Jump to content

Edit filter log

Details for log entry 32193755

16:52, 20 March 2022: 80.233.87.231 (talk) triggered filter 970, performing the action "edit" on Criticism of Facebook. Actions taken: Tag; Filter description: Possibly inaccurate edit summary (examine)

Changes made in edit

this is a website that lies
{{short description|Media coverage of the shortcomings of Facebook's market dominance}}
{{Use American English|date=August 2020}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=August 2021}}
{{Very long|rps=108|date=October 2021}}
{{Merge from |Unfollow Everything |discuss=Talk:Criticism of Facebook#Merging Unfollow Everything |date=December 2021 }}
{{Facebook sidebar}}
The '''criticism of Facebook''' or [[Meta Platforms]] has led to international media coverage and significant reporting of its legal troubles and the outsize influence it has on the lives and health of its users and employees, as well on its influence on the way media, specifically news, is reported and distributed. Notable issues include [[Internet privacy]], such as use of a widespread [[Facebook like button#Tracking|"like" button on third-party websites tracking users]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Geoff |last=Duncan |title=Open letter urges Facebook to strengthen privacy |url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/open-letter-urges-facebook-to-strengthen-privacy/ |website=[[Digital Trends]] |date=June 17, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Ian |last=Paul |title=Advocacy Groups Ask Facebook for More Privacy Changes |url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/199099/facebook_privacy_fixes.html |website=[[PC World]] |publisher=[[International Data Group]] |date=June 17, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> possible indefinite records of user information,<ref>{{cite web |first=Maria |last=Aspen |title=How Sticky Is Membership on Facebook? Just Try Breaking Free |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/technology/11facebook.html |website=[[The New York Times]] |date=February 11, 2008 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> automatic [[Facial recognition system|facial recognition]] software,<ref>{{cite web |first=Sebastian |last=Anthony |title=Facebook's facial recognition software is now as accurate as the human brain, but what now? |url=http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/178777-facebooks-facial-recognition-software-is-now-as-accurate-as-the-human-brain-but-what-now |website=[[ExtremeTech]] |publisher=[[Ziff Davis]] |date=March 19, 2014 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Liz |last=Gannes |title=Facebook facial recognition prompts EU privacy probe |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-facial-recognition-prompts-eu-privacy-probe/ |publisher=[[CNET]] |date=June 8, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and its role in the workplace, including employer-employee account disclosure.<ref>{{cite web |first=Matt |last=Friedman |title=Bill to ban companies from asking about job candidates' Facebook accounts is headed to governor |url=http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/03/bill_to_ban_companies_from_req.html |website=[[The Star-Ledger]] |publisher=[[Advance Digital]] |date=March 21, 2013 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> The use of [[Facebook]] can have negative psychological effects that include feelings of romantic jealousy<ref>{{cite web |title=How Facebook Breeds Jealousy |url=https://www.seeker.com/how-facebook-breeds-jealousy-1765020296.html |website=[[Seeker (media company)|Seeker]] |publisher=[[Group Nine Media]] |date=February 10, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Chris |last=Matyszczyk |title=Study: Facebook makes lovers jealous |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/study-facebook-makes-lovers-jealous/ |publisher=[[CNET]] |date=August 11, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and [[Stress (biology)|stress]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Chenda |last=Ngak |title=Facebook may cause stress, study says |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-may-cause-stress-study-says/ |work=[[CBS News]] |date=November 27, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Dave |last=Smith |title=Quitting Facebook will make you happier and less stressed, study says |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/quitting-facebook-will-make-you-happier-and-less-stressed-study-2015-11 |website=[[Business Insider]] |publisher=[[Axel Springer SE]] |date=November 13, 2015 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> a lack of [[attention]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Michael J. |last=Bugeja |title=Facing the Facebook |url=http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006/01/2006012301c/careers.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080220193743/http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006/01/2006012301c/careers.html |website=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] |date=January 23, 2006 |archive-date=February 20, 2008 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and social media addiction that in some cases is comparable to [[Drug-addiction|drug addiction]].<ref>{{cite web |first=Andrew |last=Hough |title=Student 'addiction' to technology 'similar to drug cravings', study finds |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8436831/Student-addiction-to-technology-similar-to-drug-cravings-study-finds.html |website=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |date=April 8, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Facebook and Twitter 'more addictive than tobacco and alcohol' |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9054243/Facebook-and-Twitter-more-addictive-than-tobacco-and-alcohol.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150216152536/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9054243/Facebook-and-Twitter-more-addictive-than-tobacco-and-alcohol.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=February 16, 2015 |website=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |date=February 1, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref>


Anyway
Facebook's operations have also received coverage. The company's electricity usage,<ref>{{cite web |first=Robin |last=Wauters |title=Greenpeace Slams Zuckerberg For Making Facebook A 'So Coal Network' (Video) |url=https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/16/greenpeace-slams-zuckerberg-for-making-facebook-a-so-coal-network-video/ |website=[[TechCrunch]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=September 16, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[tax avoidance]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Rupert |last=Neate |title=Facebook paid £2.9m tax on £840m profits made outside US, figures show |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/23/facebook-tax-profits-outside-us |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=December 23, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[Facebook real-name policy controversy|real-name user requirement policies]],<ref name="Grinberg">{{cite web |first=Emanuella |last=Grinberg |title=Facebook 'real name' policy stirs questions around identity |url=http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/16/living/facebook-name-policy |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=September 18, 2014 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[#Censorship|censorship policies]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Vidhi |last=Doshi |title=Facebook under fire for 'censoring' Kashmir-related posts and accounts |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/19/facebook-under-fire-censoring-kashmir-posts-accounts |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=July 19, 2016 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Michael |last=Arrington |author-link=Michael Arrington |title=Is Facebook Really Censoring Search When It Suits Them? |url=https://techcrunch.com/2007/11/22/is-facebook-really-censoring-search-when-it-suits-them/ |website=[[TechCrunch]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=November 22, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal|handling of user data]],<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wong |first1=Julia Carrie |title=The Cambridge Analytica scandal changed the world – but it didn't change Facebook |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/17/the-cambridge-analytica-scandal-changed-the-world-but-it-didnt-change-facebook |access-date=May 2, 2019 |work=The Guardian |date=March 18, 2019}}</ref> and its involvement in the United States [[PRISM (surveillance program)|PRISM surveillance program]] have been highlighted by the media and by critics.<ref>{{cite web |first1=Glenn |last1=Greenwald |first2=Ewen |last2=MacAskill |title=NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=June 7, 2013 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> Facebook has come under scrutiny for 'ignoring' or shirking its responsibility for the content posted on its platform, including [[copyright]] and intellectual property infringement,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/7/9114149/facebook-freebooting-video-copyright-infringement|title=Why Facebook's video theft problem can't last|last=Setalvad|first=Ariha|date=August 7, 2015|website=[[The Verge]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[hate speech]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39272261|title=Facebook, Twitter and Google grilled by MPs over hate speech|date=March 14, 2017|website=[[BBC News]]|publisher=[[BBC]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/9/15/9329119/facebook-germany-hate-speech-xenophobia-migrant-refugee|title=Facebook will work with Germany to combat anti-refugee hate speech|last=Toor|first=Amar|date=September 15, 2015|website=[[The Verge]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> incitement of rape<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8829165/Cyber-anarchists-blamed-for-unleashing-a-series-of-Facebook-rape-pages.html|title=Cyber anarchists blamed for unleashing a series of Facebook 'rape pages'|last=Sherwell|first=Philip|date=October 16, 2011|website=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and terrorism,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.timesofisrael.com/20000-israelis-sue-facebook-for-ignoring-palestinian-incitement/|title=20,000 Israelis sue Facebook for ignoring Palestinian incitement|date=October 27, 2015|website=[[The Times of Israel]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-facebooks-zuckerberg-has-blood-of-slain-israeli-teen-on-his-hands/|title=Israel: Facebook's Zuckerberg has blood of slain Israeli teen on his hands|date=July 2, 2016|website=[[The Times of Israel]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[fake news]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/19/technology/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-fake-news-election/|title=Zuckerberg: Facebook will develop tools to fight fake news|last=Burke|first=Samuel|date=November 19, 2016|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/31/hillary-clinton-says-facebook-must-prevent-fake-news-creating/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/31/hillary-clinton-says-facebook-must-prevent-fake-news-creating/ |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Hillary Clinton says Facebook 'must prevent fake news from creating a new reality'|date=June 1, 2017|website=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://money.cnn.com/2017/05/09/technology/facebook-fake-news/index.html|title=Facebook's global fight against fake news|last=Fiegerman|first=Seth|date=May 9, 2017|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[Facebook murder]], crimes, and violent incidents [[live-streamed]] through its [[Facebook Live]] functionality.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/21/us/facebook-live-gang-rape-chicago|title=Police: At least 40 people watched teen's sexual assault on Facebook Live|last1=Grinberg|first1=Emanuella|last2=Said|first2=Samira|date=March 22, 2017|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/04/us/chicago-facebook-live-beating|title=Chicago torture: Facebook Live video leads to 4 arrests|last=Grinberg|first=Emanuella|date=January 5, 2017|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/facebook-live-killings-ai-artificial-intelligence-not-blame-fatalities-murders-us-steve-stephens-a7706056.html|title=Facebook Live killings: Why the criticism has been harsh|last=Sulleyman|first=Aatif|date=April 27, 2017|website=[[The Independent]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref>
⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋

The company and its employees have also been subject to litigation cases over the years,<ref>{{cite web |first=Cyrus |last=Farivar |title=Appeals court upholds deal allowing kids' images in Facebook ads |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/appeals-court-upholds-deal-allowing-kids-images-in-facebook-ads/ |website=[[Ars Technica]] |date=January 7, 2016 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first1=Dan |last1=Levine |first2=Alexei |last2=Oreskovic |title=Yahoo sues Facebook for infringing 10 patents |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yahoo-facebook-lawsuit-idUSBRE82B18M20120312 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=March 12, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Kurt |last=Wagner |title=Facebook lost its Oculus lawsuit and has to pay $500 million |url=https://www.recode.net/2017/2/1/14476500/facebook-oculus-zenimax-lawsuit-500-million |website=[[Recode]] |date=February 1, 2017 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Rusell |last=Brandom |title=Lawsuit claims Facebook illegally scanned private messages |url=https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/19/11712804/facebook-private-message-scanning-privacy-lawsuit |website=[[The Verge]] |date=May 19, 2016 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> with its most prominent case concerning allegations that CEO Mark Zuckerberg broke an [[oral contract]] with [[Cameron Winklevoss]], [[Tyler Winklevoss]], and [[Divya Narendra]] to build the [[ConnectU|then-named "HarvardConnection"]] social network in 2004, instead allegedly opting to [[Intellectual property|steal the idea]] and code to launch Facebook months before HarvardConnection began.<ref>{{cite web |first=Chris |last=Tryhorn |title=Facebook in court over ownership |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/jul/25/digitalmedia.usnews |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=July 25, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Scott |last=Michels |title=Facebook Founder Accused of Stealing Idea for Site |url=https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3391856 |website=[[ABC News]] |publisher=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] |date=July 20, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Nicholas |last=Carlson |title=How Mark Zuckerberg Hacked Into Rival ConnectU In 2004 |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-connectu-2010-3 |website=[[Business Insider]] |publisher=[[Axel Springer SE]] |date=March 5, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> The original lawsuit was eventually settled in 2009, with Facebook paying approximately $20&nbsp;million in cash and 1.25&nbsp;million shares.<ref>{{cite web |first=Charles |last=Arthur |title=Facebook paid up to $65m to founder Mark Zuckerberg's ex-classmates |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/feb/12/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-ex-classmates |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=February 12, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first=Ryan |last=Singel |title=Court Tells Winklevoss Twins to Quit Their Facebook Whining |url=https://www.wired.com/2011/04/winkelvoss-tossed/ |journal=[[Wired (website)|Wired]] |date=April 11, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> A new lawsuit in 2011 was dismissed.<ref>{{cite web |first=Jonathan |last=Stempel |title=Facebook wins dismissal of second Winklevoss case |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-winklevoss-idUSTRE76L4MR20110722 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=July 22, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> Some critics point to problems which they say will result in the demise of Facebook. Facebook has been banned by several governments for various reasons, including Syria,<ref>{{cite web |first=Khaled Yacoub |last=Oweis |title=Syria blocks Facebook in Internet crackdown |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-facebook-idUSOWE37285020071123 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=November 23, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> China,<ref>{{cite web |first=Robin |last=Wauters |title=China Blocks Access To Twitter, Facebook After Riots |url=https://techcrunch.com/2009/07/07/china-blocks-access-to-twitter-facebook-after-riots/ |website=[[TechCrunch]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=July 7, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and Iran.<ref>{{cite web |title=Iranian government blocks Facebook access |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/24/facebook-banned-iran |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=May 24, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref>

{{toclimit|3}}


== Censorship ==
== Censorship ==

Action parameters

VariableValue
Edit count of the user (user_editcount)
null
Name of the user account (user_name)
'80.233.87.231'
Age of the user account (user_age)
0
Groups (including implicit) the user is in (user_groups)
[ 0 => '*' ]
Rights that the user has (user_rights)
[ 0 => 'createaccount', 1 => 'read', 2 => 'edit', 3 => 'createtalk', 4 => 'writeapi', 5 => 'viewmywatchlist', 6 => 'editmywatchlist', 7 => 'viewmyprivateinfo', 8 => 'editmyprivateinfo', 9 => 'editmyoptions', 10 => 'abusefilter-log-detail', 11 => 'urlshortener-create-url', 12 => 'centralauth-merge', 13 => 'abusefilter-view', 14 => 'abusefilter-log', 15 => 'vipsscaler-test' ]
Whether the user is editing from mobile app (user_app)
false
Whether or not a user is editing through the mobile interface (user_mobile)
true
Page ID (page_id)
12878216
Page namespace (page_namespace)
0
Page title without namespace (page_title)
'Criticism of Facebook'
Full page title (page_prefixedtitle)
'Criticism of Facebook'
Edit protection level of the page (page_restrictions_edit)
[]
Last ten users to contribute to the page (page_recent_contributors)
[ 0 => 'InternetArchiveBot', 1 => 'Jurta', 2 => 'Dicklyon', 3 => 'BrownHairedGirl', 4 => '50.49.136.114', 5 => '50.49.157.28', 6 => 'Certes', 7 => 'CommonKnowledgeCreator', 8 => 'Rlink2', 9 => 'SimLibrarian' ]
Page age in seconds (page_age)
460062085
Action (action)
'edit'
Edit summary/reason (summary)
'Fixed typos'
Old content model (old_content_model)
'wikitext'
New content model (new_content_model)
'wikitext'
Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext)
'{{short description|Media coverage of the shortcomings of Facebook's market dominance}} {{Use American English|date=August 2020}} {{Use mdy dates|date=August 2021}} {{Very long|rps=108|date=October 2021}} {{Merge from |Unfollow Everything |discuss=Talk:Criticism of Facebook#Merging Unfollow Everything |date=December 2021 }} {{Facebook sidebar}} The '''criticism of Facebook''' or [[Meta Platforms]] has led to international media coverage and significant reporting of its legal troubles and the outsize influence it has on the lives and health of its users and employees, as well on its influence on the way media, specifically news, is reported and distributed. Notable issues include [[Internet privacy]], such as use of a widespread [[Facebook like button#Tracking|"like" button on third-party websites tracking users]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Geoff |last=Duncan |title=Open letter urges Facebook to strengthen privacy |url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/open-letter-urges-facebook-to-strengthen-privacy/ |website=[[Digital Trends]] |date=June 17, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Ian |last=Paul |title=Advocacy Groups Ask Facebook for More Privacy Changes |url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/199099/facebook_privacy_fixes.html |website=[[PC World]] |publisher=[[International Data Group]] |date=June 17, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> possible indefinite records of user information,<ref>{{cite web |first=Maria |last=Aspen |title=How Sticky Is Membership on Facebook? Just Try Breaking Free |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/technology/11facebook.html |website=[[The New York Times]] |date=February 11, 2008 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> automatic [[Facial recognition system|facial recognition]] software,<ref>{{cite web |first=Sebastian |last=Anthony |title=Facebook's facial recognition software is now as accurate as the human brain, but what now? |url=http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/178777-facebooks-facial-recognition-software-is-now-as-accurate-as-the-human-brain-but-what-now |website=[[ExtremeTech]] |publisher=[[Ziff Davis]] |date=March 19, 2014 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Liz |last=Gannes |title=Facebook facial recognition prompts EU privacy probe |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-facial-recognition-prompts-eu-privacy-probe/ |publisher=[[CNET]] |date=June 8, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and its role in the workplace, including employer-employee account disclosure.<ref>{{cite web |first=Matt |last=Friedman |title=Bill to ban companies from asking about job candidates' Facebook accounts is headed to governor |url=http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/03/bill_to_ban_companies_from_req.html |website=[[The Star-Ledger]] |publisher=[[Advance Digital]] |date=March 21, 2013 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> The use of [[Facebook]] can have negative psychological effects that include feelings of romantic jealousy<ref>{{cite web |title=How Facebook Breeds Jealousy |url=https://www.seeker.com/how-facebook-breeds-jealousy-1765020296.html |website=[[Seeker (media company)|Seeker]] |publisher=[[Group Nine Media]] |date=February 10, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Chris |last=Matyszczyk |title=Study: Facebook makes lovers jealous |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/study-facebook-makes-lovers-jealous/ |publisher=[[CNET]] |date=August 11, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and [[Stress (biology)|stress]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Chenda |last=Ngak |title=Facebook may cause stress, study says |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-may-cause-stress-study-says/ |work=[[CBS News]] |date=November 27, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Dave |last=Smith |title=Quitting Facebook will make you happier and less stressed, study says |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/quitting-facebook-will-make-you-happier-and-less-stressed-study-2015-11 |website=[[Business Insider]] |publisher=[[Axel Springer SE]] |date=November 13, 2015 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> a lack of [[attention]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Michael J. |last=Bugeja |title=Facing the Facebook |url=http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006/01/2006012301c/careers.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080220193743/http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006/01/2006012301c/careers.html |website=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] |date=January 23, 2006 |archive-date=February 20, 2008 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and social media addiction that in some cases is comparable to [[Drug-addiction|drug addiction]].<ref>{{cite web |first=Andrew |last=Hough |title=Student 'addiction' to technology 'similar to drug cravings', study finds |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8436831/Student-addiction-to-technology-similar-to-drug-cravings-study-finds.html |website=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |date=April 8, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Facebook and Twitter 'more addictive than tobacco and alcohol' |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9054243/Facebook-and-Twitter-more-addictive-than-tobacco-and-alcohol.