130 replies to this topic

[Fabbrizio]

I had been wondering, "if they're so upset, why did they set the date of attack way out in November? That's three months away." Then I realized. they're waiting a whole three months just so can make it a reference to V for Vendetta. ...Sheesh... I saw that movie too, and it was decent, but using it for an ideological model is just stupid. The movie had a very heavy-handed moral, but it wasn't a manifesto. It was a science fiction action movie based on a comic, for crying out loud. Not exactly the most impressive basis for one's world views.

Ahaha, I didn't even notice that, which is weird because I'm a huge Alan Moore fan.

But yeah, I agree about the win-win. These guys just need to do a better job on this than they've done in the past. That whole paypal deal was upsetting to the company, perhaps, but in the end it made little difference because there were no lasting consequences; the site was back to working order with relatively little hassle. If the same thing happens here, and the only lasting consequence is that the hackers are apprehended, that's no good at all. If it's as Pokemonmaster said the first time, and Facebook is only down for a few minutes, that defeats the whole purpose.

[Ventus]

Oh man i wish they would get rid of FaceBook
I see no point of it at all. Facebook is just stupid
its facebook this-Facebook that. Like it on facebook
God I get tired of Facebook If the so called Hacker group Does Do
this i would cheer them on
Cuz'' Facebook Is annoying
----------------------------------
Thats all...

Edited by linktopower, 10 August 2011 - 08:13 AM.

[Radien]

How DO you use quote +? I wanna know too...I always have to have another tab open to copy and paste the quote blocks from =/.

Okay, do this:

As you read a topic, when you see a post you want to reply to, click the button. It will turn into a . This means it is selected.

When you have selected all posts you want to quote on a page, click . Your browser will advance to the reply window, but all the posts you selected will be quoted, in order.

As for this, I'm not a Facebook user anyway, so this wouldn't even phase me. However, maybe this would make those people who are on it all day everyday realize it's time to do something else. I mean seriously? Why spam your neighbor on Facebook when you could just go across the street and hang out with them? People these days...

People can get addicted to anything. People get addicted to food all the time, but that doesn't mean food should be outlawed. Sometimes the company is at fault if it is enabling people, but when people get addicted to using a website, it is hardly something you can blame on Facebook.

No, my issue with Facebook is about its privacy policy and the way they constantly keep changing their policy covertly for financial gain through advertising. It is underhanded, and they are hurting their users for the sake of profit. They want to force us into behavior that is more profitable to them. And it's not like Facebook wasn't profitable already. They've been making money hand over fist, even just through advertising. But not everybody clicks on their sidebar ads, and they don't like that...

[Sheik]

The thing is, if McDonalds was actually putting something in their food to get people addicted, I'd feel the same way. Facebook was designed to keep you addicted while other things like WoW just kinda happened because it was fun. Both are hurting a lot of people's lives, but I feel Facebook is worse because it addicts people intentionally.

I have no idea where you got this from. WoW is so much designed to be addictive, it's not even funny. It's so aiming at the rewarding systems of your brain, I can't even think of anything else but actual drugs to compare this to. Facebook seems to be addictive due it's general purpose (which is social interaction). It's more that FB just happens to be addictive than WoW. Though I wouldn't be surprised if FB was designed to get people hooked, it's still worlds apart from what WoW does.

[Mitchfork]

The thing is, if McDonalds was actually putting something in their food to get people addicted, I'd feel the same way. Facebook was designed to keep you addicted while other things like WoW just kinda happened because it was fun. Both are hurting a lot of people's lives, but I feel Facebook is worse because it addicts people intentionally.

What is your basis for this assumption? There's nothing inherent to social network that makes it bad or addicting. Even then, you have to look at the difference between a chemical addiction and a psychological addiction. They're two incredibly different things, and I don't think you can make a fair comparison between, say, a nicotine addiction and a person that spends too much time in front of Facebook.

To all of the people that are crying "Facebook is stupid! I don't see the point!" You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Facebook is and what it is designed to do. It does not replace physical interaction and it never will. In fact, it's an incredibly useful tool for encouraging that interaction; now if I want to do something like throw a party or go out to eat with a crowd I can announce on Facebook and anyone that wants can join me. It's also a fantastic way to keep up with people that move away or live long-distance. You're just cherry-picking all of the "bad" things and ignoring the insane convenience and utility that it provides.

[SpacemanDan]

It's also a fantastic way to keep up with people that move away or live long-distance.

QFT. I have many-a friends who I haven't heard from in years because they moved out of town. (As I'm sure is the case with many people) I can't very well go walk across the street to meet them, can I? So I use FaceBook to keep in touch, even if it isn't that often. Plus, I don't feel like tying up the phone line and paying long distance.

Anyway, I'm with Radien here; their use of people's information is wrong and it's what I don't like about FB. This should be interesting...

[Titanium Justice]

While I wouldn't care as much for Facebook going down as compared to PSN. I still think this is very wrong.

Like really, these hackers are running around as if they own the entire internet. Its driving me nuts! And their reasons all seem to be of their own intentions, and yet they claim that its for the people. Well you know what, the people don't want websites to be hacked. They would like to feel safe when surfing the internet.

That's a little something they can't give us. So yeah, Anonymous, you fail at life.

[Ben]

One of these days Anonymous will realize that anarchy doesn't work. While governments may be corrupt, anons are actually doing harm on a massive scale.

Edited by Bagel, 10 August 2011 - 11:29 AM.

[Moosh]

One of these days Anonymous will realize that anarchy doesn't work. While governments may be corrupt, anons are actually doing harm on a massive scale.

I'm confused here. Since when has Anonymous been messing with government stuff? I thought that was Lulzsec...

[Mitchfork]

By being vigilantes, Anonymous is indirectly anarchistic.

[MoscowModder]

Anonymous does not have the right to destroy Facebook. I don't use it, and I agree that it is a privacy concern, but its members choose to use it. Lots of people like it, and no amount of self-righteous, anarchist idealism is going to make it right to disable the largest social network in the world.

[Nathaniel]

One of these days Anonymous will realize that anarchy doesn't work. While governments may be corrupt, anons are actually doing harm on a massive scale.

There will always exist people who think this. As individuals, they eventually realize what you say, but they will forever be replaced by others who don't realize such a thing. After all, anonymous is many and conceptual, not one or centralized. Anon will always exist because of the capabilities of the human mind.

As for this hack scare though, the hack ain't gonna really happen, and if it did, it wouldn't be nearly as dramatic as people would make it out to be. A temporary setback at worst. The only real harm, if you can even call it that, could be from the hype it gets.

[Chakaa]

I usually like what Anonymous' intentions are, but I don't agree with what they're doing here. They do things "for the people," yet this would probably cause more harm than anything. As SpacemanDan had said, I use Facebook to easily communicate with people. Using peoples information is wrong, maybe Anonymous could just threat Facebook or something? I think "killing" Facebook is a little extreme.

[Golden Chocobo]

Eh. Perhaps the world would plummet into a state of productivity without facebook. Oh no!

I'll just make sure to save all of my pictures somewhere else

[Fabbrizio]

Eh. Perhaps the world would plummet into a state of productivity without facebook. Oh no!

Quoted for freaking truth, seriously.