Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 6, 2012, 1:19 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7
Default 3,000 Photos are Uploaded to Facebook Every Second

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?
alansky is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 6, 2012, 3:49 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
kazuya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,006
Default

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.
kazuya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2012, 4:25 PM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

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).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2012, 6:16 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

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+.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2012, 3:49 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,487
Default

Rubbish is almost correct as the quality of Facebook photos is horrendous, not even worth uploading to FB for me...
LTZ470 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 3:07 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

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

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 4:25 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
tsquare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
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.
tsquare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 7:26 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

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.)
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Feb 9, 2012 at 7:30 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2012, 7:30 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

And Facebook owns the right to all those photos. That is why you put the smallest res possible on Facebook.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2012, 2:14 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
MartinSykes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
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.
__________________
AutoHDR - Free HDR software for Windows at http://www.autohdr.co.uk on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=...36045126467361
My Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinsykes
Panasonic DMC-FZ38, Sony ­α580
MartinSykes is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:44 PM.