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150216152536/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9054243/Facebook-and-Twitter-more-addictive-than-tobacco-and-alcohol.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=February 16, 2015 |website=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |date=February 1, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> Facebook's operations have also received coverage. The company's electricity usage,<ref>{{cite web |first=Robin |last=Wauters |title=Greenpeace Slams Zuckerberg For Making Facebook A 'So Coal Network' (Video) |url=https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/16/greenpeace-slams-zuckerberg-for-making-facebook-a-so-coal-network-video/ |website=[[TechCrunch]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=September 16, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[tax avoidance]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Rupert |last=Neate |title=Facebook paid £2.9m tax on £840m profits made outside US, figures show |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/23/facebook-tax-profits-outside-us |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=December 23, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[Facebook real-name policy controversy|real-name user requirement policies]],<ref name="Grinberg">{{cite web |first=Emanuella |last=Grinberg |title=Facebook 'real name' policy stirs questions around identity |url=http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/16/living/facebook-name-policy |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=September 18, 2014 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[#Censorship|censorship policies]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Vidhi |last=Doshi |title=Facebook under fire for 'censoring' Kashmir-related posts and accounts |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/19/facebook-under-fire-censoring-kashmir-posts-accounts |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=July 19, 2016 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Michael |last=Arrington |author-link=Michael Arrington |title=Is Facebook Really Censoring Search When It Suits Them? |url=https://techcrunch.com/2007/11/22/is-facebook-really-censoring-search-when-it-suits-them/ |website=[[TechCrunch]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=November 22, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal|handling of user data]],<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wong |first1=Julia Carrie |title=The Cambridge Analytica scandal changed the world – but it didn't change Facebook |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/17/the-cambridge-analytica-scandal-changed-the-world-but-it-didnt-change-facebook |access-date=May 2, 2019 |work=The Guardian |date=March 18, 2019}}</ref> and its involvement in the United States [[PRISM (surveillance program)|PRISM surveillance program]] have been highlighted by the media and by critics.<ref>{{cite web |first1=Glenn |last1=Greenwald |first2=Ewen |last2=MacAskill |title=NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=June 7, 2013 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> Facebook has come under scrutiny for 'ignoring' or shirking its responsibility for the content posted on its platform, including [[copyright]] and intellectual property infringement,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/7/9114149/facebook-freebooting-video-copyright-infringement|title=Why Facebook's video theft problem can't last|last=Setalvad|first=Ariha|date=August 7, 2015|website=[[The Verge]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[hate speech]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39272261|title=Facebook, Twitter and Google grilled by MPs over hate speech|date=March 14, 2017|website=[[BBC News]]|publisher=[[BBC]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/9/15/9329119/facebook-germany-hate-speech-xenophobia-migrant-refugee|title=Facebook will work with Germany to combat anti-refugee hate speech|last=Toor|first=Amar|date=September 15, 2015|website=[[The Verge]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> incitement of rape<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8829165/Cyber-anarchists-blamed-for-unleashing-a-series-of-Facebook-rape-pages.html|title=Cyber anarchists blamed for unleashing a series of Facebook 'rape pages'|last=Sherwell|first=Philip|date=October 16, 2011|website=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and terrorism,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.timesofisrael.com/20000-israelis-sue-facebook-for-ignoring-palestinian-incitement/|title=20,000 Israelis sue Facebook for ignoring Palestinian incitement|date=October 27, 2015|website=[[The Times of Israel]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-facebooks-zuckerberg-has-blood-of-slain-israeli-teen-on-his-hands/|title=Israel: Facebook's Zuckerberg has blood of slain Israeli teen on his hands|date=July 2, 2016|website=[[The Times of Israel]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[fake news]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/19/technology/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-fake-news-election/|title=Zuckerberg: Facebook will develop tools to fight fake news|last=Burke|first=Samuel|date=November 19, 2016|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/31/hillary-clinton-says-facebook-must-prevent-fake-news-creating/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/31/hillary-clinton-says-facebook-must-prevent-fake-news-creating/ |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Hillary Clinton says Facebook 'must prevent fake news from creating a new reality'|date=June 1, 2017|website=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://money.cnn.com/2017/05/09/technology/facebook-fake-news/index.html|title=Facebook's global fight against fake news|last=Fiegerman|first=Seth|date=May 9, 2017|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[Facebook murder]], crimes, and violent incidents [[live-streamed]] through its [[Facebook Live]] functionality.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/21/us/facebook-live-gang-rape-chicago|title=Police: At least 40 people watched teen's sexual assault on Facebook Live|last1=Grinberg|first1=Emanuella|last2=Said|first2=Samira|date=March 22, 2017|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/04/us/chicago-facebook-live-beating|title=Chicago torture: Facebook Live video leads to 4 arrests|last=Grinberg|first=Emanuella|date=January 5, 2017|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/facebook-live-killings-ai-artificial-intelligence-not-blame-fatalities-murders-us-steve-stephens-a7706056.html|title=Facebook Live killings: Why the criticism has been harsh|last=Sulleyman|first=Aatif|date=April 27, 2017|website=[[The Independent]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> The company and its employees have also been subject to litigation cases over the years,<ref>{{cite web |first=Cyrus |last=Farivar |title=Appeals court upholds deal allowing kids' images in Facebook ads |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/appeals-court-upholds-deal-allowing-kids-images-in-facebook-ads/ |website=[[Ars Technica]] |date=January 7, 2016 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first1=Dan |last1=Levine |first2=Alexei |last2=Oreskovic |title=Yahoo sues Facebook for infringing 10 patents |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yahoo-facebook-lawsuit-idUSBRE82B18M20120312 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=March 12, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Kurt |last=Wagner |title=Facebook lost its Oculus lawsuit and has to pay $500 million |url=https://www.recode.net/2017/2/1/14476500/facebook-oculus-zenimax-lawsuit-500-million |website=[[Recode]] |date=February 1, 2017 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Rusell |last=Brandom |title=Lawsuit claims Facebook illegally scanned private messages |url=https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/19/11712804/facebook-private-message-scanning-privacy-lawsuit |website=[[The Verge]] |date=May 19, 2016 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> with its most prominent case concerning allegations that CEO Mark Zuckerberg broke an [[oral contract]] with [[Cameron Winklevoss]], [[Tyler Winklevoss]], and [[Divya Narendra]] to build the [[ConnectU|then-named "HarvardConnection"]] social network in 2004, instead allegedly opting to [[Intellectual property|steal the idea]] and code to launch Facebook months before HarvardConnection began.<ref>{{cite web |first=Chris |last=Tryhorn |title=Facebook in court over ownership |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/jul/25/digitalmedia.usnews |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=July 25, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Scott |last=Michels |title=Facebook Founder Accused of Stealing Idea for Site |url=https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3391856 |website=[[ABC News]] |publisher=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] |date=July 20, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Nicholas |last=Carlson |title=How Mark Zuckerberg Hacked Into Rival ConnectU In 2004 |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-connectu-2010-3 |website=[[Business Insider]] |publisher=[[Axel Springer SE]] |date=March 5, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> The original lawsuit was eventually settled in 2009, with Facebook paying approximately $20&nbsp;million in cash and 1.25&nbsp;million shares.<ref>{{cite web |first=Charles |last=Arthur |title=Facebook paid up to $65m to founder Mark Zuckerberg's ex-classmates |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/feb/12/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-ex-classmates |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=February 12, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first=Ryan |last=Singel |title=Court Tells Winklevoss Twins to Quit Their Facebook Whining |url=https://www.wired.com/2011/04/winkelvoss-tossed/ |journal=[[Wired (website)|Wired]] |date=April 11, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> A new lawsuit in 2011 was dismissed.<ref>{{cite web |first=Jonathan |last=Stempel |title=Facebook wins dismissal of second Winklevoss case |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-winklevoss-idUSTRE76L4MR20110722 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=July 22, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> Some critics point to problems which they say will result in the demise of Facebook. Facebook has been banned by several governments for various reasons, including Syria,<ref>{{cite web |first=Khaled Yacoub |last=Oweis |title=Syria blocks Facebook in Internet crackdown |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-facebook-idUSOWE37285020071123 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=November 23, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> China,<ref>{{cite web |first=Robin |last=Wauters |title=China Blocks Access To Twitter, Facebook After Riots |url=https://techcrunch.com/2009/07/07/china-blocks-access-to-twitter-facebook-after-riots/ |website=[[TechCrunch]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=July 7, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and Iran.<ref>{{cite web |title=Iranian government blocks Facebook access |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/24/facebook-banned-iran |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=May 24, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> {{toclimit|3}} == Censorship == {{Main|Censorship by Facebook}} {{Cleanup split|Lawsuits involving Facebook|date=October 2021}} == Privacy issues == {{Main|Privacy concerns with Facebook}} Facebook has faced a number of privacy concerns; for instance, in August 2019, it was revealed that the company had enlisted contractors to generate transcripts of users' audio chats. The contractors were tasked with re-transcribing the conversations in order to gauge the accuracy of the automatic transcription tool.<ref name="bloombergreveals">{{cite news|last=Frier|first=Sarah|date=August 13, 2019|title=Facebook Paid Contractors to Transcribe Users' Audio Chats|work=[[Bloomberg News]]|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-13/facebook-paid-hundreds-of-contractors-to-transcribe-users-audio}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=August 13, 2019|title=Facebook paid hundreds of contractors to transcribe users' audio|url=https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-08-13/facebook-paid-hundreds-of-contractors-to-transcribe-audio-of-users|access-date=May 8, 2020|website=[[Los Angeles Times]]|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Haselton|first=Todd|date=August 13, 2019|title=Facebook hired people to transcribe voice calls made on Messenger|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/13/facebook-hired-people-to-transcribe-voice-calls-made-on-messenger.html|access-date=May 8, 2020|publisher=CNBC|language=en}}</ref> In part these concerns stem from the company's revenue model that involves selling information about its users, and the loss of privacy this could entail. In addition, employers and other organizations and individuals have been known to use Facebook data for their own purposes. As a result peoples' identities have sometimes been revealed without their permission. In response, pressure groups and governments have increasingly asserted the users' right to privacy and to control their personal data. == Psychological/sociological effects == {{See also|Digital media use and mental health|Evolutionary medicine|Evolutionary mismatch|Evolutionary psychiatry|Screen time}} In addition to noting with evolutionary biologist [[George Christopher Williams|George C. Williams]] in the development of [[evolutionary medicine]] that most [[Chronic condition|chronic medical conditions]] are the consequence of [[evolutionary mismatch]]es between a [[Stateless society|stateless]] [[Evolutionary psychology#Environment of evolutionary adaptedness|environment]] of [[nomad]]ic [[hunter-gatherer]] life in [[Band society|bands]] and contemporary human life in [[Sedentism|sedentary]] [[Modernity|technologically modern]] [[State (polity)|state societies]] (e.g. [[Psychology#WEIRD bias|WEIRD societies]]),<ref>{{cite book|last1=Nesse|first1=Randolph|author-link1=Randolph M. Nesse|last2=Williams|first2=George C.|author-link2=George Christopher Williams|title=Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine|year=1994|page=9|publisher=[[Vintage Books]]|place=New York|isbn=978-0-679-74674-4}}</ref> psychiatrist [[Randolph M. Nesse]] has argued that evolutionary mismatch is an important factor in the development of certain mental disorders.<ref name="Nesse 2005 pp. 904–905">{{cite book|last1=Nesse|first1=Randolph M.|author-link1=Randolph M. Nesse|editor-last=Buss|editor-first=David M.|editor-link=David Buss|title=The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology|chapter=32. Evolutionary Psychology and Mental Health|pages=904–905|year=2005|edition=1st|place=[[Hoboken, New Jersey|Hoboken, NJ]]|publisher=[[Wiley (publisher)|Wiley]]|isbn=978-0-471-26403-3}}</ref><ref name="Nesse 2016 pp. 1008–1009">{{cite book|last1=Nesse|first1=Randolph M.|author-link1=Randolph M. Nesse|editor-last1=Buss|editor-first1=David M.|editor-link1=David Buss|year=2016|orig-year=2005|title=The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Volume 2: Integrations|edition=2nd|chapter=43. Evolutionary Psychology and Mental Health|pages=1008–1009|place=[[Hoboken, New Jersey|Hoboken, NJ]]|publisher=[[Wiley (publisher)|Wiley]]|isbn=978-1-118-75580-8}}</ref><ref name="Nesse 2019 pp. 31–36">{{cite book|last=Nesse|first=Randolph|author-link=Randolph M. Nesse|title=Good Reasons for Bad Feelings: Insights from the Frontier of Evolutionary Psychiatry|publisher=[[Dutton (imprint)|Dutton]]|year=2019|pages=31–36|isbn=978-1-101-98566-3}}</ref> In 1948, 50 percent of U.S. households owned at least one [[Car|automobile]].<ref>{{cite report|title=Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1955|year=1955|edition=76|series=[[Statistical Abstract of the United States]]|publisher=[[United States Census Bureau|U.S. Census Bureau]]|page=554|url=https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1955/compendia/statab/76ed/1955-05.pdf|access-date=June 29, 2021}}</ref> In 2000, a majority of U.S. households had at least one personal computer and [[internet access]] the following year.<ref name="auto2">{{cite report|last=File|first=Thom|date=May 2013|title=Computer and Internet Use in the United States|series=Current Population Survey Reports|publisher=[[United States Census Bureau|U.S. Census Bureau]]|place=Washington, D.C.|url=https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-569.pdf|access-date=February 11, 2020}}</ref> In 2002, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having a mobile phone.<ref name="Tuckel & O'Neill">{{cite report|last1=Tuckel|first1=Peter|last2=O'Neill|first2=Harry|title=Ownership and Usage Patterns of Cell Phones: 2000–2005|year=2005|series=JSM Proceedings, Survey Research Methods Section|place=[[Alexandria, Virginia|Alexandria, VA]]|publisher=[[American Statistical Association]]|page=4002|url=http://www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y2005/files/JSM2005-000345.pdf|access-date=September 25, 2020}}</ref> In September 2007, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having [[Broadband#Internet broadband|broadband internet]] at home.<ref>{{cite news|title=Demographics of Internet and Home Broadband Usage in the United States|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|date=April 7, 2021|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/#who-has-home-broadband|access-date=May 19, 2021}}</ref> In January 2013, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported owning a [[smartphone]].<ref name="Pew 4-7-2021">{{cite news|title=Demographics of Mobile Device Ownership and Adoption in the United States|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|date=April 7, 2021|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/|access-date=May 19, 2021}}</ref> === Facebook addiction === {{See also|Digital media use and mental health#ADHD|Human multitasking|Media multitasking|Mobile phones and driving safety|Problematic social media use|Texting while driving}} The "World Unplugged" study, which was conducted in 2011, claims that for some users quitting social networking sites is comparable to quitting smoking or giving up alcohol.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8436831/Student-addiction-to-technology-similar-to-drug-cravings-study-finds.html |title=Student 'addiction' to technology 'similar to drug cravings', study finds |location=London |first=Andrew |last=Hough |date=April 8, 2011}}</ref> Another study conducted in 2012 by researchers from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business in the United States found that drugs like alcohol and tobacco could not keep up with social networking sites regarding their level of addictiveness.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9054243/Facebook-and-Twitter-more-addictive-than-tobacco-and-alcohol.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120202180847/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9054243/Facebook-and-Twitter-more-addictive-than-tobacco-and-alcohol.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=February 2, 2012 |title=Facebook and Twitter 'more addictive than tobacco and alcohol' |location=London |date=February 1, 2012}}</ref> A 2013 study in the journal ''CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking'' found that some users decided to quit social networking sites because they felt they were addicted. In 2014, the site went down for about 30 minutes, prompting several users to call emergency services.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Edwards|first1=Ashton|title=Facebook goes down for 30 minutes, 911 calls pour in|url=http://fox13now.com/2014/08/01/facebook-goes-down-for-30-minutes-911-calls-pour-in/|access-date=August 2, 2016|work=Fox13|date=August 1, 2014}}</ref> In April 2015, the [[Pew Research Center]] published a survey of 1,060 U.S. teenagers ages 13 to 17 who reported that nearly three-quarters of them either owned or had access to a [[smartphone]], 92 percent went online daily with 24 percent saying they went online "almost constantly".<ref>{{cite news|last=Lenhart|first=Amanda|title=Teens, Social Media & Technology Overview 2015|date=April 9, 2015|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/|access-date=July 8, 2020}}</ref> In March 2016, ''[[Frontiers in Psychology]]'' published a survey of 457 [[Tertiary education|post-secondary student]] Facebook users (following a [[face validity]] pilot of another 47 post-secondary student Facebook users) at a large university in North America showing that the severity of ADHD symptoms had a [[Statistical significance|statistically significant]] positive correlation with [[Mobile phones and driving safety|Facebook usage while driving a motor vehicle]] and that impulses to use Facebook while driving were more potent among male users than female users.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Turel|first1=Ofir|last2=Bechara|first2=Antoine|title=Social Networking Site Use While Driving: ADHD and the Mediating Roles of Stress, Self-Esteem and Craving|year=2016|journal=[[Frontiers in Psychology]]|volume=7|page=455|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00455|pmid=27065923|pmc=4812103|doi-access=free}}</ref> In June 2018, ''[[Children and Youth Services Review]]'' published a [[regression analysis]] of 283 adolescent Facebook users in the [[Piedmont]] and [[Lombardy]] [[Regions of Italy|regions]] of [[Northern Italy]] (that replicated previous findings among adult users) showing that adolescents reporting higher ADHD symptoms positively predicted [[Problematic social media use|Facebook addiction]], persistent negative [[Attitude (psychology)|attitudes]] about the [[past]] and that the [[future]] is predetermined and not influenced by present [[Action (philosophy)|actions]], and orientation against [[Time management|achieving future goals]], with ADHD symptoms additionally increasing the manifestation of the proposed category of psychological dependence known as "[[problematic social media use]]".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Settanni|first1=Michele|last2=Marengo|first2=Davide|last3=Fabris|first3=Matteo Angelo|last4=Longobardi|first4=Claudio|title=The interplay between ADHD symptoms and time perspective in addictive social media use: A study of adolescent Facebook users|year=2018|journal=[[Children and Youth Services Review]]|publisher=[[Elsevier]]|volume=89|pages=165–170|doi=10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.04.031|s2cid=149795392|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740917310083}}</ref> === Self-harm and suicide === {{Main|Social media and suicide|Facebook Files}} {{blockquote|text=Research shows that people who are feeling suicidal use the internet to search for suicide methods. Websites provide graphic details and information on how to take your own life. This cannot be right. Where this content breaches the policies of internet and social media providers it must be removed.|author=[[Matt Hancock]], [[Secretary of State for Health and Social Care|Health Secretary of the United Kingdom]]<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/26/matt-hancock-facebook-social-media-suicide-self-harm-young-people|title=Health secretary tells social media firms to protect children after girl's death|first=Michael|last=Savage|date=January 26, 2019|access-date=January 30, 2019|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref>}} {{blockquote|I do not think it is going too far to question whether even you, the owners, any longer have any control over [the sites'] content. If that is the case, then children should not be accessing your services at all, and parents should be aware that the idea of any authority overseeing algorithms and content is a mirage.|author=[[Anne Longfield]], [[Children's Commissioner for England]]<ref name="longfield-2019">{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/30/social-media-urged-to-take-moment-to-reflect-after-girls-death|title=Social media urged to take 'moment to reflect' after girl's death|first=Richard Adams Education|last=editor|date=January 30, 2019|access-date=January 30, 2019|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref>}} In January 2019, both the Health Secretary of the United Kingdom, and the Children's Commissioner for England, urged Facebook and other social media companies to take responsibility for the risk to children posed by content on their platforms related to self-harm and suicide.