How Do I Delete My Facebook Account?

On 04/14/2018 12:32 PM, David_B wrote:

[snip]

Good folk EMBRACE Facebook - it's certainly here to stay! ;-)

We are FACEBOOK. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

On 15-Apr-18 11:44 AM, Sycho wrote:

I thought I overheard notX say this in
alt.computer.workshop on Sat, 14 Apr 2018 21:18:05 -0500 :

On 04/14/2018 12:32 PM, David_B wrote:

[snip]

Good folk EMBRACE Facebook - it's certainly here to stay! ;-)

We are FACEBOOK. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

https://i.imgur.com/bhpa2nR.gif


*FUNNY*! :-D

David_B
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 17:32:22 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Good folk EMBRACE Facebook - it's certainly here to stay! ;-)

ROFL.




--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
================================================== =
Sex is nobody's business except for the three people involved.

Diesel wrote:
David_B
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 17:32:22 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Good folk EMBRACE Facebook - it's certainly here to stay! ;-)

ROFL.

The FTC has the option at the moment, to fine it
and put it out of business. Because Facebook violated the
consent decree it signed a few years back (they did
something naughty and as a first-time offender were
let off the hook). And now... they have to be punished.
While it could be a slap on the wrist, if the FTC wanted,
it could just bankrupt them. Will the government send a
message ? Who knows.

Paul

On 16-Apr-18 3:56 AM, Paul wrote:
Diesel wrote:
David_B
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 17:32:22 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
Good folk EMBRACE Facebook - it's certainly here to stay! ;-)

ROFL.

The FTC has the option at the moment, to fine it
and put it out of business. Because Facebook violated the
consent decree it signed a few years back (they did
something naughty and as a first-time offender were
let off the hook). And now... they have to be punished.
While it could be a slap on the wrist, if the FTC wanted,
it could just bankrupt them. Will the government send a
message ? Who knows.

Â*Â* Paul

*Mark Zuckerberg impresses*!

Judging by Facebook stock's 4.7% gain last week compared to the S&P
500's 2% rise, Zuckerberg handled himself well when he spent a total of
about 10 hours answering questions in front of nearly 100 politicians in
hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday. But Facebook's $164.52 stock price at
the end of the week still is below the levels above $180 that it was
trading at before news of the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke last month.

Investors will get more answers from Facebook about how all this
attention in the press is affecting its business when the company
reports its first-quarter results later this month. The social network
is scheduled to report results for its first quarter after market close
on April 25.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/...facebooks.aspx

On 16 Apr 2018, Wolf K wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

FWIW, about once a month (I don't go one FB very often), I click
off all page/friend/"suggestions". I Hide every ad. If FB asks
why, I always click "not relevant". Even though the ad is
obviously based on Likes. Nyaaah!

I didn't know you could decline ads. I rarely see them - I guess my
browser ad-blocker is doing its job - but next time I do I'll try it
the official way.

I've had a Facebook account for years, but I've avoided using it until
recently when I got involved in a project where it became necessary for
a while.

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-04-15 22:56, Paul wrote:
Diesel wrote:
David_B
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 17:32:22 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
Good folk EMBRACE Facebook - it's certainly here to stay! ;-)

ROFL.

The FTC has the option at the moment, to fine it
and put it out of business. Because Facebook violated the
consent decree it signed a few years back (they did
something naughty and as a first-time offender were
let off the hook). And now... they have to be punished.
While it could be a slap on the wrist, if the FTC wanted,
it could just bankrupt them. Will the government send a
message ? Who knows.

Â*Â* Paul

Will there even a be a public reminder that Facebook is second offender?
I doubt it. The pols want that data. They'll just a find way to get it
"lawfully".

FWIW, about once a month (I don't go one FB very often), I click off all
page/friend/"suggestions". I Hide every ad. If FB asks why, I always
click "not relevant". Even though the ad is obviously based on Likes.
Nyaaah!

If enough people do that, the algorithms will need the AI equivalent of
a psychiatrist. Nyaaah!

FB cannot do what the pols and users want it to do. Its business model
is selling user data. There is no way they can survive if they give
users absolute control over the data.

FWIW, I would pay for FB-type service that did not sell user data. Last
per-user revenue for FB that I saw suggests that $10 or $15/month would
be a money-maker.

