Yet another big banner headline. Yet another braindead “news” room exposed. “Lost girls in MXit drama”, the bold black letters scream, above photographs of two teenagers. The sub-headline repeats the headline, as if readers are too dumb to get it the first time: “Chat service linked to disappearance”.

The basis for this sensationalist drivel in the Saturday Star is that, amazingly, both girls are among the 5.2 million people in South Africa who (the article claims) use MXit. Unnamed experts warn of the “massive risks” on social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace (which have squat to do with MXit). Desmond Olivier, a “private investigator” associated with Missing Children SA, says MXit is “evil”.

If the girls had disappeared from the mall, would the headline have screamed “Lost girls in mall drama”? If they had met some guys at a disco, or communicated by telephone rather than by text, would the story have railed against the dangers of nightclubs? Would it have called the telephone evil?

Besides, what massive risks? Two missing girls among 5.2 million users is 0.0000385% of the user base. Stop the presses! Hold the front page! Oh wait, that’s exactly what the idiots did. Yet by my reckoning, such odds make MXit the safest possible thing for kids to be doing while awake.

It would have been real news is if they managed to disappear without being able to communicate with anyone. That takes some doing.

It gets better, though. One of the kids, 15-year-old Chantelynn Janse van Resnburg, lives with her father in Orania. She travelled alone, by bus, to visit her mother in Naboomspruit (which someone should inform the sub-editors is officially known as Mookgophong) and upon her return, instead of meeting her father in Hopetown, got off the bus in Johannesburg. Now I haven’t been to Orania, a kind of ultra-conservative white Afrikaner enclave, but I have been to Hopetown. There, I met the local satanist, a 17-year-old boy, so known by the townsfolk because he preferred black t-shirts and wore an earring. That his sights were set on escaping to the “big city” was not the most surprising news I’d heard that day. If I were that teenage girl, I’d also get off the bus in Johannesburg, rather than return to Hopetown or Orania.

The other girl, 17-year-old Hannelie Grabie, packed a suitcase, and took her make-up, hairdryer and back medication with her. Either that, or robbers who specialise in teenage accessories stole them. “We don’t know if she’s run away or disappeared,” says our private investigator. Boy, I hope he has a day job. What do you think, genius? That you need a hairdryer to access MXit? And this is the Clousseau who proposes to find South Africa’s missing children? I sure hope he’s not representative.

Both sets of parents are surprised at their daughters’ disappearance. Aren’t most parents of runaways surprised? If they had a clue, the girls probably wouldn’t have felt the need to run away.

I feel for the parents, and I hope the girls are found, and that they’re okay. But there’s nothing more to this story than a pair of runaways. Plain and simple. Unhappy at home, bright lights in their eyes, fell in with dodgy company, who knows? Slapping this on the front page, and blaming it on MXit, or Facebook, or MySpace, or the internet, or cellphones, or postcards, or bus services, is absurd. It’s braindead sensationalism which does the girls’ case more harm than good and slanders both the creators of MXit and its 5 199 998 other users.

The front page of the Saturday Star is worse even than its back page. At least the back page features serious news, such as: “‘My Nazi orgy with twisted F1 boss’”. Now that’s real journalism.

Finally, a Facebook group that achieved something! Hundreds of thousands of irate Facebook users made the company back down on telling everyone else what you bought on partner websites — an idea it sprung on users without warning, and without even the ability to opt out of the scheme. The article quotes Chamath Palihapitiya, a vice president at the company:

“Whenever we innovate and create great new experiences and new features, if they are not well understood at the outset, one thing we need to do is give people an opportunity to interact with them,” Palihapitiya was quoted as saying.

“After a while, they fall in love with them.”

Apparently they didn’t. But I can see how they would. Once enough of my friends know I shop for eczema cream, collect bondage accoutrement and just bought a book on living with a heroin addict, I’m sure I’ll come to love the idea.

Prats.

I’m increasingly pleased about having left Facebook. A couple of weeks ago I posted about advertising that appears in your news stream, cannily disguised to look like a photo update from a friend. Now, things are getting even murkier.