<ref name="longfield-2019" /> === Envy === {{See also|Bandwagon effect|Conspicuous consumption|Conspicuous leisure|Consumerism|Issues in higher education in the United States#Financial value of degrees|LinkedIn#Research on labor market effects|Overtourism|Social aspects of television#Psychological effects|Tragedy of the commons|Viral marketing}} Facebook has been criticized for making people [[envious]] and unhappy due to the constant exposure to positive yet unrepresentative highlights of their peers. Such highlights include, but are not limited to, journal posts, videos, and photos that depict or reference such positive or otherwise outstanding activities, experiences, and facts. This effect is caused mainly by the fact that most users of Facebook usually only display the positive aspects of their lives while excluding the negative, though it is also strongly connected to [[Social inequality|inequality]] and the disparities between social groups as Facebook is open to users from all classes of society. Sites such as AddictionInfo.org<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/2171/1/Potential-Facebook-addiction/Page1.html|title=Potential for Facebook addiction and consequences|date=July 15, 2012}}</ref> state that this kind of envy has profound effects on other aspects of life and can lead to severe depression, [[Self-hatred|self-loathing]], [[Rage (emotion)|rage]] and hatred, [[resentment]], feelings of inferiority and insecurity, [[pessimism]], suicidal tendencies and desires, [[social isolation]], and other issues that can prove very serious. This condition has often been called "Facebook Envy" or "Facebook Depression" by the media.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2282620|title=The Anti-Social Network|website=Slate|date=January 26, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.discovery.com/tech/facebook-breeds-jealousy.html|title=How Facebook Breeds Jealousy|website=Discovery.com|date=February 10, 2010|access-date=February 12, 2011|archive-date=November 20, 2012|archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6CJN2l5Oj?url=http://news.discovery.com/tech/facebook-breeds-jealousy.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10307638-71.html|title=Study: Facebook makes lovers jealous|publisher=CNET|date=August 11, 2009|access-date=February 12, 2011|archive-date=November 20, 2012|archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6CJN3SVJ9?url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10307638-71.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/20431006|title=Jealous much? MySpace, Facebook can spark it|work=NBC News|date=July 31, 2007}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{cite web|url=http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2009/02/post_176.html|title=Facebook Causes Jealousy, Hampers Romance, Study Finds|publisher=University of Guelph|date=February 13, 2007}}</ref><ref name=":7">{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/sex-relationships/dating/2010-11-18-facebook-asthma_N.htm|title=Facebook jealousy sparks asthma attacks in dumped boy|website=USA Today|date=November 19, 2010}}</ref> In ''[[The Theory of the Leisure Class]]'' (1899), economist [[Thorstein Veblen]] observed that "[[Conspicuous consumption]] of valuable goods is a [[Status symbol|means of reputability]] to the [[Robber baron (industrialist)|gentleman of leisure]]",<ref>{{cite book|last=Veblen|first=Thorstein|author-link=Thorstein Veblen|editor-first=Martha|editor-last=Banta|year=2007|orig-year=1899|title=The Theory of the Leisure Class|title-link=The Theory of the Leisure Class|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|place=New York|page=53|isbn=978-0-19-955258-0}}</ref> and that [[conspicuous leisure]] is the "non-productive [[Consumption (economics)|consumption]] of time. Time is consumed non-productively (1) from a [[Contempt|sense of the unworthiness]] of [[Productive and unproductive labour|productive work]], and (2) as an evidence of pecuniary ability to afford a life of [[idleness]]. But the whole of the life of the gentleman of leisure is not spent [[Common knowledge (logic)|before the eyes of the spectators]] who are to be impressed with that spectacle of [[The Theory of the Leisure Class#(i) Occupation|honorific leisure]] which in the ideal scheme makes up his life. For some part of the time his life is perforce withdrawn from the public eye, and of this portion which is spent in private the gentleman of leisure should, for the sake of his good name, be able to give a convincing account."<ref>{{cite book|last=Veblen|first=Thorstein|author-link=Thorstein Veblen|editor-first=Martha|editor-last=Banta|year=2007|orig-year=1899|title=The Theory of the Leisure Class|title-link=The Theory of the Leisure Class|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|place=New York|page=33|isbn=978-0-19-955258-0}}</ref> In 2010, ''[[Social Science Computer Review]]'' published research by economists Ralf Caers and Vanessa Castelyns who sent an online questionnaire to 398 and 353 LinkedIn and Facebook users respectively in [[Belgium]] and found that both sites had become tools for [[Recruitment|recruiting]] job applicants for professional occupations as well as additional information about applicants, and that it was being used by recruiters to decide which applicants would receive interviews.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Caers|first1=Ralf|last2=Castelyns|first2=Vanessa|title=LinkedIn and Facebook in Belgium: The Influences and Biases of Social Network Sites in Recruitment and Selection Procedures|year=2011|journal=[[Social Science Computer Review]]|publisher=[[SAGE Publishing|SAGE Publications]]|volume=29|issue=4|pages=437–448|doi=10.1177/0894439310386567|s2cid=60557417|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258190136}}</ref> In 2017, sociologist Ofer Sharone conducted interviews with unemployed workers to research the effects of LinkedIn and Facebook as labor market intermediaries and found that [[social networking service]]s (SNS) have had a filtration effect that has little to do with evaluations of merit, and that the SNS filtration effect has exerted new pressures on workers to manage their careers to conform to the logic of the SNS filtration effect.<ref>{{cite book|last=Sharone|first=Ofer|editor-first=Steven|editor-last=Vallas|title=Emerging Conceptions of Work, Management and the Labor Market|chapter=LinkedIn or LinkedOut? How Social Networking Sites are Reshaping the Labor Market|series=Research in the Sociology of Work|year=2017|place=[[Bingley]], UK|publisher=[[Emerald Group Publishing|Emerald Publishing Ltd]]|volume=30|pages=1–31|isbn=978-1-78714-460-6|doi=10.1108/S0277-283320170000030001|url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S0277-283320170000030001/full/html?fullSc=1}}</ref> In July 2019, sociologists Steve McDonald, Amanda K. Damarin, Jenelle Lawhorne, and Annika Wilcox performed qualitative interviews with 61 [[Human resources|HR]] recruiters in two [[metropolitan area]]s in the Southern United States and found that recruiters filling low- and general-skilled positions typically posted advertisements on [[Employment website|online job boards]] while recruiters filling high-skilled or [[supervisor]] positions targeted passive candidates on LinkedIn (i.e. employed workers not actively seeking work but possibly willing to change positions), and concluded that this is resulting in a bifurcated [[winner-take-all market|winner-takes-all]] job market with recruiters focusing their efforts on poaching already employed high-skilled workers while active job seekers are relegated to hyper-competitive online job boards.<ref>{{cite book|last1=McDonald|first1=Steve|last2=Damarin|first2=Amanda K.|last3=Lawhorne|first3=Jenelle|last4=Wilcox|first4=Annika|editor-last1=Vallas|editor-first1=Steven|editor-last2=Kovalainen|editor-first2=Anne|title=Work and Labor in the Digital Age|series=Research in the Sociology of Work|chapter=Black Holes and Purple Squirrels: A Tale of Two Online Labor Markets|year=2019|place=[[Bingley]], UK|publisher=[[Emerald Group Publishing|Emerald Publishing Ltd]]|volume=33|pages=93–120|isbn=978-1-78973-586-4|doi=10.1108/S0277-283320190000033006|s2cid=197889035|url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S0277-283320190000033006/full/html}}</ref> A joint study conducted by two German universities demonstrated Facebook envy and found that as many as one out of three people actually feel worse and less satisfied with their lives after visiting the site. Vacation photos were found to be the most common source of feelings of resentment and jealousy. After that, social interaction was the second biggest cause of envy, as Facebook users compare the number of birthday greetings, likes, and comments to those of their friends. Visitors who contributed the least tended to feel the worst. "According to our findings, passive following triggers invidious emotions, with users mainly envying happiness of others, the way others spend their vacations; and socialize", the study states.<ref name="hu-berlin">{{cite web|url=http://warhol.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/~hkrasnova/Ongoing_Research_files/WI%202013%20Final%20Submission%20Krasnova.pdf |date=January 23, 2013 |title=Envy on Facebook: A Hidden Threat to Users' Life Satisfaction? |author1=Hanna Krasnova |author2=Helena Wenninger |author3=Thomas Widjaja |author4=Peter Buxmann |publisher=11th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, February 27 – March 1, 2013, Leipzig, Germany |access-date=June 13, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140601203643/http://warhol.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/~hkrasnova/Ongoing_Research_files/WI%202013%20Final%20Submission%20Krasnova.pdf |archive-date=June 1, 2014 }}</ref> A 2013 study by researchers at the [[University of Michigan]] found that the more people used Facebook, the worse they felt afterwards.<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23709009 BBC News – Facebook use 'makes people feel worse about themselves']. BBC.co.uk (August 15, 2013). Retrieved September 4, 2013.</ref><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":7" /> Narcissistic users who show excessive grandiosity give negative emotion to viewers and cause envy, but as a result, that may cause viewers' loneliness. Viewers sometimes need to terminate relationships with them to avoid this negative emotion. However, this "avoidance" such as "terminate relationships" would be reinforcement and it may lead to loneliness. The cyclical pattern is a vicious circle of loneliness and avoidance coping, the study states.<ref>{{cite journal |date=June 4, 2018 |title=Facebook users' loneliness based on different types of interpersonal relationships: Links to grandiosity and envy |author1=Myung Suh Lim |author2=Junghyun Kim |journal=Information Technology & People |doi=10.1108/ITP-04-2016-0095 |issn=0959-3845}}</ref> === Divorce === {{See also|Online dating service#Social trends and public opinions|Social aspects of television#Psychological effects}} Social networks, like Facebook, can have a detrimental effect on marriages, with users becoming worried about their spouse's contacts and relations with other people online, leading to marital breakdown and divorce.<ref>[http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/s/1405762_divorce_cases_get_the_facebook_factor Divorce cases get the Facebook factor]. – ''MEN Media''. Published January 19, 2011. Retrieved March 13, 2012.</ref> According to a 2009 survey in the UK, around 20 percent of divorce petitions included references to Facebook.<ref>[http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/122309-facebooks-other-top-trend-of.html Facebook's Other Top Trend of 2009: Divorce] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120112072406/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/122309-facebooks-other-top-trend-of.html |date=January 12, 2012 }} – ''Network World''. Published December 22, 2009. Retrieved March 13, 2012.</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/12/facebook-blame-divorce-boom/ | publisher=Fox News Channel | title=Facebook to Blame for Divorce Boom | date=April 12, 2010 | access-date=January 3, 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100415182227/http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/12/facebook-blame-divorce-boom/ | archive-date=April 15, 2010 | url-status=dead | df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>[https://www.nbcnews.com/id/37986320 Facebook is divorce lawyers' new best friend] – MSNBC. Published June 28, 2010. Retrieved March 13, 2012.</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-01/uk/30578492_1_divorce-online-flirty-messages-facebook | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130518102851/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-01/uk/30578492_1_divorce-online-flirty-messages-facebook | url-status=dead | archive-date=May 18, 2013 | work=[[The Times of India]] | title=Facebook flirting triggers divorces | date=January 1, 2012}}</ref> Facebook has given us a new platform for interpersonal communication. Researchers proposed that high levels of Facebook use could result in Facebook-related conflict and breakup/divorce.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Clayton|first1=Russell B.|last2=Nagurney|first2=Alexander|last3=Smith|first3=Jessica R.|date=June 7, 2013|title=Cheating, Breakup, and Divorce: Is Facebook Use to Blame?|journal=Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking|volume=16|issue=10|pages=717–720|doi=10.1089/cyber.2012.0424|issn=2152-2715|pmid=23745615}}</ref> Previous studies have shown that romantic relationships can be damaged by excessive Internet use, Facebook jealousy, partner surveillance, ambiguous information, and online portrayal of intimate relationships.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Utz|first1=Sonja|last2=Beukeboom|first2=Camiel J.|date=July 1, 2011|title=The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness|journal=Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication|language=en|volume=16|issue=4|pages=511–527|doi=10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01552.x|issn=1083-6101|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tokunaga|first=Robert S.|title=Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships|journal=Computers in Human Behavior|language=en|volume=27|issue=2|pages=705–713|doi=10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014|year=2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Muise|first1=Amy|last2=Christofides|first2=Emily|last3=Desmarais|first3=Serge|date=April 15, 2009|title=More Information than You Ever Wanted: Does Facebook Bring Out the Green-Eyed Monster of Jealousy?|journal=CyberPsychology & Behavior|volume=12|issue=4|pages=441–444|doi=10.1089/cpb.2008.0263|pmid=19366318|issn=1094-9313}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kerkhof|first1=Peter|last2=Finkenauer|first2=Catrin|last3=Muusses|first3=Linda D.|date=April 1, 2011|title=Relational Consequences of Compulsive Internet Use: A Longitudinal Study Among Newlyweds|journal=Human Communication Research|language=en|volume=37|issue=2|pages=147–173|doi=10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01397.x|issn=1468-2958|hdl=1871/35795|url=https://research.vu.nl/ws/files/2766702/249473.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Papp|first1=Lauren M.|last2=Danielewicz|first2=Jennifer|last3=Cayemberg|first3=Crystal|date=October 11, 2011|title="Are We Facebook Official?" Implications of Dating Partners' Facebook Use and Profiles for Intimate Relationship Satisfaction|journal=Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking|volume=15|issue=2|pages=85–90|doi=10.1089/cyber.2011.0291|pmid=21988733|issn=2152-2715}}</ref> Excessive Internet users reported having greater conflict in their relationships. Their partners feel neglected and there's lower commitment and lower feelings of passion and intimacy in the relationship. According to the article, researchers suspect that Facebook may contribute to an increase in divorce and infidelity rates in the near future due to the amount and ease of accessibility to connect with past partners.<ref name=":0" /> === Stress === Research performed by psychologists from [[Edinburgh Napier University]] indicated that Facebook adds [[stress (psychological)|stress]] to users' lives. Causes of stress included fear of missing important social information, fear of offending contacts, discomfort or guilt from rejecting user requests or deleting unwanted contacts or being unfriended or blocked by Facebook friends or other users, the displeasure of having friend requests rejected or ignored, the pressure to be entertaining, criticism or [[intimidation]] from other Facebook users, and having to use appropriate etiquette for different types of friends.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2011/02/16/too-many-facebook-friends-causes-stress|title=Does Facebook Stress You Out?|website=Webpronews.com|date=February 17, 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110218023713/http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2011/02/16/too-many-facebook-friends-causes-stress|archive-date=February 18, 2011}}</ref> Many people who started using Facebook for positive purposes or with positive expectations have found that the website has negatively impacted their lives.<ref>Maier, C., Laumer, S., Eckhardt, A., and Weitzel, T. ''Online Social Networks as a Source and Symbol of Stress: An Empirical Analysis'' Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2012, Orlando (FL)</ref> Next to that, the increasing number of messages and social relationships embedded in SNS also increases the amount of social information demanding a reaction from SNS users. Consequently SNS users perceive they are giving too much social support to other SNS friends. This dark side of SNS usage is called 'social overload'. It is caused by the extent of usage, number of friends, subjective social support norms, and type of relationship (online-only vs offline friends) while age has only an indirect effect. The psychological and behavioral consequences of social overload include perceptions of SNS exhaustion, low user satisfaction, and high intentions to reduce or stop using SNS.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Maier | first1 = C. | last2 = Laumer | first2 = S. | last3 = Eckhardt | first3 = A. | last4 = Weitzel | first4 = T. | year = 2014| title = Giving too much Social Support: Social Overload on Social Networking Sites | journal = European Journal of Information Systems | volume = 24| issue = 5| pages = 447–464| doi = 10.1057/ejis.2014.3 | s2cid = 205122288 }}</ref> === Narcissism === {{Main|Digital media use and mental health#NPD|Narcissistic personality disorder|Facebook like button|Mass shootings in the United States#Contributing factors|Microblogging|Reblogging|Selfie|Virtue signalling}} {{See also|Fear of missing out|Law of effect|Like button|Problematic social media use|Social rejection|White savior}} In July 2018, a [[meta-analysis]] published in ''Psychology of Popular Media'' found that [[Narcissistic personality disorder#Types|grandiose narcissism]] positively correlated with time spent on social media, frequency of [[Microblogging|status updates]], number of friends or followers, and frequency of posting [[Selfie|self-portrait digital photographs]],<ref>{{cite journal|last1=McCain|first1=Jessica L.|last2=Campbell|first2=W. Keith|title=Narcissism and Social Media Use: A Meta-Analytic Review|year=2018|journal=Psychology of Popular Media Culture|volume=7|issue=3|pages=308–327|publisher=[[American Psychological Association]]|doi=10.1037/ppm0000137|s2cid=152057114|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305766785|access-date=June 9, 2020}}</ref> while a meta-analysis published in the ''[[Journal of Personality]]'' in April 2018 found that the positive correlation between grandiose narcissism and [[social networking service]] usage was replicated across platforms (including Facebook).<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gnambs|first1=Timo|last2=Appel|first2=Markus|title=Narcissism and Social Networking Behavior: A Meta-Analysis|year=2018|journal=[[Journal of Personality]]|volume=86|issue=2|pages=200–212|publisher=[[Wiley-Blackwell]]|pmid=28170106|doi=10.1111/jopy.12305}}</ref> In March 2020, the ''Journal of Adult Development'' published a [[Regression discontinuity design|regression discontinuity analysis]] of 254 [[Millennials|Millennial]] Facebook users investigating differences in narcissism and Facebook usage between the age [[Cohort (statistics)|cohorts]] born from 1977 to 1990 and from 1991 to 2000 and found that the later born Millennials scored [[Statistical significance|significantly]] higher on both.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Brailovskaia|first1=Julia|last2=Bierhoff|first2=Hans-Werner|title=The Narcissistic Millennial Generation: A Study of Personality Traits and Online Behavior on Facebook|year=2020|journal=Journal of Adult Development|volume=27|issue=1|pages=23–35|publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media]]|doi=10.1007/s10804-018-9321-1|s2cid=149564334}}</ref> In June 2020, ''[[Addictive Behaviors]]'' published a [[systematic review]] finding a consistent, positive, and significant correlation between grandiose narcissism and the proposed category of [[psychological dependence]] called "[[problematic social media use]]".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Casale|first1=Silvia|last2=Banchi|first2=Vanessa|title=Narcissism and problematic social media use: A systematic literature review|year=2020|journal=Addictive Behaviors Reports|volume=11|page=100252|publisher=[[Elsevier]]|doi=10.1016/j.abrep.2020.100252|pmid=32467841|pmc=7244927|doi-access=free}}</ref> Also in 2018, social psychologist [[Jonathan Haidt]] and [[Foundation for Individual Rights in Education|FIRE]] President [[Greg Lukianoff]] noted in ''[[The Coddling of the American Mind]]'' that former Facebook president [[Sean Parker]] stated in a 2017 interview that the [[Facebook like button|Like button]] was consciously designed to [[Priming (psychology)|prime]] users receiving likes to feel a [[dopamine]] [[Rush (psychology)|rush]] as part of a "[[Normative social influence|social-validation]] [[feedback]] [[Control flow#Loops|loop]]".<ref name="Lukianoff & Haidt 2018 p. 147">{{cite book|last1=Lukianoff|first1=Greg|author-link1=Greg Lukianoff|last2=Haidt|first2=Jonathan|author-link2=Jonathan Haidt|title=The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure|title-link=The Coddling of the American Mind|year=2018|place=New York|publisher=[[Penguin Books|Penguin Press]]|page=147|isbn=978-0-7352-2489-6}}</ref> "'''Conspicuous compassion'''" is the practice of publicly donating large sums of money to [[Charity (practice)|charity]] to enhance the [[Reputation|social prestige]] of the donor, and is sometimes described as a type of conspicuous consumption.<ref name="West 2004">{{cite book |last=West |first=Patrick |title=Conspicuous Compassion: Why Sometimes It Really Is Cruel To Be Kind |location=London |publisher=Civitas, Institute for the Study of Civil Society |year=2004 |isbn=978-1-903386-34-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Robert L.|last1=Payton|first2=Michael P.|last2=Moody|title=Understanding Philanthropy: Its Meaning and Mission|year=2008|isbn=978-0-253-00013-2|page=137}}</ref> Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff argued that [[microaggression]] training on [[Higher education in the United States|college campuses in the United States]] has led to a [[Cancel culture|call-out culture]] and a climate of [[self-censorship]] due to fear of [[Shame|shaming]] by [[virtue signalling]] social media [[Mobbing|mobs]] with users who are often anonymous and tend to [[Deindividuation|deindividuate]] as a consequence.<ref name="Lukianoff & Haidt 2018 pp. 71–73">{{cite book|last1=Lukianoff|first1=Greg|author-link1=Greg Lukianoff|last2=Haidt|first2=Jonathan|author-link2=Jonathan Haidt|title=The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure|title-link=The Coddling of the American Mind|year=2018|place=New York|publisher=[[Penguin Books|Penguin Press]]|pages=71–73|isbn=978-0-7352-2489-6}}</ref> Citing February 2017 [[Pew Research Center]] survey data showing that critical Facebook postings expressing "indignant disagreement" were twice as likely to receive likes, comments, or shares (along with a similar finding for [[Twitter]] posts published in ''[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America|PNAS USA]]'' in July 2017),<ref>{{cite news|title=Critical posts get more likes, comments, and shares than other posts|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|date=February 21, 2017|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/02/23/partisan-conflict-and-congressional-outreach/pdl-02-23-17_antipathy-new-00-02/|access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Brady|first1=William J.