It’s been a good four months. I watched the South Africa network on Facebook grow from 100,000 to 400,000 members, and missed Miss South Carolina by minutes. Maybe she is on Orkut. That’s where I’m going.

Adieu, Facebook. I never was sure about the propriety of the Facebook feature that copied your blog posts as notes. But then, I never was sure about the propriety of poking random people either, or giving them growing gifts.

If the notes annoyed you, my apologies. If you enjoyed them, thanks. Soon, however, they’ll be no more. If you kept track of these posts via Facebook, you’ll have to subscribe to my RSS feed instead, or become a guinea-pig for the brand new e-mail subscription service on your right. (If it doesn’t work as expected, please do let me know.)

Microsoft is buying a teensy sliver of Facebook for a whole lotta dough, with the intention of advertising at me. Personally. It thinks it paid $300 for that right, but I’m not up for that. The deal is all over the news, and as usual, The Register has by far the best headline and funniest take on it.Shortly after I blogged about the impending deal, in which I explained my deep misgivings about the prospect of doing business with a company whose products, privacy policies and security record I don’t particularly like, and whose online services I’ve long vowed never to use again, I made a public promise. If Microsoft buys a stake in Facebook, I’m leaving.

I’m not saying that Google is any less of a privacy risk, but I sold my soul to them a long time ago, and to date, it hasn’t burnt me. There’s no turning back now, and I have no spare soul to sell to Microsoft. Call it a risk exposure minimisation strategy. Orkut was all the rage in 2004, when I last tried it, but it was a dog. It’s been groomed a little since, had its nails clipped and stuff, but still seems to enjoy some canine capriciousness. I’ll get used to it. Someone, somewhere in the Googleplex, must be paying just a little attention to Orkut, surely?

I’d better get used to it. Because in a few days, soon as I’ve informed everyone, handed over the groups I manage, and backed up whatever data I have on there, I’ll never point my browser at facebook.com again. Maybe eating the cookie will make me feel better.

Adieu, Facebook.

Update: I’m now on Orkut. Apparently, it’s up for a relaunch on 5 November, so I’m looking forward to see what the Googledroids have conjured up. If you’re there too, you can find my profile here.

Technology is root of all evil, says IMF. No really. “Technological progress alone explains almost all of the increase in inequality from the early 1980s,” the report (PDF) says.

The “press points” undermine their own message, however:

Over the past two decades, income inequality has risen in most regions and countries. At the same time, per capita incomes have risen across virtually all regions for even the poorest segments of population, indicating that the poor are better off in an absolute sense during this phase of globalization, although incomes for the relatively well off have increased at a faster pace.

Think about it: does income inequality matter? It is not absolute quality of life that matters to people? Those who say it does matter can’t come up with anything better than warnings about social unrest to back up their claim.

They fail to note that inequality rises even if the rate of income growth is uniform across all income levels. If you earn $10,000 and I earn $1,000, and next year, each of us earns 10% more, then inequality will have risen from $9,000 to $9,900. If my income rises by 50%, and yours by only 10%, inequality will still be up from $9,000 to $9,500. Yet will I really be worse off for it?

In fact, they fail to point out the rather obvious that for inequality to decrease, the rich would, to within a rounding error, have to stop getting richer altogether. Which is really what the left wants, isn’t it?

The notion of income inequality is the biggest fraud perpetrated on socio-economic discourse in decades. No wonder it leads to such absurd Luddite conclusions.

The threat from Essop Pahad, the “minister in the presidency” of South Africa, to withdraw advertising from the Sunday Times over the paper’s coverage of the theft conviction, alleged drunken misbehaviour, and abuse of power by Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, the health minister, is “dangerous, dangerous, dangerous”.

So says Anton Harber, the go-to man at Wits University for all matters journalism, in a column that sets out clearly why such a threat — which appears not to be empty rhetoric — would constitute “bad governance, an abuse of public trust and perhaps even corruption”.

They should be slapped down as fast as anyone else actively promoting the abuse of the state coffers in pursuit of their political agendas.

Other publishers and media owners might be tempted to rub their hands with glee at the prospect of this approximately R150-million being dispersed among the Time’s rival publications. If they do, they will be displaying an extraordinary shortsightedness.

To allow the government to use their expenditure to punish those they disapproved of and reward those they like would be to had them a powerful weapon to use against their critics. This month it may be the Sunday Times, but if it proves effective then you can be sure that it will be used against others. It means that publishers and broadcasters will have to think twice every time you do something which might find disfavour with the presidency, such as questioning the use of beetroot rather than antiretrovirals, or pointing to the poor conditions in your local hospital’s maternity wards.

It would be a matter of time before such a weapon was used against those who did no more than give favourable coverage to the wrong faction of the ruling party.

Well said. The threats to media freedom are mounting. President Thabo Mbeki regularly uses his bully pulpit to castigate what he believes to be irresponsible, inaccurate or unpatriotic reporting, usually in response to criticism of the policies of the ruling party, or the actions of the executive. Like anyone else, he’s entitled to his opinions, but a president should use his status and power judiciously. When a head of government publicly denunciates the very institutions that exist to protect the people from their government, this has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

When that same government threatens to use the prodigious power of public money against the media, this too has a chilling effect on press freedom. Not to mention that it’s your and my money, taken from us by legal force with the promise to use it for the benefit, not to the detriment, of the people.

Thomas Jefferson put it this way: “I think it as honorable to the government neither to know nor notice its sycophants or censors, as it would be undignified and criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter.”

That’s exactly what the ANC government is doing.

But they’re lying, the politicians might (and do) say. Again, Jefferson, who himself suffered greatly, both personally and as president, from the very press whose freedom he defended, responds: “The man who fears no truths has nothing to fear from lies.”

A free press can be good or bad, but without freedom it can only be bad.