A guy named Joe discovered that not only were his purchases on Facebook partner sites like Overstock and Yelp being tracked, but they were being posted to his news stream. He didn’t opt in, and claims (justifiably, it would seem) not to have been given a clear and unambiguous way to opt out.

An AP story shows the implicit dangers of embarrassment and worse of this feature, which Facebook dubs “Beacon”. One guy discovered what his girlfriend had bought him as a present. Another found his movie ticket purchases displayed to his friends. The article not only shows how tricksey the feature is, but also notes that users cannot withdraw completely from the programme, but merely decrease the frequency of the relevant items in their news feeds. (Just like my account at Facebook is merely inactive, and cannot be deleted.)

This feature is remarkably offensive. “Hey, everyone, Jimmy bought some lube! Do you want some?” Or more realistically, as one source in the AP story says, “What if you bought a book on Amazon called ‘Coping with AIDS’ and that got published to every single one of your friends?”

Joe asks, plaintively: “Facebook, it is not OK to collect information about me from other sites. Please stop.”

Sorry, Joe. You agreed:

Facebook may also collect information about you from other sources, such as newspapers, blogs, instant messaging services, and other users of the Facebook service … in order to provide you with more useful information and a more personalized experience. … We may use information about you that we collect from other sources, including but not limited to newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services, Facebook Platform developers and other users of Facebook, to supplement your profile.

However, not being able to opt out of this offensive feature is contrary to Facebook’s own privacy policy, which states: “And you control the users with whom you share that information through the privacy settings on the My Privacy page.”

Turns out the privacy policy and terms of use are there to bind users, not Facebook. It also turns out, as I discovered when I wanted my account deleted, that once you agree, you can never revoke any permissions you gave Facebook. Not even when circumstances — such as Facebook’s shareholding — change. They own you and the lemons you buy. Forever.

Update: Duncan McLeod has published a Financial Times article on the subject on his website.

Since I’m laid up in bed with a rather annoying flu that managed to switch off both body and mind, I figured I’d pass the time and break the silence with links to the half-dozen most popular posts on my blog, as per Google Analytics. They represent a gratifying mix of subjects, ranging from the environment to economic theory, from social networks to media freedom, from silly bureaucrats to great press photographs. In order of popularity:

1. 10 reasons to reject global warming — A summary of why I can’t accept the orthodox view that global warming is a crisis that requires large-scale government intervention. This item has not only been the most popular, despite being published only three weeks ago, but it recorded a surprisingly high average of 24 minutes spent on the page. It was a follow-up to a column published in Maverick magazine, entitled Global warming is a hoax. In some ways, the second attempt turned out to be the column I had actually set out to write.
2. Child labour: the baby dragon — This was a response to a question asked in the comments to an earlier post, which simply argued that import restrictions on Chinese goods, while protecting narrow interests, are not in the broad interests of South African consumers. “But what about child labour?” came the question. My response, namely that the description of such practices is an over-generalisation, that blanket condemnation is simplistic, and that either way, our objection can better be expressed in individual, targeted, specific boycotts rather than state-enforced punishment against an entire foreign country at the cost of local consumers, prompted a fair bit of outrage. As it would, when you see things only in black-and-white, and when every problem only has one, statist, solution.
3. This is a poke-free zone — Despite deriving some benefits from Facebook, the popular social network that attracted hundreds of thousands of South Africans in the space of just a few months, the signal-to-noise ratio had been declining, and I vowed to leave for good the day Microsoft got involved. It did. I left.
4. Info Scandal II — A cautionary tale about what happens when politicians and civil servants own media interests and try to buy out a major newspaper critical of the government. A follow-up post noted a significant difference, pointed out by Anton Harber, between the proposed buyout of Johnnic Communications (soon to be called Avusa) and the original Info Scandal of 1978.
5. The candyman can’t — Who needs to invent jokes when politically-correct bureaucrats will hand them to you on custom-printed signs?
6. The life and death of Kevin Carter — An old article about the late Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer stirred recollections of the years of South Africa’s transition to democracy. It occurred to me that many of my memories from that time aren’t memories at all. They’re Kevin Carter’s photographs.