Does that factor in the inevitable reduction in user base?

I doubt people would pay much more than $5-10. Especially if they needed to
do it for all social media sites. It would expensive pretty quickly.

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-04-17 13:21, Chris wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-04-15 22:56, Paul wrote:
Diesel wrote:
David_B
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 17:32:22 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
Good folk EMBRACE Facebook - it's certainly here to stay! ;-)

ROFL.

The FTC has the option at the moment, to fine it
and put it out of business. Because Facebook violated the
consent decree it signed a few years back (they did
something naughty and as a first-time offender were
let off the hook). And now... they have to be punished.
While it could be a slap on the wrist, if the FTC wanted,
it could just bankrupt them. Will the government send a
message ? Who knows.

Â*Â* Paul

Will there even a be a public reminder that Facebook is second offender?
I doubt it. The pols want that data. They'll just a find way to get it
"lawfully".

FWIW, about once a month (I don't go one FB very often), I click off all
page/friend/"suggestions". I Hide every ad. If FB asks why, I always
click "not relevant". Even though the ad is obviously based on Likes.
Nyaaah!

If enough people do that, the algorithms will need the AI equivalent of
a psychiatrist. Nyaaah!

FB cannot do what the pols and users want it to do. Its business model
is selling user data. There is no way they can survive if they give
users absolute control over the data.

FWIW, I would pay for FB-type service that did not sell user data. Last
per-user revenue for FB that I saw suggests that $10 or $15/month would
be a money-maker.

Does that factor in the inevitable reduction in user base?

I doubt people would pay much more than $5-10. Especially if they needed to
do it for all social media sites. It would expensive pretty quickly.


Advertising spending in the USA was $165 billion in 2014, that works out
to about $500 per capita. It's been dropping steadily for the last 20
years or so. I don't have more recent figures. The link is one of many
that you'll find for "advertising spending as percentage of GDP":

https://www.mediapost.com/publicatio...gdp-slows.html

FWIW, in 2017, Facebook's average revenue per user:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...enue-per-user/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ser-by-region/

Even in the USA, at about $26/user, it's a remarkably small fraction of
the advertising spend per person overall.


Doesn't really answer my question. Also a subscription model wouldn't get
rid of advertising, just the invasive targeted ones.

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-04-18 03:41, Chris wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-04-17 13:21, Chris wrote:
[...]
I doubt people would pay much more than $5-10. Especially if they needed to
do it for all social media sites. It would expensive pretty quickly.

I think it could be managed the way the telecoms manage the
phone/internet services. You pay your provider for the service, and they
work out who owes how much to whom.

That would make it very hard for start ups to get any traction. Their
clients would be the telcos not the end users. Not sure I like that model.

This method of managing a
multiple-provider interconnected service network was pioneered by the
railroads and the national Post Offices in the 1800s, BTW. The telecoms
refined the method. I see no reason why it wouldn't work for social
media services. In fact, it would be a way for the telecoms to get a
large slice of Facebook's action. they could put it out of business.

Replacing one monolithic organisation with another isn't going to change
things.

Problem is. FB is established. It would be likely be psychologically and
therefore practically impossible, to get people to switch. IOW, an
opportunity missed by the telecoms.

Money is very easy way to change minds. It may feel invaluable when it's
free, but as soon as it costs cold hard cash it becomes less important.

Advertising spending in the USA was $165 billion in 2014, that works out
to about $500 per capita. It's been dropping steadily for the last 20
years or so. I don't have more recent figures. The link is one of many
that you'll find for "advertising spending as percentage of GDP":

https://www.mediapost.com/publicatio...gdp-slows.html

FWIW, in 2017, Facebook's average revenue per user:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...enue-per-user/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ser-by-region/

Even in the USA, at about $26/user, it's a remarkably small fraction of
the advertising spend per person overall.


Doesn't really answer my question. Also a subscription model wouldn't get
rid of advertising, just the invasive targeted ones.

Not a direct answer, true, but I think some clues as to how a
non-ad-supported service could work. IMO, people aren't aware of how
much they actually pay for advertising. It's real money.

True. marketeers used to pay to get people's data, now we give away far
more information for free.

Perhaps FB et al should start *paying* their users?