There are 293 ways to make change for a dollar
|
|
|
Facebook and MySpace clean up accounts
SOCIAL NOTWORKING SITES Facebook and MySpace have both taken the decision to remove known sex offenders from their user lists and members, according to reports.
Yesterday the firms announced that they had closed the accounts of some 5,385 New York based convicted sex offenders, under the protection of a new law designed to tackle online predators. The law, Electronic Security and Targeting of Online Predators Act (e-STOP), requires that sex offenders register with the State, which in turn passes their details onto social networking site operators.
Using this information Facebook shed itself of 3,410 grubby users and Myspace, 1,975. Welcoming the news, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo told reporters, "Facebook and MySpace are successfully using e-STOP to help make the Internet safer, and it's time for all social networking sites to do their part to keep others from being senselessly victimised."
We can't help wonder whether the land of litigation will see a court case overturn this once one of these targeted ex-users raises an issue about their civil liberties. But we'll wait and see on that one.
Although Facebook has shed a few users, it doesn't seemed have made much of a difference to its numbers. Today in an open letter Mark Zuckerberg, the site's founder, announced that Facebook has some 350 million users. Which adds up to a lot of banal status updates.
Helping these users stay more secure, Zuckerberg also announced some small changes to the site's privacy model. He explains, "The plan we've come up with is to remove regional networks completely and create a simpler model for privacy control where you can set content to be available to only your friends, friends of your friends, or everyone."
So there you have it, no more regional networks, and the right to control who sees your content, on a piece by piece basis.
Seems fair to us. Why didn't they think of that before? µ
Share this:
Share
@stalin - I agree 100% and I don't think there is a need for someone to "better" explain what you said. It was very clear to me the first time I read it.
@Justin - I understand you not wanting an "ex" offender in your neighborhood, I really do, but please tell us whose neighborhood they should live in?
For the record, I don't believe most sex offenders can be rehabilitated and furthermore, I believe most will go on to offend again. I do not, however, have a solution to the problem of where they should live but I certainly wouldn't suggest they live in someone else's neighborhood. By law, they have served their sentence and are free to live where they choose (within the law's boundaries). If they move to my neighborhood, they would be treated like any of my other neighbors until (and if) they begin showing signs that they may offend again (ie. strange behavior, etc.). If they show no signs, then I must treat them how I treat others. They definitely won't be playing with my kids though, but they won't be treated like an outcast either.
The sex offender registry is bullshit. Why not put convicted murderers and others who commit violent crimes on a list too? Personally, I'd rather have convicted thieves and burglers on a list because I feel I am much more in danger of being robbed than raped or murdered.
so they come back using the name John Smith to create new accounts giving them more anonymosity. the privacy settings might be ok but I wouldn't know seeings I dropped the bastages when they blocked my references to thepiratebay may facebook rot in hades forever. no clue about that other one whatever it is. i'm sure they're both for the birds.
Obviously you didn't read my post...or couldn't understand what you read.
The points I brought up are the same as are brought forth by every lawmaker in every country.....it's not a simple question that can be dismissed by emotionally biased vengeance.
If you ever go to jail, and you are innocent of the crime you are convicted of, you would not want your unjust punishment to continue after you have done your prison time....or would you?
If a government has the just authority over the individual to execute or deprive him of liberty then it must not be seen to punish effectively. If punishment must continue beyond prison then the State's ability to punish, judge and even rule, are put into doubt.
You may think this a simple situation to correct but it is, in reality, very complex.
As well, I am interested in hearing the opinions of others on this subject. Hopefully someone will demonstrate a better understanding than I possess. If so I will welcome the opportunity to learn......attacking me personally is not an answer for anything.
NY State Politician Is "Hero", yet should NOT ALL Felons Be Banned? Zucker might qualify.
Something aimed At Single Men, Not On Going Crime spree of InterNet. If Child Abuse Is Concern, Shut down Dod & Orphan Laws that MURDER Child Faster than Wink of eye.
FACEBOOK Is FAKEBOOK. Go to TOP Sites, 4 Million fans & NOT One comment in last three months, corporations worth 100 billion & nOT One Ad. Its Rube & Glib One At that. FaceBook Attracks Man Haters & Impersonators. FaceBook Is Early Intenet, With Fancy Media Software within It, To Take YOU Down FakeBooks Criminal Path.Croocked Little People Seeking Victims.
drashek
I have no kids as of yet, but maybe your local gov't can arrange for the recently released CONVICTED sex offenders to move into your neighborhood since they've finished their sentances... you may be the only person to ever welcome them back by the sounds of it
Because everyone deserves a normal life except those who cannot hold their bladder and need to pee in the bushes sometimes. Because obviously they were out there stalking children at 1 AM far in the bushes.
According to the authorities they are sex offenders and are marked as such.
But think of the children!!! Yes and?
Aren't those who think too much about the children the pedophiles?
Drugs, terror, pedophiles... what do I need to fear next? Oh lemme rephrase: What do I need to give up next so that the benevolent Big brother... erm I mean government protects me?
Cleaning up accounts for the offenders is good - my comment is about the removal of regional
More privacy is always better -- facebook's privacy customization options are great.. especially compared to other social networking sites.
I can see why Zuckerberg is moving to remove networks, since in the future the networks will just get overcrowded with alumni, etc, and will be too crowded.
But surely there must be a smarter way to solve these issues than to remove networks entirely? I joined facebook when it was still limited to ~10 colleges, and one of the fun things that me and my friends liked about facebook was to click around people's profiles and to see who all those familiar faces were that you saw around campus.
It seems facebook is taking a step back from its roots, and by removing networks, alot of that original appeal that it had to college students is lost. How is facebook any different from .. myspace.. now? Fundamentally, it won't be.. and I see room for a new social network to spring up, that remains dedicated to college students and giving them their own "network" and sense of belonging -- what the original facebook did 4-5 years ago.
I have children who will soon be of age to become targets of sexual predators on the Internet but I do my best to explain the stupidity of trusting or meeting anyone on the net. I also hope they will have real lives and not have the time or feel the need to "live" on their computers.
Sexual offenders (rapists, pedophiles, hebephiles) are the worst type of criminals and can not be cured through any known medical treatments to date so I am more than happy to rid the Internet of their presence.
On the other hand once someone has finished their sentence they should not continue being punished. Some of the convicted were innocent and wrongly condemned, others were sentenced far beyond the actual crime they committed and others must have the opportunity to re-enter a normal life or why bother even trying.
I'm happy I'm not the one who must make these choices.