Of these, my own favourite is the Kevin Carter piece. Like the item on William F. Deedes and the post on Isambard Kingdom Brunel (and the follow-up column it sparked), they reflect the pleasure I take in history and the great people that populate it.

The rot has begun. Scarcely has Microsoft bought its slice of Facebook (over which I left), than advertising is starting to appear. Right there in the news stream; a large, glaring advertisement. This is what it looks like:

A few things are notable. Unlike the Facebook Flyers, which appear on the left-hand-side, very visible but without wasting space needed for the news stream, and unlike Google-style text ads, which are non-intrusive and take up little space, this advertisement appears slap bang in the news stream, where interesting updates from friends vie for screen real-estate even on a very large screen. I’d guess on a typical notebook screen or a mobile device it would take up a good proportion of the visible screen space.

It is disguised as a real update, as if a friend just posted some new photos. That’s devious and offensive. Magazines (credible magazines, at least), decline advertisements that attempt to appear like regular editorial, since this hurts the integrity of the publication. I were in charge of Facebook advertising, an advert that looks like a legitimate update would be declined.

It appears to be completely untargeted. Credit reports comprise one of the biggest categories of online spam. What next? Pump-and-dump share schemes? Invitations from hot babes looking for money, honey?

It is true that some other social networks — including Orkut in particular — suffer from spam problems, especially in group discussion forums. This is something they will have to combat if they intend capitalising on the discontent created by Microsoft/Facebook deal. But at least they don’t (as far as I’m aware) condone the spam. At least they don’t place the spam themselves, where it clogs up an already-cluttered news stream.

In all ways, this particular Facebook advertisement is offensive and sends a clear message of where Facebook is going: more clutter, more noise, less signal, less usefulness. It lacks even the minimal redeeming quality — unintentional humour about Yahoo! spam filtering — of this inviting offer I recently received:

Marc Andreessen hasn’t sat on his laurels after Mosaic/Netscape and now runs Ning, a place where anyone can create their own social network. He explains, without resorting to (much) technical jargon, the concept behind Google’s OpenSocial API. It’s well worth a read, even if you’re wedded to closed, proprietary platforms (read: Facebook), but especially if, like me, you aren’t.

Since leaving Facebook (the story of which is told here, here, here and here) I’ve been waiting with some anticipation for news of Google’s plans for social networking. Paul Jacobson has found some news on the subject. Says he:

As I understand this plan, Google is releasing a bunch of APIs, probably initially focussed on Orkut, to be rolled out across most, if not all, of Google’s properties. This would result in a kind of social network/interactive layer over these sites and services. Developers would be able to develop apps based on these APIs, presumably for distribution across the Google network and use on Google’s sites.

… I think this is going to be a new beginning for a new paradigm of the social web.

Sounds promising. Very promising.

I’m super-mad at a super-poke. Was El Reg ever right. You can never leave Facebook. Wrote Chris Williams:

The funniest thing about such groups is that you can’t actually leave Facebook. Ever. The closest you can get to the escape hatch is a temporary deactivation. As Zuckerberg whispers in your ear as you grab the handle: “Even after you deactivate, your friends can still invite you to events, tag you in photos, or ask you to join groups.”

You can opt not to receive emails telling you about it, but your data cadaver is still there, waiting to be reanimated. Spooky.

Well, technically that’s true. You can indeed opt not to receive e-mails telling you about it. It’s just that nobody’s listening.

Facebook doesn’t actually heed that request. When I deleted my account, I took great care to heed the warning, and to choose not to receive any futher e-mails from Facebook. What do I need notifications for if I need a Facebook account to see what they’re about?

Within hours, I had received e-mails notifying me of a private message, that I got tagged in a note, and that someone sent me a super-poke. Even before leaving, I had told Facebook that I wasn’t interested in the damn super-poke application. So that’s twice Facebook told me to go poke myself.

The link that claims to allow me to “control” what e-mails I receive from Facebook requires… re-joining Facebook.

The spamming sods deserve Microsoft. I expect a video raspberry from Mark Zuckerman next, for falling for his phishing scam.

I’m off to update my spam filters. Facebook is now officially evil.

I promised I’d leave Facebook if it did a deal with Microsoft. I said I’d make good on this promise.