|last2=Wills|first2=Julian A.|last3=Jost|first3=John T.|author-link3=John Jost|last4=Tucker|first4=Joshua A.|last5=Van Bavel|first5=Jay J.|title=Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks|date=July 11, 2017|journal=[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America|PNAS USA]]|publisher=[[National Academy of Sciences]]|volume=114|issue=28|pages=7313–7318|doi=10.1073/pnas.1618923114|pmid=28652356|pmc=5514704|doi-access=free}}</ref> Haidt and Tobias Rose-Stockwell cite the phrase "'''moral grandstanding'''" to describe how having an audience on social media forums converts much of its interpersonal communication into a public performance.<ref name="Haidt & Rose-Stockwell" /> Following the [[murder of George Floyd]] in May 2020 and the [[George Floyd protests|subsequent protests in his name]], [[Civiqs]] and [[YouGov]]/''[[The Economist|Economist]]'' polls showed that while net support for [[Black Lives Matter]] among [[White American]]s increased from –4 points to +10 points in early June 2020 (with 43 percent in support) it fell to –6 points by early August 2020,<ref>{{cite news|last=Tesler|first=Michael|title=Support For Black Lives Matter Surged During Protests, But Is Waning Among White Americans|website=[[FiveThirtyEight]]|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/support-for-black-lives-matter-surged-during-protests-but-is-waning-among-white-americans/|date=August 19, 2020|access-date=September 2, 2021}}</ref> and by April 2021, further Civiqs polls showed that support for Black Lives Matter among White Americans had reverted to roughly its level of support prior to George Floyd's murder (37 percent in favor and 49 percent opposed).<ref>{{cite news|last=Samuels|first=Alex|title=How Views On Black Lives Matter Have Changed – And Why That Makes Police Reform So Hard|website=[[FiveThirtyEight]]|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-views-on-black-lives-matter-have-changed-and-why-that-makes-police-reform-so-hard/|date=April 13, 2021|access-date=September 2, 2021}}</ref> In a February 2021 interview on ''[[Firing Line (TV program)|Firing Line]]'', journalist [[Charles M. Blow]] criticized a minority of young white protestors in the George Floyd protests in the United States whom he argued were using the protests for their own [[Personal development|personal growth]] to substitute for social [[rites of passage]] (e.g. [[prom]]) and summertime social gatherings (e.g. attending [[movie theater]]s or [[concert]]s) that were precluded by [[COVID-19 lockdowns]] and [[social distancing]] measures, noting that as lockdowns began to be relaxed and removed, support for Black Lives Matter among whites began to decline.<ref>{{cite interview|last=Blow|first=Charles M.|author-link=Charles M. Blow|interviewer=[[Margaret Hoover]]|date=February 5, 2021|title=Charles Blow|work=[[Firing Line (TV program)|Firing Line]]|publisher=[[WNET]]|url=https://www.pbs.org/wnet/firing-line/video/charles-blow-a2kchq/|access-date=September 2, 2021}}</ref> In February 2021, ''[[Psychological Medicine]]'' published a survey reviewing 14,785 publicly reported murders in English language news worldwide between 1900 and 2019 compiled in a database by psychiatrists at the [[New York State Psychiatric Institute]] and the [[Columbia University Irving Medical Center]] that found that of the 1,315 personal-cause [[mass murder]]s (i.e. driven by personal motivations and not occurring within the context of war, [[State-sponsored terrorism|state-sponsored]] or [[List of designated terrorist groups|group-sponsored terrorism]], [[gang]] activity, or [[organized crime]]) only 11 percent of mass murderers and only 8 percent of mass shooters had a "[[serious mental illness]]" (e.g. [[schizophrenia]], [[bipolar disorder]], [[major depressive disorder]]), that mass shootings have become more common than other forms of mass murder since 1970 (with 73 percent occurring in the United States alone), and that mass shooters in the United States were more likely to have [[Criminal record|legal histories]], to engage in [[recreational drug use]] or [[alcohol abuse]], and to display non-[[psychosis|psychotic]] psychiatric or [[Neurological disorder|neurologic]] symptoms.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Brucato|first1=Gary|last2=Appelbaum|first2=Paul S.|author-link2=Paul S. Appelbaum|last3=Hesson|first3=Hannah|last4=Shea|first4=Eileen A.|last5=Dishy|first5=Gabriella|last6=Lee|first6=Kathryn|last7=Pia|first7=Tyler|last8=Syed|first8=Faizan|last9=Villalobos|first9=Alexandra|last10=Wall|first10=Melanie M.|author10-link=Melanie Wall|last11=Lieberman|first11=Jeffrey A.|author-link11=Jeffrey Lieberman|last12=Girgis|first12=Ragy R.|year=2021|title=Psychotic symptoms in mass shootings v. mass murders not involving firearms: findings from the Columbia mass murder database|journal=[[Psychological Medicine]]|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|pages=1–9|pmid=33595428|doi=10.1017/S0033291721000076|s2cid=231944742|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/abs/psychotic-symptoms-in-mass-shootings-v-mass-murders-not-involving-firearms-findings-from-the-columbia-mass-murder-database/50514607ADF1AC2ECEB43369B6153E34#|access-date=August 16, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Preidt|first=Robert|date=February 25, 2021|title=Mental Illness Not a Factor in Most Mass Shootings|website=[[WebMD]]|publisher=[[Internet Brands]]|url=https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20210225/mental-illness-not-a-factor-in-most-mass-shootings|access-date=August 16, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Ramsland|first1=Katherine|date=February 26, 2021|title=Is There a Link Between Madness and Mass Murder?|work=[[Psychology Today]]|publisher=Sussex Publishers|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shadow-boxing/202102/is-there-link-between-madness-and-mass-murder|access-date=August 16, 2021}}</ref> Survey coauthor psychiatrist [[Paul S. Appelbaum]] argued that the data from the survey indicated that "difficulty coping with life events seem more useful foci for prevention [of mass shootings] and policy than an emphasis on serious mental illness",<ref>{{cite web|title=Researchers Issue First Report on Mass Shootings from the Columbia Mass Murder Database|date=February 18, 2021|publisher=[[Columbia University Irving Medical Center]]|url=https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/researchers-issue-first-report-mass-shootings-columbia-mass-murder-database|access-date=August 17, 2021}}</ref> while psychiatrist Ronald W. Pies has suggested that [[psychopathology]] should be understood as a three-gradation [[Normal distribution|continuum]] of [[Distress (medicine)|mental, behavioral and emotional disturbance]] with most mass shooters falling into a middle category of "persistent emotional disturbance".<ref>{{cite news|last=Pies|first=Ronald W.|date=February 17, 2020|title=Mass Shooters and the Psychopathology Spectrum|work=[[Psychiatric Times]]|publisher=MJH Associates|url=https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/mass-shooters-and-psychopathology-spectrum|access-date=August 17, 2021}}</ref> In 2015, psychiatrists James L. Knoll and George D. Annas noted that the tendency of most media attention following mass shootings on mental health leads to [[Sociocultural anthropology|sociocultural factors]] being comparatively overlooked.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Knoll|first1=James L.|last2=Annas|first2=George D.|editor-last1=Gold|editor-first1=Liza H.|editor-last2=Simon|editor-first2=Robert I.|year=2015|title=Gun Violence and Mental Illness|chapter=4. Mass Shootings and Mental Illness|place=New York|publisher=[[American Psychiatric Association]]|pages=91–94|url=https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/appi.books.9781615371099|isbn=978-1-58562-498-0}}</ref> Instead, Knoll and Annas cite research by social psychologists [[Jean Twenge]] and [[W. Keith Campbell]] on [[Narcissistic personality disorder|narcissism]] and [[social rejection]] in the personal histories of mass shooters, as well as cognitive scientist [[Steven Pinker]]'s suggestion in ''[[The Better Angels of Our Nature]]'' (2011) that further reductions in human violence may be dependent upon reducing human narcissism.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Twenge|first1=Jean|author-link1=Jean Twenge|last2=Campbell|first2=W. Keith|author-link2=W. Keith Campbell|year=2010|title=The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement|place=New York|publisher=[[Atria Publishing Group]]|pages=199–200|isbn=978-1-4165-7599-3}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Pinker|first=Steven|author-link=Steven Pinker|year=2011|title=The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined|title-link=The Better Angels of Our Nature|place=New York|publisher=[[Penguin Books]]|pages=519–521|isbn=978-0-14-312201-2}}</ref> === Non-informing, knowledge-eroding medium === {{Main|News Feed|Facebook Files|Big data|Confirmation bias|Echo chamber (media)|Facebook like button|Filter bubble|Infotainment|Political polarization|Radicalization}} {{See also|Like button|Negative partisanship|Online youth radicalization|Political polarization in the United States|Social aspects of television#Political polarization}} Facebook is a Big Tech company with over 2.7&nbsp;billion monthly active users as of the second quarter of 2020 and therefore has a meaningful impact on the masses that use it.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Facebook MAU worldwide 2020|url=https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/|access-date=January 6, 2021|website=Statista|language=en}}</ref> [[Big data]] algorithms are used in personalized content creation and automatization; however, this method can be used to manipulate users in various ways.<ref>{{Citation|last=Harari|first=Yuval Noah|title=Danksagung|date=2017|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.17104/9783406704024-539|work=Homo Deus|pages=539–540|publisher=Verlag C.H.BECK oHG|doi=10.17104/9783406704024-539|isbn=978-3-406-70402-4|access-date=January 6, 2021}}</ref> The problem of misinformation is exacerbated by the educational bubble, users' critical thinking ability and news culture.<ref>{{Citation|last=Reviglio|first=Urbano|title=Serendipity by Design? How to Turn from Diversity Exposure to Diversity Experience to Face Filter Bubbles in Social Media|date=2017|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70284-1_22|work=Internet Science|series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science|volume=10673|pages=281–300|place=Cham|publisher=Springer International Publishing|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-70284-1_22|isbn=978-3-319-70283-4|access-date=January 6, 2021}}</ref> Based on a 2015 study, 62.5% of the Facebook users are oblivious to any curation of their [[News Feed]]. Furthermore, scientists have started to investigate algorithms with unexpected outcomes that may lead to antisocial political, economic, geographic, racial, or other discrimination. Facebook has remained scarce in transparency of the inner workings of the algorithms used for News Feed correlation.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Eslami|first1=Motahhare|last2=Rickman|first2=Aimee|last3=Vaccaro|first3=Kristen|last4=Aleyasen|first4=Amirhossein|last5=Vuong|first5=Andy|last6=Karahalios|first6=Karrie|last7=Hamilton|first7=Kevin|last8=Sandvig|first8=Christian|date=April 18, 2015|title="I always assumed that I wasn't really that close to [her]": Reasoning about Invisible Algorithms in News Feeds|chapter="I always assumed that I wasn't really that close to &#91;her&#93;": Reasoning about Invisible Algorithms in News Feeds|chapter-url=https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2702123.2702556|journal=Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems|language=en|location=Seoul Republic of Korea|publisher=ACM|pages=153–162|doi=10.1145/2702123.2702556|isbn=978-1-4503-3145-6|s2cid=15264571}}</ref> Algorithms use the past activities as a reference point for predicting users' taste to keep them engaged. However, this leads to the formation of a [[filter bubble]] that starts to refrain users from diverse information. Users are left with a skewed worldview derived from their own preferences and biases.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Adee|first=Sally|date=November 2016|title=Burst the filter bubble|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0262407916321820|journal=New Scientist|language=en|volume=232|issue=3101|pages=24–25|doi=10.1016/S0262-4079(16)32182-0}}</ref> In 2015, researchers from Facebook published a study indicating that the Facebook algorithm perpetuates an echo chamber amongst users by occasionally hiding content from individual feeds that users potentially would disagree with: for example the algorithm removed one in every 13 diverse content from news sources for self-identified liberals. In general, the results from the study indicated that the Facebook algorithm ranking system caused approximately 15% less diverse material in users' content feeds, and a 70% reduction in the click-through-rate of the diverse material.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tufekci|first=Zeynep|date=2015|title=Facebook said its algorithms do help form echo chambers, and the tech press missed it|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/npqu.11519|journal=New Perspectives Quarterly|volume=32|issue=3|pages=9–12|doi=10.1111/npqu.11519|via=Wiley Online Library}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Eytan|first1=Bakshy|last2=Messing|first2=Solomon|last3=Adamic|first3=Lada A|date=2015|title=Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook|url=https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6239/1130.abstract?casa_token=GLv-98tAgZoAAAAA:UizWz6J0-GmPTWQEy9cnDsBHrxO3dyUsCjPFSxJMje5zxpCsjd6uN-gzrJ7Lusx0tJdvPonqTvimFgQ|journal=Science|volume=348|issue=6239|pages=1130–1132|doi=10.1126/science.aaa1160|pmid=25953820|bibcode=2015Sci...348.1130B|s2cid=206632821|via=American Association for the Advancement of Science}}</ref> In 2018, social psychologist [[Jonathan Haidt]] and [[Foundation for Individual Rights in Education|FIRE]] President [[Greg Lukianoff]] argued in ''[[The Coddling of the American Mind]]'' that the [[filter bubble]]s created by the [[News Feed]] algorithm of Facebook and other platforms are one of the principal factors amplifying [[political polarization in the United States]] since 2000 (when a majority of U.S. households first had at least one personal computer and then internet access the following year).<ref>{{cite book|last1=Lukianoff|first1=Greg|author-link1=Greg Lukianoff|last2=Haidt|first2=Jonathan|author-link2=Jonathan Haidt|title=The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure|title-link=The Coddling of the American Mind|year=2018|place=New York|publisher=[[Penguin Books|Penguin Press]]|pages=126–132|isbn=978-0-7352-2489-6}}</ref><ref name="auto2"/> In his ''[[Reflections on the Revolution in France]]'' (1790), philosopher [[Edmund Burke]] observed "We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages."<ref>{{cite book|last=Burke|first=Edmund|author-link=Edmund Burke|editor-last=Mitchell|editor-first=L. G.|orig-year=1993|year=2009|title=Reflections on the Revolution in France|title-link=Reflections on the Revolution in France|edition=Reissue|place=New York|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|page=87|isbn=978-0-19-953902-4}}</ref> In ''[[The Signal and the Noise]]'' (2012), statistician [[Nate Silver]] noted that [[IBM]] had estimated that the world was generating 2.5 [[Names of large numbers|quintillion]] [[byte]]s of data each day (more than 90 percent of which was created in the previous two years), and that the increase in data was analogous to increases in [[Publishing|book production]] as a consequence of the invention of the [[printing press]] in 1440 by [[Johannes Gutenberg]] as well as the effect of the increase in book production in causing the [[Reformation]], the [[Counter-Reformation]], and the [[European wars of religion]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Silver|first=Nate|author-link=Nate Silver|title=The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail – But Some Don't|title-link=The Signal and the Noise|publisher=[[Penguin Books]]|place=New York City|edition=2nd|orig-year=2012|year=2015|pages=1–12|isbn=978-0-14-312508-2}}</ref> Citing Burke, Jonathan Haidt and Tobias Rose-Stockwell suggested in ''[[The Atlantic]]'' in December 2019 that because the proportion of most of the information that [[Generation Z]] receives due to regular social media usage is information created primarily within the past month (e.g. [[Cats and the Internet|cat videos]], [[Tabloid journalism|tabloid]] gossip about [[Celebrity|celebrities]], [[Sensationalism|sensationalistic]] [[hot take]]s on news items) rather than information created in decades or centuries past, members of Generation Z are less familiar with the [[General knowledge|accumulated knowledge]] and [[wisdom]] of humanity (e.g. [[A Syntopicon|great ideas]], [[Great Books of the Western World|great books]], history) than generations past, and as a consequence, are more prone to embrace misguided ideas that bring them greater [[Respect|esteem]] and [[Dual strategies theory|prestige]] within their immediate [[social network]] (noting the declining faith among Generation Z in democracy across the [[Left–right political spectrum|ideological spectrum]] in polling data alongside renewed interest in [[socialism]], [[communism]], and [[Nazism]] that is reflective of ignorance of the history of the 20th century).<ref name="Haidt & Rose-Stockwell">{{cite news|last1=Haidt|first1=Jonathan|author-link1=Jonathan Haidt|last2=Rose-Stockwell|first2=Tobias|title=The Dark Psychology of Social Networks|work=[[The Atlantic]]|publisher=[[Emerson Collective]]|year=2019|volume=324|issue=6|pages=57–60|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/social-media-democracy/600763/|access-date=June 11, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Gregory|first=Andy|title=More than a third of millennials approve of communism, YouGov poll indicates|date=November 7, 2019|work=[[The Independent]]|publisher=Independent Digital News & Media Ltd|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/communism-millennials-capitalism-socialism-bernie-sanders-cold-war-yougov-a9188116.html|access-date=June 11, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Saad|first=Lydia|title=Socialism as Popular as Capitalism Among Young Adults in U.S.|date=November 25, 2019|publisher=[[Gallup (company)|Gallup]]|url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capitalism-among-young-adults.aspx|access-date=June 11, 2020}}</ref> Facebook has, at least in the political field, a counter-effect on being informed: in two studies from the US with a total of more than 2,000 participants, the influence of social media on the general knowledge on political issues was examined in the context of two US presidential elections. The results showed that the frequency of Facebook use was moderately negatively related to general political knowledge. This was also the case when considering demographic, political-ideological variables and previous political knowledge. According to the latter, a causal relationship is indicated: the higher the Facebook use, the more the general political knowledge declines.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Lee|first1=Sangwon|last2=Xenos|first2=Michael|year=2019|title=Social distraction? Social media use and political knowledge in two U.S. Presidential elections|journal=Computers in Human Behavior|language=en|volume=90|pages=18–25|doi=10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.006|s2cid=53734285}}</ref> In 2019, Jonathan Haidt argued that there is a "very good chance American democracy will fail, that in the next 30 years we will have a catastrophic failure of our democracy."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/americas-uncivil-war-on-democracy/news-story/45a86ac9b438b85dce0bbbd289e1604e|title=America's Uncivil War on Democracy|author=Kelly, Paul|website=TheAustralian.com|publisher=[[The Australian]]|access-date=July 20, 2019}} Access by subscription only (February 2021).</ref> Following the [[2021 United States Capitol attack]], in February 2021, Facebook announced that it would reduce the amount of political content in users News Feeds.<ref>{{cite interview|last=Dwoskin|first=Elizabeth|interviewer=[[Tonya Mosley]]|date=February 16, 2021|title=Facebook To Scale Back Politics In Users' News Feeds|work=[[Here and Now (Boston)|Here and Now]]|publisher=[[WBUR-FM|WBUR]]|url=https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/02/16/facebook-politics-news-feed|access-date=August 9, 2021}}</ref> === Other psychological effects === It has been admitted by many students that they have experienced [[bullying]] on the site, which leads to psychological harm. Students of high schools face a possibility of bullying and other adverse behaviors over Facebook every day. Many studies have attempted to discover whether Facebook has a positive or negative effect on children's and teenagers' social lives, and many of them have come to the conclusion that there are distinct social problems that arise with Facebook usage. British neuroscientist [[Susan Greenfield, Baroness Greenfield|Susan Greenfield]] stuck up for the issues that children encounter on social media sites. She said that they can rewire the brain, which caused some hysteria over whether or not social networking sites are safe. She did not back up her claims with research, but did cause quite a few studies to be done on the subject. When that self is then broken down by others by badmouthing, criticism, harassment, criminalization or vilification, intimidation, demonization, demoralization, belittlement, or attacking someone over the site it can cause much of the envy, anger, or depression.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Are social networking sites breeding antisocial young people? |first=Alanna |last=Bromley |journal=Journal of Digital Research and Publishing |year=2011 |url=http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/8137/1/DRPJournal_5pm_S2_2011.pdf#page=7}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WoP0y3SylQ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211221/3WoP0y3SylQ |archive-date=2021-12-21 |url-status=live|title=Students Take On Cyberbullying|via=YouTube}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=My Best Day: Presentation of Self and Social Manipulation in Facebook and IM |first=Naomi S. |last=Baron |year=2007 |url=http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/1961/5782/Baron%20-%20My%20Best%20Day.pdf?sequence=1 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130523064049/http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/1961/5782/Baron%20-%20My%20Best%20Day.pdf?sequence=1 |archive-date=May 23, 2013 }}</ref> [[Sherry Turkle]], in her book ''[[Sherry Turkle#Alone Together|Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other]]'', argues that social media brings people closer and further apart at the same time. One of the main points she makes is that there is a high risk in treating persons online with dispatch like objects. Although people are networked on Facebook, their expectations of each other tend to be lessened. According to Turkle, this could cause a feeling of loneliness in spite of being together.<ref>Turkle, Sherry (2011): Alone Together. Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.</ref> Between 2016 and 2018, the number of 12- to 15-year-olds who reported being bullied over social media rose from 6% to 11%, in the region covered by [[Ofcom]].<ref name="longfield-2019" />{{better source needed|date=January 2019}} === User influence experiments === Academic and Facebook researchers have collaborated to test if the messages people see on Facebook can influence their behavior. For instance, in "A 61-Million-Person Experiment in Social Influence And Political Mobilization", during the 2010 elections, Facebook users were given the opportunity to "tell your friends you voted" by clicking on an "I voted" button. Users were 2% more likely to click the button if it was associated with friends who had already voted.