3,000 Photos are Uploaded to Facebook Every Second

[alansky]

Concerning today's article "3,000 Photos are Uploaded to Facebook Every Second"—

Facebook should be charged with littering for encouraging their subscribers to upload such a glut of useless garbage to the internet each and every day.

Any comments?

[kazuya]

i couldnt possibly comment without seeing the photos in question, but i would assume every photo means something to someone, and to me thats whats photography is all about.

[JimC]

Facebook is a *very* busy site. 3000 per second doesn't sound like a lot to me, given that they have around half a billion *active* users now. ;-)

Personally, I've got access to Facebook blocked in my PC's hosts file, which prevents any communication from my PCs with Facebook, since something about a site like that collecting statistics about sites I visit "rubs me the wrong way" (as that's just too much information for one site to have from my perspective).

So, a high percentage of web pages I visit have small sections on them that consist of an error on the screen showing unable to access Facebook or something to that effect (since a *lot* of web pages have links to content from Facebook anymore).

I may "break down" and join the crowd at some point. However, so far, I've tried to resist communicating with a site like Facebook that obviously maintains information about *most* of the internet users online anymore (and something like 70% of the internet users in the U.S. are using Facebook now).

But, most of my friends and family (including my wife) are very active on Facebook (which means that their life is an "open book" to anyone with access to the posts, statistics and logs being kept by Facebook).

[TCav]

I think you're greatly overestimating the consequences of Facebook's data hoarding. They may store it all (which I consider unlikely) but the quantity of data makes any single piece insignificant. Yes, they may be able to see how many of it's members also use Google+, but with half a billion members, they probably won't ever have occasion to want to know if any one member is using Google+.

[LTZ470]

Rubbish is almost correct as the quality of Facebook photos is horrendous, not even worth uploading to FB for me...

[VTphotog]

What's Facebook?
As to privacy questions, it appears Google is getting more intrusive than ever, as well.

brian

[tsquare]

Originally Posted by JimC

Personally, I've got access to Facebook blocked in my PC's hosts file, which prevents any communication from my PCs with Facebook, since something about a site like that collecting statistics about sites I visit "rubs me the wrong way" (as that's just too much information for one site to have from my perspective).

Can you explain a little more about blocking access. I don't do facebook or twitter, and don't ever plan to do so. What I'm most curious about is if my PC is vulnerable since I don't do facebook. Does this make sense? Thanks.

[TCav]

The default condition for Facebook (or Twitter) members is that they remain logged into Facebook after they've left the website, and can then use their Facebook credentials to automatically log onto other sites and services that accept them. If you log out of Facebook when you're done, then when you go to those other sites, you'll have to login seperately.

For instance, we here at Steve's Forums have our own unique username and a secret password that the forum usees to know whether its really us when we show up. Steve's could very easily accept our current Facebook credentials to do the same thing. That's how Facebook can keep a record of your browsing habits. But if you logged off of Facebook when you were done, then Steve's wouldn't be able to use your Facebook credentials.

So if you don't have a Facebook account, you're not vulnerable. And even if you have a Facebook account, but you log off of Facebook when you leave, you're not vulnerable.

But if you really want to protect yourself from accidentally going to Facebook, you could place a line in your HOSTS file that redirects references for Facebook.com to other IP addresses. (See Hosts (file) and Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File for more info.)

[shoturtle]

And Facebook owns the right to all those photos. That is why you put the smallest res possible on Facebook.

[MartinSykes]

Originally Posted by shoturtle

And Facebook owns the right to all those photos. That is why you put the smallest res possible on Facebook.

Sort of. They don't get ownership in which case you would lose the right to do anything with them - they're still your photos and you can do whatever you want with them - but the terms also pretty much say that they can do whatever they want as well.

Back to the original point though, most of the photos posted on facebook are really just part of an ongoing conversation (here's Bob at the office party last night) or (this is where I want on my holidays) and you shouldn't really expect them to be of the same quality as a photo intended to be put on permanent public display. Banning rubbish facebook photos would be like saying people shouldn't talk to each other without crafting each sentence as if it was part of a historic address.