Some impatient souls (or should I say Facebook Fanboys) weren’t even prepared to grant me a few days to tie up loose ends and inform friends and group members, but insisted that I delete my Facebook account instantly.

This update is for them. My account is now gone. To be accurate, it is available for perusal only by Mark Zuckerberg and Microsoft.

I can be found on Orkut, LinkedIn and Plaxo Pulse. I’ve never liked the idea of using more than one social network site, however, so eventually I’ll choose. I quite like the update stream and look-and-feel of Plaxo, but in the end I’ll probably settle on Orkut. Especially since it’s due for a re-launch and overhaul starting next week. I can’t wait.

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.

There’s an interesting battle brewing that may decide the fate of Facebook, the hugely popular social networking site. The country network of which I’m a member, South Africa, has tripled in size to 300 000 in just three months. I didn’t know there were that many internet connections over here.

However, there’s a dark cloud on the horizon. A very dark cloud. Microsoft is, according to the Wall Street Journal, in talks to buy a stake in the startup:

Microsoft in recent weeks approached Facebook with proposals to invest in the startup that could value the fast-growing site at $10 billion or higher, said people familiar with the matter. If those talks bear fruit, Microsoft could purchase a stake of up to 5% in the closely held startup, at a cost in the range of $300 million to $500 million, the people said.

But Microsoft must first outgun Google, which has also expressed strong interest in a Facebook stake, according to people familiar with the matter.

Microsoft’s Passport signon technology (now rebranded as Live ID) has proved to be wide open to abuse, and not only by external miscreants. When Microsoft bought Hotmail almost ten years ago, the webmail pioneer turned into a sluggish performer and a hotbed of spam. As this page documents, Microsoft itself had for years been both negligent and willfully complicit in some of the abuse. On one occasion it changed, without notification, all users’ preferences to share information with third parties, for example. On another, it tried to claim copyright on everything sent via Hotmail. It certainly has not been particularly respectful of users’ privacy, and has burned its trust relationship with its more savvy customers.

I’m sure Microsoft has tightened up its privacy policies by now. It’s appointed a Chief Privacy Officer and its PR machine makes all the right defensive noises. However, a 3 500 word policy can hide many secrets. My reading of its copyright notice suggests that it still claims an exceptionally broad licence to copy, use and sublicence anything you post on any Microsoft service, even if it is intended only for a private community.

So I vowed never to use any Microsoft-owned online service — MSN Messenger, Windows Live, Hotmail — ever again. Publications that required Passport Network registration were simply dropped from my reading list.

Facebook is already over-cluttered with applications. Some are useful, some cool, some annoying, and some just downright offensive. I don’t mean in the prurient sense; I mean in the spam hotbed sense. I usually decline to install them, but I accepted a fun one involving beer just yesterday. Contrary to explicit instructions not to, it invited a random selection of friends, some of which I really didn’t want invited. This kind of spamware can kill Facebook.

But not as quickly as Microsoft can. If Google buys Facebook, I’ll live with it. The Googleplex 0wnz me already, and I’m not even a heavy user of its services. However, it has yet to show the kind of negligence or nefarious activity that will compromise my trust. For now, the convenience of its online tools outweigh the very real privacy risks. But if Microsoft buys Facebook, I’m outta there like a shot. The Hotmail fiasco alone was enough for me to never trust Microsoft with private information of any sort again. Through negligence, incompetence and deliberate action, Microsoft has abused the trust of users too often in the past. Here’s hoping Facebook doesn’t become the latest victim.

Update: In good Facebook tradition, I’ve created a group: If Facebook sells to Microsoft, we’re leaving.

Om Malik reports on a Facebook development that worries some privacy advocates.

Access to the profile information of a user of Facebook, a hyper-popular social network, has traditionally been limited to other Facebook members, and then restricted further by a fairly comprehensive set of privacy controls. Soon, however, Facebook will permit anyone to search its database and find people by name. The information provided will be limited, and users can opt out on their privacy settings page. However, once found, a searcher can send messages or “poke” someone, which, if the recipient responds, could reveal much or all of their profile.

Read the rest of this entry »