Joined: 23 August 2006
Great topic Myth. Waiting to read everyone's views here.
No, I don't like my family memebers to be on the same forum which I visit. In RL, we do everything together...I mean we go everywhere together, hang out together as a family etc. we don't have our separate friend circles. at times, it feels claustrophobic. Forums I visit are my breathing space and i refuse to share it with my family. You'll see me on net mostly during office hours or after 11 at night. i try not devote my family time to forums. therefore, i think, that i have this right to keep my forum life to me only. Same goes for my PMs.
Wellsaid! Its not safe to share our info with the people whom we really don't know!! We need to rely on the content they type ,they speak! Infact that may not be their real attitude in real life!! Some who sound harsh may really be soft person in real! The things are highly unpredictable on Internet!!
At the same time,we do know our limits as adults and we can choose our friends or atleast try to assess the people! All the people who are on net are not really completely different in their real life!!
I agree with you the part regarding disliking family mem to be part of the same forums!! We do spend most of the time with them and we do need to spend time for ourselves also!!
Thankyou Gauri ji for the response!
Joined: 23 August 2006
I joined a Gujju Yahoo group about two years back. It was a group with like 100 people and people forwarded messages and discussed various topics... And, it was a fabulous way to remain in touch with my roots. There were some virtual toddlers, aged like 12 and 13 who were there. Not that it mattered, but they gave out any info that was asked of them. Thankfully, none of us was a stalker or anything, but it is def wrong for kids to be allowed to access all parts of internet. But overall, that Y! group gave me so many friends for that period that I had no time for RL friends for a while. This started during summer and later, people started getting busy and the group became bigger and bigger and we chose to communicate through messengers with close ones. Kuch log bichad gaye but I am still in touch with a few and I am very pleased to say that I have became really good friends with a few and they will last for my whole life-time.
So yes, you can never be safe while on net, but genuine people are around us as well. So, don't just start talking to people. Take time and observe them well before befriending anyone. And if someone wants to find anything, they can go to any extent to do so! So, all we can do is talk with caution...
Nice to hear your experiences about virtual friends Rutumodi ji!!
Joined: 23 August 2006
Nice suggestions vinnet bhayya!! Nice cartoon at right time!!!
Deactivated on request
Joined: 13 January 2006
Joined: 23 August 2006
Nice info by Souro ji, Maya ji, Gauri ji, Subha di, Sareg Bhayya,Qwerty ,Kabhijit,Priya ji and other friends!!
Thanks for sharing the info!!
Joined: 20 October 2006
Joined: 01 January 2006
(CNET) -- On an otherwise placid holiday weekend, one blog's commentary on a change to Facebook's terms of service created a firestorm of banter on the Web: does the social network claim ownership to any user content on the site, even if the user deletes it?
Facebook is addressing users' concerns about its ownership of images and other content.
Facebook reorganized its terms of service last Wednesday. In a blog post, company legal representative Suzie White provided an explanation.
"We used to have several different documents that outlined what people could and could not do on Facebook, but now we're consolidating all this information to one central place," White wrote.
"We've also simplified and clarified a lot of information that applies to you, including some things you shouldn't do when using the site."
The blog post sounded benign. But the brouhaha arose on Sunday over a revision in the wording of Facebook's policy over what happens to profile content--shared items, blog post-like "notes," photos--when members delete their accounts.
Consumer advocacy blog The Consumerist phrased Facebook's fresh policy as "We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever," pointing out that Facebook's ToS spruce-up removed several sentences in which the company said its licenses on user content expired upon account deletion.
And that's where the hysteria began.
"Facebook should now be called The Information Blackhole," one Consumerist commenter proclaimed. "What goes in never comes out. Be careful what you huck in there."
Truth be told, most Facebook users won't give a hoot, the same way that the flurry over the Beacon advertising program in late 2007 was fueled by a few vocal privacy advocates while the general population didn't seem to care about it one way or the other.
But for advocates of copyright reform and privacy, not to mention photographers and writers who may want the photos they upload or "notes" they write on Facebook to eventually lead to some kind of profit, the news was alarming.
Some prominent Twitterers and bloggers, like New Yorker music critic Sasha Frere-Jones, announced that they were deleting their Facebook accounts or pulling all uploaded content.
So Facebook issued somewhat of a clarification on Monday to explain what the change really meant.
"We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload," a statement from Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt read. And indeed, Facebook's terms of service do say that "User Content and Applications/Connect Sites" are exempt from its claims on content ownership.
"The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site," Schnitt's statement continued. "That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend)."
The statement also noted a few fine points. First, Facebook's license only permits it to use user content "in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof," indicating that CEO Mark Zuckerberg does not plan to make the site profitable by selling scandalous user photos to the National Enquirer when those Facebook members run for elected office.
And second, if that Facebook content was not public, the site will respect the member's chosen privacy settings. In other words, if your profile and the photos you have uploaded to it are only accessible to people on your friends list, Facebook says it does not have the right to show those photos to anyone outside your friends list.
Facebook has expressed disapproval when photographs and profile screenshots normally protected by the site's login wall or privacy settings have been made public on the Web.
The site reportedly threatened gossip blog mogul Nick Denton with an account deletion when one of his properties, Gawker, posted photographs found on a socialite's Facebook profile. Suffice it to say it would be hypocritical for Facebook to publicly distribute, let alone sell, the same content itself.
Things are a little bit murky for sure, though. Unlike the Yahoo-owned Flickr, Facebook does not have extensive copyright preferences, meaning that a professional photographer might want to choose a media-sharing site where there's less of a gray area as to what can actually happen down the road.
But as Facebook becomes more and more of a content-sharing hub, especially now that the Facebook Connect product expands its reach to third-party sites, it's likely there will be a louder cry among members--especially those involved in creative industries who use their Facebook profiles for professional promotion or publicity--for clearer terms. iReport.com: Too much information posted online?
The way they stand now, Facebook's terms of service claim that the company does not have ownership over content, yet that it does have "an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (to)...use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works, and distribute" material as long as it doesn't violate the privacy preferences set by the user.
Considering Facebook content is login-protected by default, the outcry should be quelled somewhat by that "subject only to your privacy settings" phrasing. Still, this is a debate that might not go away so quickly.
Zuckerberg wrote a post for the Facebook blog later on Monday about the issue: "We still have work to do to communicate more clearly about these issues, and our terms are one example of this," he wrote.
"Our philosophy that people own their information and control who they share it with has remained constant. A lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective of the rights we need to provide this service to you. Over time we will continue to clarify our positions and make the terms simpler."
Zuckerberg continued: "We're at an interesting point in the development of the open online world where these issues are being worked out. It's difficult terrain to navigate and we're going to make some missteps, but as the leading service for sharing information we take these issues and our responsibility to help resolve them very seriously."
Joined: 18 January 2006
|Topics||Topic Starter||Replies||Views||Last Post|
|internet debate tactics?||jettythegod||24||4048||27 September 2009 at 7:50pm
|Arguing Over The Internet.||P1nk||22||1204||17 August 2009 at 11:12pm
|Are you an Internet Addict?||DesiChocolate||39||2346||29 March 2009 at 11:34pm
|Rs 2 Crore Spent to Keep Ajmal Kasab Safe||Meena1||12||2600||11 March 2009 at 1:30pm
|White-Safe Black- Not Safe||TexanHolden||6||531||02 December 2007 at 10:10pm