<ref name="bond20146mp">{{cite journal |author1=Robert M. Bond |author2=Christopher J. Fariss |author3=Jason J. Jones |author4=Adam D. I. Kramer |author5=Cameron Marlow |author6=Jaime E. Settle |author7=James H. Fowler |title=A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization| journal=Nature| year=2012| volume=489| issue=7415| pages=295–298| doi=10.1038/nature11421|pmid=22972300 |pmc=3834737|bibcode=2012Natur.489..295B }}</ref> Much more controversially, a 2014 study of "Emotional Contagion Through Social Networks" manipulated the balance of positive and negative messages seen by 689,000 Facebook users.<ref name="guardian2014">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-users-emotions-news-feeds|title=Facebook reveals news feed experiment to control emotions|access-date=June 30, 2014|newspaper=The Guardian|year=2014|author=Robert Booth}}</ref> The researchers concluded that they had found "some of the first experimental evidence to support the controversial claims that emotions can spread throughout a network, [though] the effect sizes from the manipulations are small."<ref name="pnas2014">{{cite journal | author=Adam D. I. Kramer, Jamie E. Guillory. Jeffrey T. Hancock|title=Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks| journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America| year=2014| volume=111| issue=24| pages=8788–8790| doi=10.1073/pnas.1320040111| pmid=24889601| pmc=4066473|bibcode=2014PNAS..111.8788K|doi-access=free}}</ref> Unlike the "I voted" study, which had presumptively beneficial ends and raised few concerns, this study was criticized for both its ethics and methods/claims. As controversy about the study grew, Adam Kramer, a lead author of both studies and member of the Facebook data team, defended the work in a Facebook update.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.facebook.com/akramer/posts/10152987150867796|title=Facebook update|website=[[Facebook]]|access-date=July 14, 2019}}{{subscription required}}</ref> A few days later, Sheryl Sandburg, Facebook's COO, made a statement while traveling abroad. While at an Indian Chambers of Commerce event in New Delhi she stated that "This was part of ongoing research companies do to test different products, and that was what it was. It was poorly communicated and for that communication we apologize. We never meant to upset you."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://money.cnn.com/2014/07/02/technology/social/facebook-apology/index.html?iid=TL_Popular|title=Facebook still won't say 'sorry' for mind games experiment |access-date=July 3, 2014|publisher=[[CNNMoney]]|author=David Goldman|date=July 2, 2014}}</ref> Shortly thereafter, on July 3, 2014, [[USA Today]] reported that the privacy watchdog group [[Electronic Privacy Information Center]] (EPIC) had filed a formal complaint with the [[Federal Trade Commission]] claiming that Facebook had broken the law when it conducted the study on the emotions of its users without their knowledge or consent. In its complaint, EPIC alleged that Facebook had deceived users by secretly conducting a psychological experiment on their emotions: "At the time of the experiment, Facebook did not state in the Data Use Policy that user data would be used for research purposes. Facebook also failed to inform users that their personal information would be shared with researchers."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Guynn|first1=Jessica|title=Privacy watchdog files complaint over Facebook study|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/07/03/facebook-emotion-study-complaint-epic/12157471/|work=[[USA Today]]|access-date=July 5, 2014|date=July 3, 2014}}</ref> Beyond the ethical concerns, other scholars criticized the methods and reporting of the study's findings. John Grohol, writing for [[Psych Central]], argued that despite its title and claims of "[[emotional contagion]]", this study did not look at emotions at all. Instead, its authors used an application (called "Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count" or LIWC 2007) that simply counted positive and negative words to infer users' sentiments. He wrote that a shortcoming of the LIWC tool is that it does not understand negations. Hence, the tweet "I am not happy" would be scored as positive: "Since the LIWC 2007 ignores these subtle realities of informal human communication, so do the researchers." Grohol concluded that given these subtleties, the [[effect size]] of the findings are little more than a "statistical blip". <blockquote>Kramer et al. (2014) found a 0.07%—that's not 7 percent, that's 1/15th of one percent!!—decrease in negative words in people's status updates when the number of negative posts on their Facebook news feed decreased. Do you know how many words you'd have to read or write before you've written one less negative word due to this effect? Probably thousands.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Grohol|first1=John|title=Emotional Contagion on Facebook? More Like Bad Research Methods|url=http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2014/06/23/emotional-contagion-on-facebook-more-like-bad-research-methods/|website=[[Psych Central]]|publisher=[[PsychCentral]]|access-date=July 12, 2014|archive-date=July 12, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140712053542/http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2014/06/23/emotional-contagion-on-facebook-more-like-bad-research-methods/|url-status=dead}}</ref></blockquote> The consequences of the controversy are pending (be it FTC or court proceedings) but it did prompt an "Editorial Expression of Concern"<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sciences|first=National Academy of|date=July 22, 2014|title=Editorial Expression of Concern: Experimental evidence of massivescale emotional contagion through social networks|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|language=en|volume=111|issue=29|pages=10779|doi=10.1073/pnas.1412469111|issn=0027-8424|pmid=24994898|pmc=4115552|bibcode=2014PNAS..11110779.|doi-access=free}}</ref> from its publisher, the [[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]], as well as a blog posting from [[OkCupid]] titled "We experiment on human beings!"<ref>{{cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150123110808/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/we-experiment-on-human-beings/|url=http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/we-experiment-on-human-beings/|date=July 28, 2014|first=Christian|last=Rudder|archive-date=January 23, 2015|title=We experiment on human beings|website=okcupid.com|access-date=July 14, 2019}}</ref> In September 2014, law professor James Grimmelmann argued that the actions of both companies were "illegal, immoral, and mood-altering" and filed notices with the Maryland Attorney General and Cornell Institutional Review Board.<ref>{{cite web | first1 = James | last1 = Grimmelmann | title = Illegal, immoral, and mood-altering: How Facebook and OkCupid broke the law when they experimented on users | date = September 23, 2014 |url=https://medium.com/@JamesGrimmelmann/illegal-unethical-and-mood-altering-8b93af772688 | access-date = September 24, 2014}}</ref> In the UK, the study was also criticized by the [[British Psychological Society]] which said, in a letter to ''[[The Guardian]]'', "There has undoubtedly been some degree of harm caused, with many individuals affected by increased levels of negative emotion, with consequent potential economic costs, increase in possible mental health problems and burden on health services. The so-called 'positive' manipulation is also potentially harmful."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/01/facebook-socially-irresponsible |title=Facebook's 'experiment' was socially irresponsible |work=The Guardian |date=July 1, 2014 |access-date=August 4, 2014}}</ref> == Tax avoidance == {{See also|Ireland as a tax haven}} Facebook uses a complicated series of [[Shell corporations|shell companies]] in [[tax haven]]s to avoid paying billions of dollars in [[corporate tax]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/23/facebook-tax-profits-outside-us|title=Facebook paid £2.9m tax on £840m profits made outside US, figures show|first=Rupert|last=Neate|date=December 23, 2012|access-date=October 25, 2016|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref> According to ''[[The Express Tribune]]'', Facebook is among the corporations that "avoided billions of dollars in tax using offshore companies."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/1550750/3-paradise-papers-reveal-hidden-wealth-global-elite/ |title=Paradise Papers reveal hidden wealth of global elite|work=[[The Express Tribune]]|date= November 6, 2017}}</ref> For example, Facebook routes billions of dollars in profits using the [[Double Irish arrangement|Double Irish]] and [[Dutch Sandwich (tax avoidance)|Dutch Sandwich]] tax avoidance schemes to bank accounts in the [[Cayman Islands]]. The Dutch newspaper ''[[NRC Handelsblad]]'' concluded from the [[Paradise Papers]] published in late 2017 that Facebook pays "practically no taxes" worldwide.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/11/10/belastingontwijking-is-simpel-op-te-lossen-13926791-a1580748|newspaper=[[NRC Handelsblad]]|date=November 11, 2017|access-date=July 14, 2019|title=Belastingontwijking is simpel op te lossen|first= Wouter|last=van Noort|trans-title=Tax avoidance can easily be solved|language=nl}} The quote, as heading of the article, comes from the French economist [[Gabriel Zucman]].</ref> For example, Facebook paid: * In 2011, £2.9m tax on £840m profits in the UK; * In 2012 and 2013 no tax in the UK; * In 2014 £4,327 tax on hundreds of millions of pounds in UK revenues which were transferred to tax havens.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34504474|title=Facebook paid £4,327 corporation tax in 2014|date=October 12, 2015|access-date=October 25, 2016|publisher=BBC}}</ref> According to economist and member of the [[PvdA (NL)|PvdA]] delegation inside the [[Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats|Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats in the European Parliament]] (S&D) [[Paul Tang (politician)|Paul Tang]], between 2013 and 2015 the EU lost an estimated €1,453m&nbsp;– €2,415m to Facebook.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://static.financieel-management.nl/documents/16690/EU-Tax-Revenue-Loss-from-Google-and-Facebook.pdf|title=EU Tax Revenue Loss from Google and Facebook|last=Tang|first=Paul|date=September 2017}}</ref> When comparing to others countries outside the EU, the EU is only taxing Facebook with a rate of 0.03% to 0.1% of its revenue (around 6% of its EBT) whereas this rate is near 28% in countries outside the EU. Even had a rate between 2% and 5% been applied during this period – as suggested by the [[Economic and Financial Affairs Council|ECOFIN]] Council – a fraud of this rate by Facebook would have meant a loss to the EU between €327m and €817m.<ref name=":5" /> {| class="wikitable" |+Revenues, profits, tax and effective tax rates, Facebook Inc. 2013–2015.<ref name=":5" /> ! colspan="2" rowspan="2" | ! colspan="3" |Revenue (m EUR) ! colspan="3" |EBT (m EUR) ! colspan="3" |Tax (m EUR) ! colspan="3" |Tax / EBT ! colspan="3" |Tax / Revenue |- !Total !EU !Rest of the world !Total !EU !Rest of the world !Total !EU !Rest of the world !Total !EU !Rest of the world !Total !EU !Rest of the world |- |'''Facebook Inc.''' |'''2013''' |5,720 |3,069 |2,651 |2,001 |(4) |2,005 |911 |3 |908 |46% |n.a |45% |15.93% |'''0.10%''' |'''34.25%''' |- | |'''2014''' |10,299 |5,017 |5,282 |4,057 |(20) |4,077 |1,628 |5 |1,623 |40% |n.a |40% |15.81% |'''0.09%''' |'''30.73%''' |- | |'''2015''' |16,410 |8,253 |8,157 |5,670 |(43) |5,627 |2,294 |3 |2,291 |40% |6% |41% |13.98% |'''0.03%''' |'''28.09%''' |} On July 6, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a petition in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, asking for a court order to enforce an administrative summons issued to Facebook, Inc., under [[Internal Revenue Code]] section 7602,<ref>{{usc|26|7602}}.</ref> in connection with an [[Internal Revenue Service]] examination of Facebook's year 2010 U.S. Federal income tax return.<ref>Seth Fiegerman, "Facebook is being investigated by the IRS", July 7, 2016, CNN, at [https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/07/technology/facebook-irs-investigation/index.html].</ref><ref>''United States of America v. Facebook, Inc. and Subsidiaries'', case no. 16-cv-03777, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco Div.).</ref> In November 2017, the ''[[Irish Independent]]'' recorded that for the 2016 financial year, Facebook had paid €30&nbsp;million of [[Corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland|Irish corporation tax]] on €12.6&nbsp;billion of revenues that were routed through Ireland, giving an [[Corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland#ETR|Irish effective tax rate]] of under 1%.<ref name="wwx">{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.ie/business/technology/facebook-paid-just-30m-tax-in-ireland-despite-earning-12bn-36362527.html|title=Facebook paid just €30m tax in Ireland despite earning €12bn|work=Irish Independent|date=November 29, 2017}}</ref> The €12.6&nbsp;billion of 2016 Facebook revenues routed through Ireland was almost half of Facebook's global revenues.<ref name="face3">{{cite news|url=https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/facebook-ireland-pays-tax-of-just-30m-on-126bn-816238.html|title=Facebook Ireland pays tax of just €30m on €12.6bn|newspaper=Irish Examiner|date=November 29, 2017}}</ref> In April 2018, ''[[Reuters]]'' wrote that all of Facebook's non–U.S. accounts were legally housed in Ireland for tax purposes, but were being moved due to the May 2018 EU [[GDPR]] regulations.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-eu-exclusive/exclusive-facebook-to-put-1-5-billion-users-out-of-reach-of-new-eu-privacy-law-idUSKBN1HQ00P|title=Exclusive: Facebook to put 1.5 billion users out of reach of new EU privacy law|work=[[Reuters]]|author=David Ingram|date=April 18, 2018}}</ref> In November 2018, the ''[[Irish Times]]'' reported that Facebook routed over €18.7&nbsp;billion of revenues through Ireland (almost half all global revenues), on which it paid €38&nbsp;million of Irish corporation tax.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/facebook-ireland-pays-38m-tax-on-251m-profit-1.3713161|title=Facebook Ireland pays €38m tax on €18.7 billion of revenue channeled through Ireland in 2017|newspaper=[[The Irish Times]]|author=Peter Hamilton|date=November 28, 2018|quote=The social media giant channelled €18.7 billion in revenue through its Irish subsidiary, an increase of 48 per cent from the €12.6 billion recorded in 2016. While gross profit amounted to €18.1 billion, administrative expenses of €17.8 billion meant profit before tax increased 44 per cent to €251 million.}}</ref> == Treatment of employees and contractors == === Moderators === {{See also|Cognizant#Working conditions and mental health issues|Arvato#Facebook content moderation}} Facebook hires some employees through contractors, including [[Accenture]], [[Arvato]], [[Cognizant]], [[CPL Resources]], and [[Genpact]], to serve as [[content moderators]], reviewing potentially problematic content posted to both Facebook and Instagram.{{refn|<ref name=verge19>{{cite web |last1=Newton |first1=Casey |title=THE TRAUMA FLOOR: The secret lives of Facebook moderators in America |url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona |access-date=February 25, 2019 |website=The Verge |date=February 25, 2019}}</ref><ref name="Irish Times moderators">{{cite web|first1=Jennifer|last1=O'Connell|access-date=June 21, 2019|title=Facebook's dirty work in Ireland: 'I had to watch footage of a person being beaten to death'|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/facebook-s-dirty-work-in-ireland-i-had-to-watch-footage-of-a-person-being-beaten-to-death-1.3841743|website=[[The Irish Times]]|date=March 30, 2019}}</ref><ref name="Bodies in Seats">{{cite web|first1=Casey|last1=Newton|access-date=June 21, 2019|title=Three Facebook moderators break their NDAs to expose a company in crisis|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/19/18681845/facebook-moderator-interviews-video-trauma-ptsd-cognizant-tampa|date=June 19, 2019|website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|first1=Queenie|last1=Wong|access-date=June 21, 2019|title=Murders and suicides: Here's who keeps them off your Facebook feed|url=https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-content-moderation-is-an-ugly-business-heres-who-does-it/|publisher=[[CNET]]|date=June 19, 2019}}</ref>}} Many of these contractors face unrealistic expectations, harsh working conditions, and constant exposure to disturbing content, including [[graphic violence]], [[animal abuse]], and [[child pornography]].<ref name=verge19 /><ref name="Irish Times moderators" /> Contractor employment is contingent on achieving and maintaining a score of 98 on a 100-point scale on a metric known as "accuracy". Falling below a score of 98 can result in [[Dismissal (employment)|dismissal]]. Some have reported [[posttraumatic stress disorder]] (PTSD) stemming from lack of access to counseling, coupled with unforgiving expectations and the violent content they are assigned to review.<ref name=verge19 /> Content moderator Keith Utley, who was employed by Cognizant, experienced a heart attack during work in March 2018; the office lacked a [[defibrillator]], and Utley was transported to a hospital where he died.<ref name="Bodies in Seats" /><ref>{{cite web|first1=Lisa|last1=Eadicicco|access-date=June 20, 2019|title=A Facebook content moderator died after suffering heart attack on the job|url=https://www.mysanantonio.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Facebook-content-moderator-died-after-heart-attack-14018228.php|date=June 19, 2019|website=[[San Antonio Express-News]]}}</ref> Selena Scola, an employee of contractor Pro Unlimited, Inc., sued her employer after she developed PTSD as a result of "constant and unmitigated exposure to highly toxic and extremely disturbing images at the workplace".<ref>{{cite web|first1=Emanuel|last1=Maiberg|first2=Jason|last2=Koebler|first3=Joseph|last3=Cox|access-date=June 21, 2019|title=A Former Content Moderator Is Suing Facebook Because the Job Reportedly Gave Her PTSD|url=https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zm5mw5/facebook-content-moderation-lawsuit-ptsd|date=September 24, 2018|website=[[Vice Media|Vice]]}}</ref> In December 2019, former Cpl employee Chris Gray began legal action in the High Court of Ireland, claiming damages for PTSD suffered as a moderator,<ref>{{cite web|first1=Chris|last1=Gray|first2=Alex|last2=Hern|access-date=February 25, 2020|title=Ex-Facebook worker claims disturbing content led to PTSD |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/04/ex-facebook-worker-claims-disturbing-content-led-to-ptsd|date=December 4, 2019|website=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref> the first of an estimated 20+ pending cases. In February 2020, employees in Tampa, Florida filed a lawsuit against Facebook and Cognizant alleging they developed PTSD and related mental health impairments as a result of constant and unmitigated exposure to disturbing content.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Facebook sued by Tampa workers who say they suffered trauma from watching videos|url=https://tampabay.com/news/2020/02/06/facebook-sued-by-tampa-workers-who-suffered-trauma-from-watching-videos/|website=Tampa Bay Times|language=en|access-date=May 8, 2020}}</ref> In February 2020, the European Union Commissioners criticized the plans that Facebook has for dealing with the working conditions of those who are contracted to moderate content on the social media platform.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/facebooks-approach-to-content-moderation-slammed-by-eu-commissioners/|title=Facebook's approach to content moderation slammed by EU commissioners|last=Leprince-Ringuet|first=Daphne|publisher=ZDNet|language=en|access-date=February 19, 2020}}</ref> Facebook agreed to settle a [[class action lawsuit]] for $52&nbsp;million on May 12, 2020, which included a $1,000 payment to each of the 11,250 moderators in the class, with additional compensation available for the treatment of PTSD and other conditions resulting from the jobs.<ref>{{cite web|first1=Casey|last1=Newton|access-date=June 1, 2020|title=Facebook will pay $52 million in settlement with moderators who developed PTSD on the job|url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/21255870/facebook-content-moderator-settlement-scola-ptsd-mental-health|date=May 12, 2020|website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|access-date=June 1, 2020|title=In Settlement, Facebook To Pay $52 Million To Content Moderators With PTSD|url=https://www.npr.org/2020/05/12/854998616/in-settlement-facebook-to-pay-52-million-to-content-moderators-with-ptsd|publisher=[[NPR]]|first=Bobby|last=Allyn|date=May 12, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|access-date=June 1, 2020|title=Facebook to pay $52m for failing to protect moderators from 'horrors' of graphic content|url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/12/facebook-settlement-mental-health-moderators|date=May 13, 2020|website=[[The Guardian]]|first=Kari|last=Paul}}</ref> === Employees === Plans for a Facebook-owned real estate development known as "[[Willow Village]]" have been criticized for resembling a "[[company town]]", which often curtails the rights of residents, and encourages or forces employees to remain within an environment created and monitored by their employer outside of work hours.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Streitfeld |first1=David |title=Welcome to Zucktown. Where Everything Is Just Zucky. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/technology/facebook-zucktown-willow-village.html |access-date=February 25, 2019 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=March 21, 2018}}</ref> Critics have referred to the development as "Zucktown" and "Facebookville" and the company has faced additional criticism for the effect it will have on existing communities in California. The operational manager at Facebook as of March 2021, along with three former candidates of the Facebook hiring process complained to the EEOC of racial bias being practiced at the company against Black people. The current employee, Oscar Veneszee Jr. accused the firm of conducting subjective evaluations and pushing the idea of racial stereotypes. The EEOC has labeled the practice as 'systemic' racial bias and has initiated an investigation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/05/facebook-systemic-racial-bias-hiring-eeoc-investigation|title=Facebook faces US investigation for 'systemic' racial bias in hiring|access-date=March 6, 2021|website=The Guardian|date=March 6, 2021}}</ref> == Misleading campaigns against competitors == In May 2011, emails were sent to journalists and bloggers making critical allegations about Google's privacy policies; however, it was later discovered that the anti-Google campaign, conducted by PR giant [[Burson-Marsteller]], was paid for by Facebook in what CNN referred to as "a new level skullduggery" and which ''[[The Daily Beast|Daily Beast]]'' called a "clumsy smear". While taking responsibility for the campaign, Burson-Marsteller said it should not have agreed to keep its client's (Facebook's) identity a secret. "Whatever the rationale, this was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should have been declined", it said.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://money.cnn.com/2011/05/12/technology/facebook_google/index.htm|title=Facebook vs. Google fight turns nasty|first=Julianne|last=Pepitone|website=CNNMoney|access-date=February 23, 2019}}</ref> In December 2020, [[Apple Inc.|Apple Inc]]. announced an initiative of Anti-Tracking measures (opt-in tracking policy) to be introduced to their App Store Services. Facebook quickly reacted and started to criticise the initiative, claiming the Apple's anti-tracking privacy focused change will have "harmful impact on many small businesses that are struggling to stay afloat and on the free internet that we all rely on more than ever". Facebook also launched a so-called "Speak Up For Small Businesses" page. Apple in their response stated that "users should know when their data is being collected and shared across other apps and websites – and they should have the choice to allow that or not". Apple was also backed up by [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) who stated that "Facebook touts itself in this case as protecting small businesses, and that couldn't be further from the truth".