to read and/or comprehend what they read or hear, because Kobe Bryant was never convicted of anything--he wasn't even TRIED for anything. The woman involved clearly wanted money/fame and Kobe was her ticket. (I am a victim of rape--so do NOT accuse me of taking rape lightly. This woman was not raped. She had consensual sex with a famous, wealthy athlete so she could turn around and yell "rape!" in order to ride the gravy train to fame and fortune herself.)

So anyway, Vick the Dick's fans continually pull the same tired "logic" out of their asses when I point out what an evil monster he is. They ALWAYS say "if you're so worried about what Vick did to the dogs, you should be REALLY concerned about Kobe Bryant and women!" STUPID FUCKING MORONS.

There's another argument Vick the Dick's fans continually use, and it goes something like this: "You people who are so concerned about dogs, why don't you care about PEOPLE? why don't you care about all the starving children in the world?!" Again...STUPID FUCKING MORONS. I guess their pea-sized brains don't have the capacity to understand that caring about non-human animals, such as dogs and cats, and caring about humans are not mutually exclusive. I'm also willing to bet that I've done more in terms of philanthropic and volunteer work for humans than the average Vick fan will ever dream of doing, so it's kind of ironic that they're so quick to use their tired, stupid argument yet probably have never lifted a finger for another human being.

I'm posting the content of the LA Times article mentioned above, and I truly hope anyone who idolizes Michael Scumbag Vick will read it. If you care about animals at all, how can you be informed about what Vick did and still admire him?

latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke-20101117,0,5163298.column

latimes.com

Dog owner can't forgive Michael Vick

Quarterback shows greatness on the field, but evidence of former cruelty remains.

Bill Plaschke
8:27 PM PST, November 16, 2010

While Michael Vick was screaming toward the sky, a black pit bull named Mel was standing quietly by a door.

On this night, like many other nights, Mel was waiting for his owners to take him outside, but he couldn't alert them with a bark. He doesn't bark. He won't bark. The bark has been beaten out of him.

While Michael Vick was running for glory, Mel was cowering toward a wall.

Every time the 4-year-old dog meets a stranger, he goes into convulsions. He staggers back into a wall for protection. He lowers his face and tries to hide. New faces are not new friends, but old terrors.

While Michael Vick was officially outracing his past Monday night, one of the dogs he abused cannot.

"Some people wonder, are we ever going to let Michael Vick get beyond all this?" said Richard Hunter, who owns Mel. "I tell them, let's let Mel decide that. When he stops shaking, maybe then we can talk."

I know, I know, this is a cheap and easy column, right? One day after the Philadelphia Eagles' quarterback officially becomes an American hero again, just call the owner of one of the dogs who endured Vick's unspeakable abuse and let the shaming begin.

Compare Vick's 413 total yards, four touchdown passes and two rushing touchdowns against the Washington Redskins to the 47 pit bulls who were seized from Bad Newz Kennels, his interstate dogfighting ring. Contrast one of the best three hours by a quarterback ever to the 21 months he spent in prison.

Cheap and easy, right? Not so fast. Vick's success is raising one of the most potentially costly and difficult perceptual questions in the history of American sports.

If he continues playing this well, he could end up as the league's most valuable player. In six games, he has thrown for 11 touchdowns, run for four more touchdowns, committed zero turnovers and produced nearly 300 total yards per game. Heck, at this rate, with his Eagles inspired by his touch, he could even win a Super Bowl, one of the greatest achievements by an American sportsman.

And yet a large percentage of the population will still think Michael Vick is a sociopath. Many people will never get over Vick's own admissions of unthinkable cruelty to his pit bulls — the strangling, the drowning, the electrocutions, the removal of all the teeth of female dogs who would fight back during mating.

Some believe that because Vick served his time in prison, he should be beyond reproach for his former actions. Many others believe that cruelty to animals isn't something somebody does, it's something somebody is.

Essentially, an ex-convict is dominating America's most popular sport while victims of his previous crime continue to live with the brutality of that crime, and has that ever happened before?

Do you cheer the player and boo the man? Can you cheer the comeback while loathing the actions that necessitated the comeback? And how can you do any of this while not knowing if Vick has truly discovered morality or simply rediscovered the pocket?

If you are Richard Hunter, you just don't watch football.

"When you look at Mel," said Hunter, a radio personality from Dallas, "you just don't think about how Michael Vick is a great football player."

A couple of years ago, Hunter and his wife Sunny were watching a documentary on Best Friends Animal Society, the Utah sanctuary where the court sent 22 of Vick's 44 seized dogs. It was after 1 a.m. when the show featured a Vick victim that had been so badly abused, it refused to move, behaving as if paralyzed.

"My wife said, 'Get out of bed, get on the computer and e-mail those people, I want one of those dogs,' " Hunter recalled.

Nearly 18 months later, they became one of six people to adopt one of the dogs. The process included a home visit by caseworkers, an extended visit to the southwest Utah sanctuary, home monitoring by a dog trainer and a six-month probation period.

"These dogs were scarred in many ways both emotional and physical," said John Polis, Best Friends spokesman. "It was something we had never really seen before."

Hunter and his wife quickly saw Mel's scars. The dog wouldn't bark, wouldn't show affection, and would spend nearly an hour shaking with each new person who tried to touch him.

It turns out that Mel had been a bait dog, thrown into the ring as a sort of sparring partner for the tougher dogs, sometimes even muzzled so he wouldn't fight back, beaten daily to sap his will. Mel was under constant attack, and couldn't fight back, and the deep cuts were visible on more than just his fur.

"You could see that Michael Vick went to a lot of trouble to make Mel this way," Hunter said. "When people pet him, I tell them, pet him from under his chin, not over his head. He lives in fear of someone putting their hand over his head."

On Monday night, no, Mel was not hanging out by the televised football game. He was hanging on his owner's bed as they watched something on HBO.

"How can you support football when you know one of their stars did this to a dog?" Hunter said. "If more people saw Mel at the same time as they saw Michael Vick, he wouldn't be so lauded."

Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, the lessons learned from Vick's crimes were on display in a postgame quote from Eagles star receiver DeSean Jackson.

"We were like pit bulls ready to get out of the cage," he told reporters.

Cheap and easy, huh?

bill.plaschke@latimes.com

twitter.com/billplaschke

Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times




Looking for anti-Vick merchandise? We've got you covered! All sorts of shirts plus lots of other merchandise, including bumper stickers, coffee mugs, buttons and dog t-shirts. Select any of the images to see the goodies:

















.