facebook is down

[Mr. Jelly]

I found it was hard to find out information on some activities and businesses if you are not signed up to FB. I hate FB and dropped my FB page some years ago because it was so toxic. Recently I have made an assumed name FB page. I only have one friend and that was a mistake really as I didn't want any. They don't know who I am anyway. I do follow some businesses like Santa Cruz guitars etc. I am amazed how much advertising there is. They really bush for me to be more involved with "friends". FB is out of control.

[imwjl]

Facebook down in another sense and I'm fine with it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-...hare_permalink

While they mention the woes and new costs for some online sellers, I think maybe there's more interest in local sellers. Above all I did not buy my phone to be an advertising product.

The other aspect I consider comes from being a network and security administrator. I see the malicious elements in online advertising most users are not aware of.

[619TF]

Originally Posted by Mr. Jelly

I found it was hard to find out information on some activities and businesses if you are not signed up to FB. I hate FB and dropped my FB page some years ago because it was so toxic. Recently I have made an assumed name FB page. I only have one friend and that was a mistake really as I didn't want any. They don't know who I am anyway. I do follow some businesses like Santa Cruz guitars etc. I am amazed how much advertising there is. They really bush for me to be more involved with "friends". FB is out of control.

HardER to find out the info? Maybe, but well worth not having a FB account as that info is still out there and companies want you to know so they're not exactly hiding. The only difference is you have to look for it instead of it being constantly pushed in your face (pun intended).

[Dirk Hofman]

A teeny bit surprised no one has commented on the name change. Such a bizarre company.

[619TF]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

A teeny bit surprised no one has commented on the name change. Such a bizarre company.

Meh, not really newsworthy. Google did the same when they rebranded as "Alphabet". This just obfuscates the FB ownership so people need to do a little research before signing on to something (as always really). Nice attempt to distract the masses though, you have to give them that much.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by 619TF

Meh, not really newsworthy. Google did the same when they rebranded as "Alphabet". This just obfuscates the FB ownership so people need to do a little research before signing on to something (as always really). Nice attempt to distract the masses though, you have to give them that much.

I think both those things are noteworthy. I wonder if it's too easy to think the re-brand is simply due to current challenges. I've been through a re-brand, and it's not something which happens quickly or can be done lightly. It's possible this is a reaction, but that would be a REALLY fast reaction, and I question whether leadership would really think (based on Alphabet's ongoing legal challenges) that it would change either public perception or any real legal issues. It's possible. But I tend to doubt it's a reaction to the current situation.

[619TF]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

I think both those things are noteworthy. I wonder if it's too easy to think the re-brand is simply due to current challenges. I've been through a re-brand, and it's not something which happens quickly or can be done lightly. It's possible this is a reaction, but that would be a REALLY fast reaction, and I question whether leadership would really think (based on Alphabet's ongoing legal challenges) that it would change either public perception or any real legal issues. It's possible. But I tend to doubt it's a reaction to the current situation.

I never said the brand change wasn't in the works for a while. With FB facing all sorts of issues over the past few years that's not really any surprise. The fact that they did this at the very moment when they're getting real pressure from consumers and Congress alike, however, definitely smacks of diversionary tactics.

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

A teeny bit surprised no one has commented on the name change. Such a bizarre company.

I've mostly had other technology in my lap this week.

To me Alphabet's change was different. A new name for the parent enterprise and not rebranding specific products. At least not quite the same sort of need to rebrand.

I'm an Alphabet stockholder and do not like some of their ways and products but don't find it damaging in same was as Facebook practices. I'll over this if I can explain it.

At work we administer network and DNS based security. The huge TALOS database and similar of bad topics and malicious stuff filters same way for near 1000 employees and 3 public WiFi networks. Facebook content, popular alt news and pundit sites and some ad networks are always pushing toxic and fake stuff beyond others. What a lot of people think is news is their being taken advantage of.

[raysachs]

Originally Posted by 619TF

I never said the brand change wasn't in the works for a while. With FB facing all sorts of issues over the past few years that's not really any surprise. The fact that they did this at the very moment when they're getting real pressure from consumers and Congress alike, however, definitely smacks of diversionary tactics.

I don't know much about the tech world, but if they were gonna use the rebrand as a diversionary tactic, wouldn't they have changed the name of the actual app that everyone is familiar with, many are furious at, and where the algorithms in question are put to work dividing people and grabbing eyeballs? Changing the name of the parent company, which I guess has broader goals than a mere social network isn't gonna divert anyone from the problems with the app at the core of all of the controversy, if it retains the same old name.

-Ray