<ref>{{Cite web|title=EFF Calls Facebook's Criticism of Apple's Pro-Privacy Tracking Change 'Laughable'|url=https://www.macrumors.com/2020/12/19/eff-calls-facebook-criticism-of-apple-laughable/|access-date=February 9, 2021|website=MacRumors|language=en}}</ref> == Copying competitors' products and features == Beyond acquiring competitors in the social and messaging space with strong potential, Facebook often simply copies products or features to get to the market faster. Internal emails have shown that Facebook's leadership, including Mark Zuckerberg were frustrated by the time the company spends on prototyping,and suggested to explore copying entire products like Pinterest. "Copying is faster than innovating" – admitted an employee on the internal email thread, which continued: "If you gave the top-down order to go ahead, copy e.g. Pinterest or the gaming dynamics on Foursquare ... I am sure [a] very small team of engineers, a [product manager], and a designer would get it done super quickly."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348082/zuckerberg-facebook-house-committee-emails-app-development-speed-copying-innovation|title = Emails show Mark Zuckerberg feared app startups were building faster than Facebook in 2012|date = July 30, 2020}}</ref><ref>https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/0006754900067553.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref> Many Facebook employees seem to be questioning Facebook's approach of cloning competitors. According to leaks, a top quoted question in Facebook's internal all-hands was: "What is our next big product, which does not imitate already existing products on the market?"<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://techweez.com/2021/04/23/facebook-employees-tired-of-cloning-apps-features/|title = Facebook Employees Are Tired of Cloning Apps and Features|date = April 23, 2021}}</ref> === Snapchat === In 2014 Facebook launched Slingshot, an app for sending ephemeral photos like Snapchat does. In 2016 the company built Instagram Stories, which is a copy of Snapchat's most popular feature.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/2018/10/30/18044962/facebook-stories-business-user-growth-q3-earnings-zuckerberg|title = The 'Stories' product that Facebook copied from Snapchat is now Facebook's future|date = October 30, 2018}}</ref> === TikTok === In August 2020, Facebook has built Instagram Reels, a feature that functions and looks similar to TikTok.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/08/05/as-facebook-launches-tiktok-clone-a-look-back-at-6-other-rival-products-it-copied/?sh=31ac8a455c5a|title = As Facebook Launches TikTok Clone, A Look Back at 6 Other Rival Products It Copied|website = [[Forbes]]}}</ref> === Pinterest === Facebook, for several months, was experimenting with an app called Hobbi, that took many cues from Pinterest.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/13/facebooks-latest-experiment-is-hobbi-an-app-to-document-your-personal-projects/|title = Facebook's latest experiment is Hobbi, an app to document your personal projects}}</ref> === Clubhouse === In the summer of 2021, Facebook started to roll out Live Audio Rooms, which resembles Clubhouse.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/21/22540508/facebook-live-audio-rooms-clubhouse-rival-spaces-greenhouse|title = Facebook's Clubhouse competitor starts rolling out in the US today|date = June 21, 2021}}</ref> == Content == {{Main|Facebook content management controversies}} {{Cleanup split|Facebook content management controversies|date=March 2022}} Facebook has been criticized for removing or allowing various content on posts, photos and entire groups and profiles. == Technical == === Real-name policy controversy and compromise === {{Main|Facebook real-name policy controversy}} Facebook has a [[real-name system]] policy for [[user profile]]s. The real-name policy stems from the position "that way, you always know who you're connecting with. This helps keep our community safe."<ref name="Grinberg" /> The real-name system does not allow adopted names or pseudonyms,<ref>{{cite web |first=Caroline |last=Copley |title=German court rules Facebook may block pseudonyms |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-germany-pseudonymns-idUSKCN0W521V |work=[[Reuters]] |date=March 4, 2016 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and in its enforcement has suspended accounts of legitimate users, until the user provides identification indicating the name.<ref name="fake name-very rare">{{cite web |first=Barbara |last=Ortutay |title=Real users caught in Facebook fake-name purge |url=http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Real-users-caught-in-Facebook-fake-name-purge-3231397.php |website=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |publisher=[[Hearst Communications]] |date=May 25, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> Facebook representatives have described these incidents as very rare.<ref name="fake name-very rare" /> A user claimed responsibility via the [[Anonymous social media|anonymous]] [[Android (operating system)|Android]] and [[iOS]] app [[Secret (app)|Secret]] for reporting "fake names" which caused user profiles to be suspended, specifically targeting the stage names of [[drag queen]]s.<ref>{{cite web |first=Karyne |last=Levy |title=Facebook Apologizes For 'Real Name' Policy That Forced Drag Queens To Change Their Profiles |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-apologizes-for-real-name-policy-2014-10 |website=[[Business Insider]] |publisher=[[Axel Springer SE]] |date=October 1, 2014 |access-date=March 23, 2017}}</ref> On October 1, 2014, [[Chris Cox (Facebook)|Chris Cox]], Chief Product Officer at Facebook, offered an apology: "In the two weeks since the real-name policy issues surfaced, we've had the chance to hear from many of you in these communities and understand the policy more clearly as you experience it. We've also come to understand how painful this has been. We owe you a better service and a better experience using Facebook, and we're going to fix the way this policy gets handled so everyone affected here can go back to using Facebook as you were."<ref>{{cite web |first=Jordan |last=Crook |title=Facebook Apologizes To LGBT Community And Promises Changes To Real Name Policy |url=https://techcrunch.com/2014/10/01/facebook-apologizes-to-lgbt-community-and-promises-changes-to-real-name-policy/ |website=[[TechCrunch]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=October 1, 2014 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> On December 15, 2015, Facebook announced in a press release<ref>{{cite web |url=http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/12/community-support-fyi-improving-the-names-process-on-facebook/ |title=Community Support FYI: Improving the Names Process on Facebook |last1=Osofsky |first1=Jason |last2=Gage |first2=Todd |date=December 15, 2015 |website=Facebook Newsroom |via=Facebook |access-date=December 16, 2015}}</ref> that it would be providing a compromise to its real name policy after protests from groups such as the gay/lesbian community and abuse-victims.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/facebook-modifies-real-names-policy-testing-use-of-assumed-names-1.2702400 |title=Facebook modifies 'real names' policy, testing use of assumed names |last=AFP |date=December 16, 2015 |website=CTV News |access-date=December 16, 2015}}</ref> The site is developing a protocol that will allow members to provide specifics as to their "special circumstance" or "unique situation" with a request to use pseudonyms, subject to verification of their true identities. At that time, this was already being tested in the U.S. Product manager Todd Gage and vice president of global operations Justin Osofsky also promised a new method for reducing the number of members who must go through ID verification while ensuring the safety of others on Facebook. The fake name reporting procedure will also be modified, forcing anyone who makes such an allegation to provide specifics that would be investigated and giving the accused individual time to dispute the allegation.<ref>{{cite web |first=Amanda |last=Holpuch |title=Facebook adjusts controversial 'real name' policy in wake of criticism |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/15/facebook-change-controversial-real-name-policy |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=December 15, 2015 |access-date=March 23, 2017}}</ref> === Deleting users' statuses === There have been complaints of user statuses being mistakenly or intentionally deleted for alleged violations of Facebook's posting guidelines. Especially for non-English speaking writers, Facebook does not have a proper support system to genuinely read the content and make decisions. Sometimes the content of a status did not have any "abusive" or defaming language, but it nevertheless got deleted on the basis that it had been secretly reported by a group of people as "offensive". For other languages than English, Facebook till now is not able to identify the group approach that is used to vilify humanitarian activism. In another incident, Facebook had to apologize after it deleted a free speech group's post about the abuse of human rights in Syria. In that case, a spokesman for Facebook said the post was "mistakenly" removed by a member of its moderation team, which receives a high volume of take-down requests.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jul/06/facebook-apologises-free-speech-syria |title=Facebook apologises for deleting free speech group's post on Syrian torture |website=The Guardian |date=July 6, 2013 |access-date=June 4, 2013|location=London |first=Josh |last=Halliday}}</ref> === Enabling of harassment === Facebook instituted a policy by which it is now self-policed by the community of Facebook users.{{when|date=February 2015}} Some users have complained that this policy allows Facebook to empower abusive users to harass them by allowing them to submit reports on even benign comments and photos as being "offensive" or "in violation of Facebook Rights and Responsibilities" and that enough of these reports result in the user who is being harassed in this way getting their account blocked for a predetermined number of days or weeks, or even deactivated entirely.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.softpedia.com/news/Jealous-Wives-Are-Getting-Courtney-Stodden-Banned-on-Facebook-227862.shtml |title=Jealous Wives Are Getting Courtney Stodden Banned on Facebook – Softpedia |website=News.softpedia.com |date=October 14, 2011 |access-date=July 31, 2012}}</ref> Facebook UK policy director Simon Milner told [[Wired (magazine)|''Wired'']] magazine that "Once the piece of content has been seen, assessed and deemed OK, (Facebook) will ignore further reports about it."<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.co.uk/article/online-harassment |title= When good lulz go bad: unpicking the ugly business of online harassment |magazine=Wired |date=January 27, 2014 |access-date=August 23, 2017 }}</ref> === Lack of customer support === Like almost all other Web 2.0 sites{{which|date=December 2021}}, Facebook lacks any form of live customer support beyond "community" support pages and FAQ's which offer only general troubleshooting advice, often making it impossible to resolve issues that require the services of an administrator or are not covered in the FAQs. The automated emailing system used when filling out a support form often users back to the help center or to pages that are outdated and cannot be accessed, leaving users at a dead end with no further support available. A person who lost access to Facebook or does not have an account has no easy way to contact the company directly. === Downtime and outages === Facebook has had a number of outages and downtime large enough to draw some media attention. A 2007 outage resulted in a security hole that enabled some users to read other users' personal mail.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/security/0,39044215,62030242,00.htm |title=Caroline McCarthy, "Facebook outage draws more security questions", ''CNET News.com, ZDNet Asia'', August 2, 2007 |website=Zdnetasia.com |date=August 2, 2007 |access-date=March 23, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080531013330/http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/security/0,39044215,62030242,00.htm |archive-date=May 31, 2008 |url-status=dead }}</ref> In 2008, the site was inaccessible for about a day, from many locations in many countries.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/062608_Facebook_Outage_Hits_Some_Countries |title=David Hamilton, "Facebook Outage Hits Some Countries", ''Web Host Industry Review'', Jun. 26, 2008 |website=Thewhir.com |access-date=March 23, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100402044522/http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/062608_Facebook_Outage_Hits_Some_Countries |archive-date=April 2, 2010 }}</ref> In spite of these occurrences, a report issued by [[Pingdom]] found that Facebook had less downtime in 2008 than most social-networking websites.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/social_network/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=214501925&cid=nl_IWK_daily_H |title=K.C. Jones, "Facebook, MySpace More Reliable Than Peers", ''Information Week'', February 19, 2009 |website=InformationWeek |access-date=March 23, 2010 |archive-date=March 14, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090314002839/http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/social_network/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=214501925&cid=nl_IWK_daily_H |url-status=dead }}</ref> On September 16, 2009, Facebook started having major problems loading as people signed in. This was due to a group of hackers deliberately trying to drown out a political speaker who had social networking problems from continuously speaking against the Iranian election results. Just two days later, on September 18, Facebook went down again.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://newsnidea.com/14912/facebook-outage-and-facebook-down-september-18-2009 |access-date=August 30, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100809091218/http://newsnidea.com/14912/facebook-outage-and-facebook-down-september-18-2009/ |archive-date=August 9, 2010 |title=Facebook Outage and Facebook Down September 18 2009}}</ref> In October 2009, an unspecified number of Facebook users were unable to access their accounts for over three weeks.<ref>{{cite web|last=McCarthy|first=Caroline|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10370788-36.html|title=Facebook's mounting customer service crisis &#124; The Social – CNET News|publisher=CNET|date=October 8, 2009|access-date=December 13, 2009|archive-date=February 20, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110220032915/http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10370788-36.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=McCarthy|first=Caroline|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10372417-36.html|title=Downed Facebook accounts still haven't returned &#124; The Social – CNET News|publisher=CNET|date=October 10, 2009|access-date=December 13, 2009|archive-date=October 7, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101007150340/http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10372417-36.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/173550/facebook_outage_silences_150000_users.html|title=Facebook Outage Silences 150,000 Users|magazine=PC World|date=October 13, 2009|access-date=December 13, 2009|archive-date=December 25, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091225222111/http://www.pcworld.com/article/173550/facebook_outage_silences_150000_users.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Gaudin|first=Sharon|url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139311/Facebook_deals_with_missing_accounts_150_000_angry_users|title=Facebook deals with missing accounts, 150,000 angry users|website=Computerworld|date=October 13, 2009|access-date=December 13, 2009}}</ref> On Monday, October 4, 2021, Facebook and its other apps – [[Instagram]], [[WhatsApp|Whatsapp]], [[Facebook Messenger|Messenger]], [[Oculus (brand)|Oculus]], as well as the lesser-known [[Mapillary]] – had an hours-long [[Domain Name System|DNS]]-related global outage.<ref name="Salter">{{Cite web|last=Salter|first=Jim|date=2021-10-04|title=Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Oculus are down. Here's what we know|url=https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/10/facebook-instagram-whatsapp-and-oculus-are-down-heres-what-we-know/|access-date=2021-10-04|website=Ars Technica|language=en-us}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Mapillary is currently experiencing an outage|url=https://twitter.com/mapillary/status/1445088765962166275|url-status=live|access-date=2021-10-04|website=Twitter|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211004192004/https://twitter.com/mapillary/status/1445088765962166275 |archive-date=October 4, 2021 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Patnaik|first1=Subrat|last2=Mathews|first2=Eva|date=2021-10-04|title=Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp hit by global outage|language=en|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/facebook-instagram-down-thousands-users-downdetectorcom-2021-10-04/|access-date=2021-10-04}}</ref> The outage also affected anyone using "Log in with Facebook" to access third-party sites.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Barrett|first=Brian|title=Why Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp All Went Down Today|language=en-US|magazine=Wired|url=https://www.wired.com/story/why-facebook-instagram-whatsapp-went-down-outage/|access-date=2021-10-05|issn=1059-1028}}</ref> The downtime lasted approximately five hours and fifteen minutes, from approximately 15:50 UTC to 21:05 UTC, and affected roughly three billion users.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Patnaik|first1=Subrat|last2=Mathews|first2=Eva|date=4 October 2021|title=Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp hit by global outage|work=Reuters|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/facebook-outages-idUSKBN2GU1TV|access-date=4 October 2021}}</ref> The outage was caused by a [[Border gateway protocol|BGP]] withdrawal of all of the [[Internet Protocol|IP]] routes to their [[Domain Name System|Domain Name (DNS) servers]], which were all self-hosted at the time.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Vaughan-Nichols|first=Steven J.|title=What took Facebook down: Major global outage drags on|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-took-facebook-down-major-global-outage-drags-on/|access-date=2021-10-04|website=ZDNet|language=en}}</ref><ref name="Salter"/> {{Main|2021 Facebook outage}} === Tracking cookies === Facebook has been criticized heavily for 'tracking' users, even when logged out of the site. Australian technologist [[Nik Cubrilovic]] discovered that when a user logs out of Facebook, the cookies from that login are still kept in the browser, allowing Facebook to track users on websites that include "social widgets" distributed by the social network. Facebook has denied the claims, saying they have 'no interest' in tracking users or their activity. They also promised after the discovery of the cookies that they would remove them, saying they will no longer have them on the site. A group of users in the United States have sued Facebook for breaching privacy laws.<ref>{{cite web |last=Reisinger |first=Don |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57437060-93/facebook-sued-for-$15-billion-over-alleged-privacy-infractions/ |title=Facebook sued for $15 billion over alleged privacy infractions |publisher=CNET |date=May 18, 2012 |access-date=February 23, 2014}}</ref> As of December 2015, to comply with a court order citing violations of the [[European Union]] [[Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications]] – which requires users to consent to tracking and storage of data by websites, Facebook no longer allows users in [[Belgium]] to view any content on the service, even public pages, without being registered and logged in.<ref name=verge-belgiumpages>{{cite web|title=After privacy ruling, Facebook now requires Belgium users to log in to view pages|url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/12/2/9838104/facebook-belgium-log-in-privacy-ruling-cookies|website=The Verge|access-date=December 17, 2015}}</ref> === Email address change === In June 2012, Facebook removed all existing email addresses from user profiles, and added a new @facebook.com email address. Facebook claimed this was part of adding a "new setting that gives people the choice to decide which addresses they want to show on their timelines". However, this setting was redundant to the existing "Only Me" privacy setting which was already available to hide addresses from timelines. Users complained the change was unnecessary, they did not want an @facebook.com email address, and they did not receive adequate notification their profiles had been changed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lifehacker.com/5921095/facebook-just-changed-your-email-without-permission-heres-how-to-get-it-back|title=Facebook Changed Everyone's Email to @Facebook.com; Here's How to Fix Yours|first=Whitson|last=Gordon|website=Lifehacker.com|access-date=October 25, 2016}}</ref> The change in email address was synchronized to phones due to a software bug, causing existing email addresses details to be deleted.<ref>{{cite web |first=Casey |last=Johnston |title=@facebook.com e-mail plague chokes phone address books |url=https://arstechnica.com/business/2012/07/facebook-com-e-mail-plague-chokes-phone-address-books/ |website=[[Ars Technica]] |date=July 2, 2012 |access-date=June 14, 2017}}</ref> The facebook.com email service was retired in February 2014.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/24/5443454/facebook-retires-its-email-service|title=Facebook retires its troubled @facebook.com email service|first=Ellis|last=Hamburger|date=February 24, 2014|website=The Verge|access-date=October 25, 2016}}</ref> === Safety Check bug === On March 27, 2016, following a [[2016 Lahore suicide bombing|bombing in Lahore]], Pakistan, Facebook activated its "Safety Check" feature, which allows people to let friends and loved ones know they are okay following a crisis or natural disaster, to people who were never in danger, or even close to the Pakistan explosion. Some users as far as the US, UK and Egypt received notifications asking if they were okay.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.techinsider.io/facebook-safety-check-pakistan-explosion-2016-3|title=Facebook mistakenly asked people if they were in Pakistan following a deadly explosion|website=Tech Insider|access-date=March 27, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cnet.com/news/facebooks-safety-check-malfunctions-after-pakistan-bombing/|title=Facebook's Safety Check malfunctions after Pakistan bombing|publisher=CNET|access-date=March 27, 2016}}</ref> === End-to-end encryption === In February 2021, the [[National Crime Agency]] of the UK expressed its concerns that the installation of end-to-end encryption methods would result in the spread of child pornography going undetected.<ref name=":8">{{Cite news|last=Hamilton|first=Fiona|date=May 21, 2021|title=MI5 chief Ken McCallum accuses Facebook of giving 'free pass' to terrorists|work=[[The Times]]|url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mi5-chief-ken-mccallum-accuses-facebook-of-giving-free-pass-to-terrorists-q0ffxk3ps}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Dearden|first=Lizzie|date=February 10, 2021|title=Facebook encryption will create 'hidden space' for paedophiles to abuse children, National Crime Agency warns|work=[[The Independent]]|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/facebook-encryption-paedophiles-nca-david-wilson-b1800254.html}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Davis|first=Margaret|date=May 25, 2021|title=Up to 850,000 people in UK pose sexual threat to children, says NCA|work=[[London Evening Standard]]|url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/nca-facebook-safety-norfolk-oliver-dowden-b937103.html}}</ref> Facebook representatives had previously told a UK Parliament committee that the use of these stronger encryption methods would render it easier for pedophiles to share child pornography on Facebook's networks.<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":9">{{Cite news|last=Hern|first=Alex|date=January 21, 2021|title=Facebook admits encryption will harm efforts to prevent child exploitation|work=[[The Guardian]]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/21/facebook-admits-encryption-will-harm-efforts-to-prevent-child-exploitation}}</ref> The [[National Center for Missing & Exploited Children|US-based National Center for Missing and Exploited Children]] estimates that around 70% of reports to law enforcement regarding the spread of child pornography on Facebook would be lost as a result of the implementation of end-to-end encryption.<ref name=":9" /> In May 2021, Facebook came under fire from [[Ken McCallum]], the Director-General of [[MI5]], for its plans to introduce [[end-to-end encryption]] into its Messenger and Instagram services.<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":10">{{Cite news|last=Abbot|first=Rachelle|date=May 21, 2021|title=Fed's crypto crackdown: save some of those epic gains for tax|work=[[London Evening Standard]]|url=https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/fed-s-crypto-crackdown-save-some-of-those-epic-gains-for-tax-b936545.html}}</ref> McCallum stated that the introduction of such encryption methods would prevent security organizations from viewing communications related to ongoing terrorist plots and that the implementation of end-to-end encryption would block active [[counter-terrorism]] investigations.<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite news|last=Middleton|first=Joe|date=May 21, 2021|title=MI5 chief accuses Facebook of giving 'free pass' to terrorists|work=[[The Independent]]|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mi5-chief-accuses-facebook-of-giving-free-pass-to-terrorists-b1851158.html}}</ref> == Third-party responses to Facebook == === Government censorship === {{Main|Censorship of Facebook}} Several countries have [[Censorship of Facebook|banned access to Facebook]], including Syria,<ref name="syria">{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSOWE37285020071123|title=Syria blocks Facebook in Internet crackdown|access-date=March 5, 2008|author=Yacoub Oweis, Khaled|work=Reuters|date=November 23, 2007}}</ref> China,<ref name="chinablock">{{cite web|title=China's Facebook Status: Blocked |url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/07/chinas-facebook-status-blocked.html |date=July 8, 2009 |work=ABC News |access-date=July 13, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090711081856/http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/07/chinas-facebook-status-blocked.html |archive-date=July 11, 2009 }}</ref> and Iran.<ref name="iran">{{cite web|access-date=April 30, 2008|url=http://www.hamsaweb.org/crime/4.html|title=Facebook Faces Censorship in Iran|publisher=[[American Islamic Congress]]|date=August 29, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080424001859/http://www.hamsaweb.org/crime/4.html|archive-date=April 24, 2008}}</ref> In 2010, the [[Office of the Data Protection Supervisor]], a branch of the government of the Isle of Man, received so many complaints about Facebook that they deemed it necessary to provide a "Facebook Guidance" booklet (available online as a PDF file), which cited (amongst other things) Facebook policies and guidelines and included an elusive Facebook telephone number. This number when called, however, proved to provide no telephone support for Facebook users, and only played back a recorded message advising callers to review Facebook's online help information.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/odps/facebookguidance.pdf |title=Isle of Man ODPS issues Facebook Guidance booklet |author=ODPS |year=2010 |access-date=May 1, 2013 |publisher=Office of the Data Protection Supervisor |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121102185817/http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/odps/facebookguidance.pdf |archive-date=November 2, 2012 }}</ref> In 2010, Facebook reportedly allowed an objectionable page, deemed by the Islamic Lawyers Forum (ILF), to be anti-Muslim. The ILF filed a petition with [[Pakistan]]'s [[Lahore High Court]]. On May 18, 2010, Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry ordered Pakistan's Telecommunication Authority to block access to Facebook until May 31. The offensive page had provoked street demonstrations in Muslim countries due to [[Depictions of Mohammed|visual depictions of Prophet Mohammed]], which are regarded as blasphemous by Muslims.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breakingnews/breakingnews_world/pakistan-court-orders-facebook-ban-28536530.html|title=Pakistan court orders Facebook ban|newspaper=Belfasttelegraph}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7740295/Facebook-blocked-in-Pakistan-over-Prophet-Mohammed-cartoon-row.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7740295/Facebook-blocked-in-Pakistan-over-Prophet-Mohammed-cartoon-row.html |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|location=London|title=Facebook blocked in Pakistan over Prophet Mohammed cartoon row|first=Rob|last=Crilly|date=May 19, 2010|work=The Daily Telegraph}}{{cbignore}}</ref> A spokesman said [[Pakistan Telecommunication Authority]] would move to implement the ban once the order has been issued by the Ministry of Information and Technology. "We will implement the order as soon as we get the instructions", Khurram Mehran told AFP. "We have already blocked the URL link and issued instruction to Internet service providers yesterday", he added. Rai Bashir told AFP that "We moved the petition in the wake of widespread resentment in the Muslim community against the Facebook contents". The petition called on the government of Pakistan to lodge a strong protest with the owners of Facebook, he added. Bashir said a PTA official told the judge his organization had blocked the page, but the court ordered a total ban on the site. People demonstrated outside court in the eastern city of [[Lahore]], Pakistan, carrying banners condemning Facebook. Protests in Pakistan on a larger scale took place after the ban and widespread news of that objectionable page. The ban was lifted on May 31 after Facebook reportedly assured the Lahore High Court that it would remedy the issues in dispute.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/pakistan.mohammed.day.facebook/index.html?hpt=T1|title=Pakistan blocks YouTube, Facebook over 'sacrilegious content' – CNN|date=May 21, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://geo.tv/5-20-2010/65266.htm|title=Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous material|website=GEO.tv|date=May 20, 2010|access-date=August 7, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pta.gov.pk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1390&catid=92&Itemid=301|title=Home – Pakistan Telecommunication Authority|website=Pta.gov.pk|access-date=August 7, 2010}}</ref> In 2011, a court in Pakistan was petitioned to place a permanent ban on Facebook for hosting a page called "2nd Annual Draw Muhammad Day May 20th 2011".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/archive/print/299124-lhc-moved-for-ban-on-facebook|title=LHC moved for ban on Facebook|website=The News International|access-date=December 16, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/162801/permanently-banning-facebook-court-seeks-record-of-previous-petitions/|title=Permanently banning Facebook: Court seeks record of previous petitions|date=May 6, 2011|website=The Express Tribune|access-date=December 16, 2018}}</ref> === Organizations blocking access === [[Ontario]] government employees, Federal public servants, MPPs, and cabinet ministers were blocked from access to Facebook on government computers in May 2007.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.ctvnews.ca/ont-government-employees-blocked-from-facebook-1.239854|publisher=CTV news|title=Organizations blocking Facebook}}</ref> When the employees tried to access Facebook, a warning message "The Internet website that you have requested has been deemed unacceptable for use for government business purposes". This warning also appears when employees try to access YouTube, [[MySpace]], gambling or pornographic websites.<ref>{{cite news|access-date=March 5, 2008|url=https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/05/03/facebook_banned_for_ontario_staffers.html|title=Facebook banned for Ontario staffers|newspaper=[[Toronto Star]]|date=May 3, 2007|author=Benzie, Robert}}</ref> However, innovative employees have found ways around such protocols, and many claim to use the site for political or work-related purposes.<ref>{{cite web|access-date=March 5, 2008|url=http://blogcampaigning.com/2007/05/23/ontario-politicians-close-the-book-on-facebook/|title=Ontario politicians close the book on Facebook|date=May 23, 2007|publisher=Blog Campaigning|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080314143605/http://blogcampaigning.com/2007/05/23/ontario-politicians-close-the-book-on-facebook/|archive-date=March 14, 2008}}</ref> A number of local governments including those in the UK<ref>{{cite news|access-date=February 2, 2010|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/8231234.stm|title=Facebook banned for council staff | work=BBC News | date=September 1, 2009}}</ref> and Finland<ref>{{cite web|access-date=February 2, 2010|url=http://yle.fi/alueet/keski-pohjanmaa/2009/03/tietoturvauhan_poistuminen_voi_avata_naamakirjan_kokkolassa_624024.html|title=Tietoturvauhan poistuminen voi avata naamakirjan Kokkolassa (In Finnish)|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120222044827/http://yle.fi/alueet/keski-pohjanmaa/2009/03/tietoturvauhan_poistuminen_voi_avata_naamakirjan_kokkolassa_624024.html|archive-date=February 22, 2012}}</ref> imposed restrictions on the use of Facebook in the workplace due to the technical strain incurred. Other government-related agencies, such as the [[US Marine Corps]] have imposed similar restrictions.<ref>{{cite web|access-date=February 2, 2010 |url=http://www.marines.mil/news/messages/Pages/MARADMIN0458-09.aspx |title=Immediate Ban of Internet Social Networking Sites (SNS) On Marine Corps Enterprise Network (MCEN) NIPRNET |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091225100508/http://www.marines.mil/news/messages/Pages/MARADMIN0458-09.aspx |archive-date=December 25, 2009 }}</ref> A number of hospitals in Finland have also restricted Facebook use citing privacy concerns.<ref>{{cite web|access-date=February 2, 2010|url=http://www.mediuutiset.fi/uutisarkisto/article337292.ece|title=Facebook kiellettiin Keski-Suomen sairaanhoitopiirissä (In Finnish)|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091025125634/http://www.mediuutiset.fi/uutisarkisto/article337292.ece|archive-date=October 25, 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|access-date=February 2, 2010|url=http://www.lb.kaleva.fi/uutiset/sairaanhoitopiirin-tyontekijoille-kielto-nettiyhteisoihin/835976|title=Sairaanhoitopiirin työntekijöille kielto nettiyhteisöihin (In Finnish)|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720185115/http://www.lb.kaleva.fi/uutiset/sairaanhoitopiirin-tyontekijoille-kielto-nettiyhteisoihin/835976|archive-date=July 20, 2011}}</ref> === Schools blocking access === The [[University of New Mexico]] (UNM) in October 2005 blocked access to Facebook from UNM campus computers and networks, citing unsolicited emails and a similar site called UNM Facebook.<ref name=lobo>{{cite news|first=Caleb |last=Fort |url=http://www.dailylobo.com/news/2005/10/12/News/Cirt-Blocks.Access.To.Facebook.com-1017983.shtml |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120906075236/http://www.dailylobo.com/news/2005/10/12/News/Cirt-Blocks.Access.To.Facebook.com-1017983.shtml |url-status=dead |archive-date=September 6, 2012 |title=CIRT blocks access to Facebook.com |publisher=Daily Lobo (University of New Mexico) |date=October 12, 2005 |access-date=April 3, 2006 }}</ref> After a UNM user signed into Facebook from off campus, a message from Facebook said, "We are working with the UNM administration to lift the block and have explained that it was instituted based on erroneous information, but they have not yet committed to restore your access." UNM, in a message to students who tried to access the site from the UNM network, wrote, "This site is temporarily unavailable while UNM and the site owners work out procedural issues. The site is in violation of UNM's [[Acceptable Use Policy|Acceptable Computer Use Policy]] for abusing computing resources (e.g., spamming, [[trademark infringement]], etc.). The site forces use of UNM credentials (e.g., NetID or email address) for non-UNM business." However, after Facebook created an encrypted login and displayed a precautionary message not to use university passwords for access, UNM unblocked access the following spring semester.<ref name="UNMUnlbock">{{cite news|url=http://www.unm.edu/~market/cgi-bin/archives/001003.html |title=Popular web site, Facebook.com, back online at UNM |access-date=April 15, 2007 |date=January 19, 2006 |publisher=University of New Mexico |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070212145819/http://www.unm.edu/~market/cgi-bin/archives/001003.html |archive-date=February 12, 2007 }}</ref> The ''[[Columbus Dispatch]]'' reported on June 22, 2006, that [[Kent State University]]'s [[athletic director]] had planned to ban the use of Facebook by athletes and gave them until August 1 to delete their accounts.<ref>{{cite news|first=Ryan |last=Loew |title=Kent banning athlete Web profiles |url=http://www.columbusdispatch.com/news-story.php?story=194268 |newspaper=The Columbus Dispatch |date=June 22, 2006 |access-date=October 6, 2006 }} {{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> On July 5, 2006, the ''[[Kent State University|Daily Kent Stater]]'' reported that the director reversed the decision after reviewing the privacy settings of Facebook. As long as they followed the university's policies of online conduct, they could keep their profiles.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Summer Kent Stater 5 July 2006 — Kent State University|url=https://dks.library.kent.edu/?a=d&d=sks20060705-01.2.4&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-------|access-date=October 8, 2020|website=dks.library.kent.edu}}</ref> === Closed social networks === Several web sites concerned with social networking, such as [[Salesforce.com|Salesforce]] have criticized the lack of information that users get when they share data. Advanced users cannot limit the amount of information anyone can access in their profiles, but Facebook promotes the sharing of personal information for marketing purposes, leading to the promotion of the service using personal data from users who are not fully aware of this. Facebook exposes personal data, without supporting open standards for data interchange.<ref>{{cite web |title=Closed Social Networks as a Gilded Cage |date=August 6, 2007 |url=http://everwas.com/2007/08/closed-social-networks-as-a-gilded-cage.html |access-date=February 23, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029231629/http://everwas.com/2007/08/closed-social-networks-as-a-gilded-cage.html |archive-date=October 29, 2013 |url-status=dead }}</ref> According to several communities<ref>see NSTeens [http://www.nsteens.org/videos/social-networking/ NSTeens video about private social networking] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100310171536/http://www.nsteens.org/videos/social-networking/ |date=March 10, 2010 }}</ref> and authors<ref>Lapeira's post (October 16, 2008) [http://artifactconsulting.com/blog/article.php?story=20081013121052369540 Three types of social networking] {{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> closed social networking, on the other hand, promotes data retrieval from other people while not exposing one's personal information. [[Openbook (Facebook)|Openbook]] was established in early 2010 both as a parody of Facebook and a critique of its changing privacy management protocols.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://youropenbook.org/about.html |title=Openbook – Connect and share whether you want to or not |website=Youropenbook.org |date=May 12, 2010 |access-date=August 7, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100803060358/http://youropenbook.org/about.html |archive-date=August 3, 2010 }}</ref> == Litigation == {{further|Lawsuits involving Facebook}} {{Cleanup split|Lawsuits involving Facebook|date=September 2020}} == Lobbying == In December 2021, news broke on The Wall Street Journal pointing to Meta's lobbying efforts to divide US lawmakers and "muddy the waters" in Congress, to hinder regulation following the 2021 whistleblower leaks.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-whistleblower-pushback-political-spin-zuckerberg-11640786831|title=Facebook’s Pushback: Stem the Leaks, Spin the Politics, Don’t Say Sorry|first=Keach Hagey, Georgia Wells, Emily Glazer, Deepa Seetharaman and Jeff|last=Horwitz|date=December 29, 2021|via=www.wsj.com}}</ref> Facebook's lobbyst team in Washington suggested to Republican lawmakers that the whisteblower "was trying to help Democrats," while the narrative told to Democratic staffers was that Republicans "were focused on the company's decision to ban expressions of support for Kyle Rittenhouse," The Wall Street Journal reported. According to the article, the company's goal was to "muddy the waters, divide lawmakers along partisan lines and forestall a cross-party alliance" against Facebook (now Meta) in Congress.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.yahoo.com/facebook-reportedly-told-republicans-whistleblower-162305207.html|title=Facebook reportedly told Republicans whistleblower was 'trying to help Democrats'|website=news.yahoo.com}}</ref> == Terms of use controversy == While Facebook originally made changes to its terms of use<ref name="facebook.com" /> or, [[terms of service]], on February 4, 2009, the changes went unnoticed until Chris Walters, a blogger for the consumer-oriented blog, ''[[The Consumerist]]'', noticed the change on February 15, 2009.<ref name="PC World">{{cite magazine|url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/159703/facebook_privacy_change_sparks_federal_complaint.html?tk=rel_news|magazine=PC World|title=Facebook Privacy Change Sparks Federal Complaint|access-date=March 5, 2009}}</ref> Walters complained the change gave Facebook the right to "Do anything they want with your content. Forever."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever|work=Consumerist|publisher=Consumer Media LLC|title=Facebook's New Terms Of Service: "We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever."|access-date=February 20, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091008202953/http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever|archive-date=October 8, 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref> The section under the most controversy is the "User Content Posted on the Site" clause. Before the changes, the clause read:<ref name="facebook.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/terms.php|via=Facebook|title=Niet compatibele browser|access-date=August 7, 2010}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=September 2020}}<blockquote>You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.</blockquote>The "license granted" refers to the license that Facebook has to one's "name, likeness, and image" to use in promotions and external advertising.<ref name="facebook.com" /> The new terms of use deleted the phrase that states the license would "automatically expire" if a user chose to remove content. By omitting this line, Facebook license extends to adopt users' content perpetually and irrevocably years after the content has been deleted.<ref name="PC World" /> Many users of Facebook voiced opinions against the changes to the Facebook Terms of Use, leading to an Internet-wide debate over the ownership of content. [[Electronic Privacy Information Center|The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)]] prepared a formal complaint with the [[Federal Trade Commission]]. Many individuals were frustrated with the removal of the controversial clause. Facebook users, numbering more than 38,000, joined a user group against the changes, and a number of blogs and news sites have written about this issue.<ref name="PC World" /> After the change was brought to light in Walters's blog entry, in his blog on February 16, 2009, Zuckerberg addressed the issues concerning the recently made changes to Facebook's terms of use. Zuckerberg wrote "Our philosophy is that people own their information and control who they share it with."<ref name="facebook4">{{cite web|url=http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?blog_id=company&blogger=4|via=Facebook|title=Improving Your Ability to Share and Connect|access-date=March 5, 2009}}</ref> In addition to this statement Zuckerberg explained the paradox created when people want to share their information (phone number, pictures, email address, etc.) with the public, but at the same time desire to remain in complete control of who has access to this info.<ref name="Facebook" /> To calm criticism, Facebook returned to its original terms of use. However, on February 17, 2009, Zuckerberg wrote in his blog, that although Facebook reverted to its original terms of use, it is in the process of developing new terms to address the paradox. Zuckerberg stated that these new terms will allow Facebook users to "share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand." Zuckerberg invited users to join a group entitled "Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" to give their input and help shape the new terms. On February 26, 2009, Zuckerberg posted a blog, updating users on the progress of the new Terms of Use. He wrote, "We decided we needed to do things differently and so we're going to develop new policies that will govern our system from the ground up in an open and transparent way." Zuckerberg introduces the two new additions to Facebook: the Facebook Principles<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=54964476066 |via=Facebook |title=Facebook Town Hall: Proposed Facebook Principles |access-date=March 5, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090227043045/http://www.facebook.com//group.php?gid=54964476066 |archive-date=February 27, 2009 }}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=September 2020}} and the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=67758697570 |via=Facebook |title=Facebook Town Hall: Proposed Statement of Rights and Responsibilities |access-date=March 5, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090227043055/http://www.facebook.com//group.php?gid=67758697570 |archive-date=February 27, 2009 }}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=September 2020}} Both additions allow users to vote on changes to the terms of use before they are officially released. Because "Facebook is still in the business of introducing new and therefore potentially disruptive technologies", Zuckerberg explains, users need to adjust and familiarize themselves with the products before they can adequately show their support.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?blog_id=company&blogger=4|via=Facebook|title=Governing the Facebook Service in an Open and Transparent Way|access-date=March 5, 2009}}</ref> This new voting system was initially applauded as Facebook's step to a more democratized social network system.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/160358/rewriting_facebooks_terms_of_service.html|title=Rewriting Facebook's Terms of Service|magazine=PC World|access-date=March 5, 2009}}</ref> However, the new terms were harshly criticized in a report by computer scientists from the [[University of Cambridge]], who stated that the democratic process surrounding the new terms is disingenuous and significant problems remain in the new terms.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2009/03/29/commentary-on-facebooks-terms-of-service|publisher=University of Cambridge|title=Democracy Theatre on Facebook|access-date=April 4, 2009}}</ref> The report was endorsed by the [[Open Rights Group]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2009/04/01/facebook%E2%80%99s-theatrical-rights-and-wrongs|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090406023013/http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2009/04/01/facebook%E2%80%99s-theatrical-rights-and-wrongs/|url-status=dead|archive-date=April 6, 2009|title=Facebook's theatrical rights and wrongs|publisher=Open Rights Group|access-date=April 4, 2009}}</ref> In December 2009, EPIC and a number of other U.S. privacy organizations filed another complaint<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.epic.org/privacy/inrefacebook/EPIC-FacebookComplaint.pdf|title=Complaint, Request for Investigation, Injunction, and Other Relief|website=Epic.org|access-date=December 16, 2018}}</ref> with the [[Federal Trade Commission]] (FTC) regarding Facebook's Terms of Service. In January 2011 EPIC filed a subsequent complaint<ref>{{cite web|url=http://epic.org/privacy/inrefacebook/EPIC_Facebook_Supp.pdf|title=Supplemental Materials in Support of Pending Complaint and Request for Injunction, Request for Investigation and for Other Relief|website=Epic.org|access-date=December 16, 2018}}</ref> claiming that Facebook's new policy of sharing users' home address and mobile phone information with third-party developers were "misleading and fail[ed] to provide users clear and privacy protections", particularly for children under age 18.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/01/business/la-fi-facebook-minors-20110301 |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=March 1, 2011 |title=Facebook reconsiders allowing third-party applications to ask minors for private information |last=Puzzanghera |first=Jim}}</ref> Facebook temporarily suspended implementation of its policy in February 2011, but the following month announced it was "actively considering" reinstating the third-party policy.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://epic.org/2011/03/facebook-resumes-plan-to-discl.html|title=EPIC – Facebook Resumes Plan to Disclose User Home Addresses and Mobile Phone Numbers|first=Electronic Privacy Information|last=Center|website=epic.org}}</ref> == Interoperability and data portability == Facebook has been criticized for failing to offer users a feature to export their friends' information, such as contact information, for use with other services or software. The inability of users to export their [[social graph]] in an [[open standard]] format contributes to [[vendor lock-in]] and contravenes the principles of [[data portability]].<ref>{{cite web|first=Gavin|last=Baker|title=Free software vs. software-as-a-service: Is the GPL too weak for the Web?|url=http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/free_software_vs_software_service|work=[[Free Software Magazine]]|date=May 27, 2008|access-date=June 29, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130517024735/http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/free_software_vs_software_service|archive-date=May 17, 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref> Automated collection of user information without Facebook's consent violates its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,<ref>{{cite web|title=Statement of Rights and Responsibilities|url=http://www.facebook.com/terms.php|via=Facebook|date=May 1, 2009|access-date=June 29, 2009}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=September 2020}} and third-party attempts to do so (e.g., [[Web scraping]]) have resulted in litigation, [[Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.|Power.com]]. Facebook Connect has been criticized for its lack of [[interoperability]] with [[OpenID]].<ref>{{cite news|first=Michael|last=Calore|title=As Facebook Connect Expands, OpenID's Challenges Grow|url=https://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/12/as-facebook-con|magazine=Wired|date=December 1, 2008|access-date=June 29, 2009|quote=Facebook Connect was developed independently using proprietary code, so Facebook's system and OpenID are not interoperable.&nbsp;... This is a clear threat to the vision of the Open Web, a future when data is freely shared between social websites using open source technologies.}}</ref> === Lawsuits over privacy === Facebook's strategy of making revenue through advertising has created a lot of controversy for its users as some argue that it is "a bit creepy&nbsp;... but it is also brilliant."<ref name="What Facebook Can Sell">{{cite magazine|last1=Thompson |first1=Nicholas |title= What Facebook Can Sell |url=https://newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/02/what-facebook-can-sell.html |magazine=The New Yorker |access-date=May 18, 2014}}</ref> Some Facebook users have raised privacy concerns because they do not like that Facebook sells user's information to third parties. In 2012, users sued Facebook for using their pictures and information on a Facebook advertisement.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Barnett|first1=Emma|title=Facebook Settles Lawsuit With Angry Users|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9284486/Facebook-settles-lawsuit-with-angry-users.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9284486/Facebook-settles-lawsuit-with-angry-users.html |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|website=The Telegraph |access-date=May 18, 2014|location=London|date=May 23, 2012}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Facebook gathers user information by keeping track of pages users have "Liked" and through the interactions users have with their connections.<ref name="Dijck 2013, p. 47">Dijck 2013, p. 47.</ref> They then create value from the gathered data by selling it.<ref name="Dijck 2013, p. 47" /> In 2009 users also filed a lawsuit for Facebook's privacy invasion through the [[Facebook Beacon]] system. Facebook's team believed that through the Beacon system people could inspire their friends to buy similar products, however, users did not like the idea of sharing certain online purchases with their Facebook friends.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Farber |first1=Dan |title= Facebook Beacon Update: No Activities Published Without Users Proactively Consenting |url=https://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/facebook-beacon-update-no-activities-published-without-users-proactively-consenting/7188 |publisher=ZDNet |access-date=May 18, 2014}}</ref> Users were against Facebook's invasion of privacy and sharing that privacy with the world. Facebook users became more aware of Facebook's behavior with user information in 2009 as Facebook launched their new Terms of Service. In Facebook's terms of service, Facebook admits that user information may be used for some of Facebook's own purposes such as sharing a link to your posted images or for their own commercials and advertisements.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Sinker |first1=Daniel |title= Face/Off: How a Little Change in Facebook's User Policy is Making People Rethink the Rights They Give Away Online |url=https://huffingtonpost.com/daniel-sinker/faceoff-how-a-little-chan_b_167695.html |website=HuffPost |access-date=May 28, 2014 |date=February 17, 2009}}</ref> As Dijck argues in his book that, "the more users know about what happens to their personal data, the more inclined they are to raise objections."<ref name="Dijck 2013, p. 47" /> This created a battle between Facebook and Facebook users described as the "battle for information control".<ref name="Dijck 2013, p. 47" /> Facebook users have become aware of Facebook's intentions and people now see Facebook "as serving the interests of companies rather than its users."<ref>Dijck 2013, p. 48.</ref> In response to Facebook selling user information to third parties, concerned users have resorted to the method of "[[Obfuscation]]".<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite journal |last1=Brunton |first1=Finn |title= Vernacular Resistance to Data Collection and Analysis: A Political Theory of Obfuscation |url=http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3493/2955 |journal=First Monday |year=2011 |doi=10.5210/fm.v16i5.3493 |s2cid=46500367 |access-date=May 18, 2014}}</ref> Through obfuscation users can purposely hide their real identity and provide Facebook with false information that will make their collected data less accurate.<ref name="ReferenceA" /> By obfuscating information through sites such as FaceCloak, Facebook users have regained control of their personal information.<ref name="ReferenceA" /> == Better Business Bureau review == {{As of|2010|December}}, the [[Better Business Bureau]] gave Facebook an "A" rating.<ref name="BBB">{{cite web|url=http://sanjose.bbb.org/Business-Report/Facebook-223670|title=BBB Review of Facebook|access-date=December 12, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.trustlink.org/BusinessProfile.aspx?ID=206048589|title=TrustLink Review of Facebook.|access-date=May 5, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100613061557/http://trustlink.org/BusinessProfile.aspx?ID=206048589|archive-date=June 13, 2010|url-status=dead}}</ref> {{As of|2010|December}}, the 36-month running count of complaints about Facebook logged with the Better Business Bureau is 1136, including 101 ("Making a full refund, as the consumer requested"), 868 ("Agreeing to perform according to their contract"), 1 ("Refuse [sic] to adjust, relying on terms of agreement"), 20 ("Unassigned"), 0 ("Unanswered") and 136 ("Refusing to make an adjustment").<ref name="BBB" /> == Security == Facebook's software has proven vulnerable to [[likejacking]]. On July 28, 2010, the [[BBC]] reported that security consultant Ron Bowes used a piece of code to scan Facebook profiles to collect data of 100&nbsp;million profiles. The data collected was not hidden by the user's privacy settings. Bowes then published the list online. This list, which has been shared as a downloadable file, contains the URL of every searchable Facebook user's profile, their name and unique ID. Bowes said he published the data to highlight privacy issues, but Facebook claimed it was already public information.<ref>{{cite news|last=Emery|first=Daniel|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10796584|title=Details of 100&nbsp;m Facebook users collected and published|publisher=BBC|date=July 29, 2010|access-date=August 7, 2010}}</ref> In early June 2013, ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported that an increase in malicious links related to the [[Trojan horse (computing)|Trojan horse]] [[malware]] program [[Zeus (Trojan horse)|Zeus]] were identified by Eric Feinberg, founder of the advocacy group Fans Against Kounterfeit Enterprise (FAKE). Feinberg said that the links were present on popular [[NFL]] Facebook fan pages and, following contact with Facebook, was dissatisfied with the corporation's "after-the-fact approach". Feinberg called for oversight, stating, "If you really want to hack someone, the easiest place to start is a fake Facebook profile—it's so simple, it's stupid."<ref>{{cite news|title=Bits: Malware That Drains Your Bank Account Thriving on Facebook|url=http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/malware-that-drains-your-bank-account-thriving-on-facebook/?smid=tw-share|access-date=June 9, 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 3, 2013|author=Nicole Perlroth}}</ref> === Rewards for vulnerability reporting === On August 19, 2013, it was reported that a Facebook user from [[Palestinian Autonomy]], Khalil Shreateh, found a [[software bug|bug]] that allowed him to post material to other users' Facebook Walls. Users are not supposed to have the ability to post material to the Facebook Walls of other users unless they are approved friends of those users that they have posted material to. To prove that he was telling the truth, Shreateh posted material to Sarah Goodin's wall, a friend of Facebook CEO [[Mark Zuckerberg]]. Following this, Shreateh contacted Facebook's security team with the proof that his bug was real, explaining in detail what was going on. Facebook has a bounty program in which it compensates people a $500+ fee for reporting bugs instead of using them to their advantage or selling them on the black market. However, it was reported that instead of fixing the bug and paying Shreateh the fee, Facebook originally told him that "this was not a bug" and dismissed him. Shreateh then tried a second time to inform Facebook, but they dismissed him yet again. On the third try, Shreateh used the bug to post a message to Mark Zuckerberg's Wall, stating "Sorry for breaking your privacy&nbsp;... but a couple of days ago, I found a serious Facebook exploit" and that Facebook's security team was not taking him seriously. Within minutes, a security engineer contacted Shreateh, questioned him on how he performed the move and ultimately acknowledged that it was a bug in the system. Facebook temporarily suspended Shreateh's account and fixed the bug after several days. However, in a move that was met with much public criticism and disapproval, Facebook refused to pay out the 500+ fee to Shreateh; instead, Facebook responded that by posting to Zuckerberg's account, Shreateh had violated one of their [[terms of service]] policies and therefore "could not be paid". Included with this, the Facebook team strongly censured Shreateh over his manner of resolving the matter. In closing, they asked that Shreateh continue to help them find bugs.<ref>{{cite web|last=Bort |first=Julie |url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/researcher-facebook-ignored-bug-found-143418388.html |title=Researcher: Facebook Ignored the Bug I Found Until I Used It to Hack Zuckerberg |publisher=Yahoo! Finance |date=April 20, 2011 |access-date=August 19, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/tech/social-media/zuckerberg-facebook-hack/ |title=Zuckerberg's Facebook page hacked to prove security exploit |publisher=CNN |date=May 14, 2013 |access-date=August 19, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Tom Warren |url=https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/18/4633046/facebook-security-bug-let-anyone-post-on-walls |title=Facebook ignored security bug, researcher used it to post details on Zuckerberg's wall |website=The Verge |date=August 1, 2013 |access-date=August 19, 2013}}</ref> On August 22, 2013, [[Yahoo News]] reported that [[Marc Maiffret]], a chief technology officer of the [[Cyber security standards|cybersecurity]] firm [[BeyondTrust]], is prompting [[hacker (computer security)|hackers]] to help raise a $10,000 reward for Khalil Shreateh. On August 20, Maiffret stated that he had already raised $9,000 in his efforts, including the $2,000 he himself contributed. He and other hackers alike have denounced Facebook for refusing Shreateh compensation. Maiffret said: "He is sitting there in Palestine doing this research on a five-year-old laptop that looks like it is half broken. It's something that might help him out in a big way." Facebook representatives have since responded, "We will not change our practice of refusing to pay rewards to researchers who have tested vulnerabilities against real users." Facebook representatives also claimed they'd paid out over $1&nbsp;million to individuals who have discovered bugs in the past.<ref>{{cite web|agency=Reuters |url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hacker-exposed-facebook-bug-reward-210333258.html |title=Hacker who exposed Facebook bug to get reward from unexpected source |publisher=Yahoo! Finance |date=August 20, 2013 |access-date=August 22, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130821154141/https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hacker-exposed-facebook-bug-reward-210333258.html |archive-date=August 21, 2013 }}</ref> == Environmental impacts == {{See also|Green computing}} In 2010, [[Prineville, Oregon|Prineville]], Oregon, was chosen as the site for Facebook's new [[data center]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/01/facebook_picks_prineville_for.html|title=Facebook picks Prineville for its first data center|last=Rogoway|first=Mike|date=January 21, 2010|website=The Oregonian|access-date=January 21, 2010}}</ref> However, the center has been met with criticism from environmental groups such as [[Greenpeace]] because the power utility company contracted for the center, [[PacifiCorp]], generates 60% of its electricity from coal.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/youre-so-coal-trying-to-shame-facebook|title=You're 'So Coal': Angling to Shame Facebook | work=The New York Times | first=Leslie|last=Kaufman|date=September 17, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369306,00.asp|title=Greenpeace Attacks Facebook on Coal-Powered Data Center|work=[[PC Magazine]]| first=Chloe| last= Albanesius |date=September 17, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/facebook-dump-coal190210 |title = Facebook update: Switch to renewable energy now Greening Facebook from within | publisher=Greenpeace |date=February 17, 2010}}</ref> In September 2010, Facebook received a letter from Greenpeace containing half a million signatures asking the company to cut its ties to [[Fossil fuel power station|coal-based electricity]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Tonelli |first=Carla |url=http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/09/friendly-push-for-facebook-to-dump-coal |title='Friendly' push for Facebook to dump coal|work=Reuters|date=September 1, 2010 |access-date=February 23, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101013021557/http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/09/friendly-push-for-facebook-to-dump-coal/ |archive-date=October 13, 2010 }}</ref> On April 21, 2011, Greenpeace released a report showing that of the top ten big brands in [[cloud computing]], Facebook relied the most on coal for electricity for its data centers. At the time, data centers consumed up to 2% of all global electricity and this amount was projected to increase. [[Phil Radford]] of Greenpeace said "we are concerned that this new explosion in electricity use could lock us into old, polluting energy sources instead of the clean energy available today".<ref name="Dirty Data Report Card">{{cite web |publisher=[[Greenpeace]] |url=http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2011/Cool%20IT/dirty-data-report-greenpeace.pdf|title=Dirty Data Report Card|access-date=August 22, 2013}}</ref> On December 15, 2011, Greenpeace and Facebook announced together that Facebook would shift to use clean and renewable energy to power its own operations. Marcy Scott Lynn, of Facebook's sustainability program, said it looked forward "to a day when our primary energy sources are clean and renewable" and that the company is "working with Greenpeace and others to help bring that day closer".<ref name="Facebook and Greenpeace Settle Clean Energy Feud">{{cite web |publisher=[[Techcrunch]] |url=https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/15/facebook-greenpeace-settle-clean-energy-feud-after-two-year-campaign/ |title= Facebook and Greenpeace settle Clean Energy Feud |access-date=August 22, 2013}}</ref><ref name="Facebook Commits to Clean Energy Future">{{cite web |publisher=Greenpeace |url=http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/news-releases/Facebook-Commits-to-Clean-Energy-Future/ |title= Facebook Commits to Clean Energy Future |access-date=August 22, 2013}}</ref> == Advertising == === Click fraud === In July 2012, startup Limited Run claimed that 80% of its Facebook [[Click fraud|clicks came from bots]].<ref name="techcrunch">{{cite web|url=https://techcrunch.com/2012/07/30/startup-claims-80-of-its-facebook-ad-clicks-are-coming-from-bots/ |title=Startup Claims 80% Of Its Facebook Ad Clicks Are Coming From Bots |website=TechCrunch.com |date=January 4, 2011 |access-date=July 31, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Rodriguez |first=Salvador |url=https://latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-facebook-ads-80-percent-bots-20120730,0,1602559.story |title=Start-up says 80% of its Facebook ad clicks came from bots |website=Los Angeles Times |date= July 30, 2012|access-date=July 31, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Sengupta |first=Somini |url=http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/bots-raise-their-heads-again-on-facebook/ |title=Bots Raise Their Heads Again on Facebook |website=Bits.blogs.nytimes.com |date=April 23, 2012 |access-date=July 31, 2012}}</ref> Limited Run co-founder Tom Mango told ''[[TechCrunch]]'' that they "spent roughly a month testing this" with six [[web analytics]] services including [[Google Analytics]] and in-house software.<ref name="techcrunch" /> Click fraud (Allege reason) Limited Run said it came to the conclusion that the clicks were fraudulent after running its own analysis. It determined that most of the clicks for which Facebook was charging it came from computers that were not loading Javascript, a programming language that allows Web pages to be interactive. Almost all Web browsers load Javascript by default, so the assumption is that if a click comes from one that is not, it's probably not a real person but a bot.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2012/08/08/stung-by-click-fraud-allegations-facebook-reveals-how-its-fighting-back/|title=Stung By Click Fraud Allegations, Facebook Reveals How It's Fighting Back|first=Robert|last=Hof|website=Forbes|access-date=December 16, 2018}}</ref> === Like fraud === Facebook offers an advertising tool for pages to get more "likes".<ref name="Facebook Advertising Tools">{{cite web|url=https://www.facebook.com/help/633662000000451/?ref=u2u/ |title=Guide to the Ads Create Tool |via=Facebook|access-date=June 11, 2014}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=September 2020}} According to ''[[Business Insider]]'', this advertising tool is called "Suggested Posts" or "Suggested Pages", allowing companies to market their page to thousands of new users for as little as $50.<ref name="Facebook Advertising">{{cite web|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-advertising-fake-likes-2014-2/ |title=Facebook Advertisers Complain Of A Wave Of Fake Likes Rendering Their Pages Useless |website=Business Insider|date=February 11, 2014 |access-date=June 11, 2014}}</ref> Global Fortune 100 firms are increasingly using social media marketing tools as the number of "likes" per Facebook page has risen by 115% globally.{{clarify|date=February 2015}}<ref name="To Be or Not to Be in Social Media Arena as the Most Cost-Efficient Marketing Strategy after the Global Recession">{{cite journal|title=Efficient Marketing Strategy |journal=Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences |volume=24 |pages=260–268 |date=October 5, 2011 |doi=10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.083|last1=Kirtiş |first1=A. Kazım |last2=Karahan |first2=Filiz |doi-access=free }}</ref> Biotechnology company Comprendia investigated Facebook's "likes" through advertising by analyzing the life science pages with the most likes. They concluded that at as much as 40% of "likes" from company pages are suspected to be fake.<ref name="Fake Users">{{cite web|url=http://comprendia.com/2012/08/01/are-40-of-life-science-company-facebook-page-likes-from-fake-users/ |title=Are 40% Of Life Science Company Facebook Page 'Likes' From Fake Users? |date=August 2012 |publisher=Comprendia|access-date=June 7, 2014}}</ref> According to Facebook's annual report, an estimated 0.4% and 1.2% of active users are undesirable accounts that create fake likes.<ref name="Sec Filing">{{cite web|url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680114000007/fb-12312013x10k.htm#s51F87801223F60C3A7C3298EC93DB6AD/ |title=Facebook, Inc. Form 10K. |publisher=United States Securities and Exchange Commission|date=January 28, 2014 |access-date=June 7, 2014}}</ref> Small companies such as PubChase have publicly testified against Facebook's advertising tool, claiming legitimate advertising on Facebook creates fraudulent Facebook "likes". In May 2013, PubChase decided to build up its Facebook following through Facebook's advertising tool, which promises to "connect with more of the people who matter to you". After the first day, the company grew suspicious of the increased likes as they ended up with 900 likes from India. According to PubChase, none of the users behind the "likes" seemed to be scientists. The statistics from [[Google Analytics]] indicate that India is not in the company's main user base. PubChase continues by stating that Facebook has no interface to delete the fake likes; rather, the company must manually delete each follower themselves.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://blog.pubchase.com/what-do-facebook-likes-of-companies-mean// |title=What Do Facebook "likes" of Companies Mean? |publisher=PubChase |date=January 23, 2014 |access-date=June 7, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140703095330/http://blog.pubchase.com/what-do-facebook-likes-of-companies-mean/ |archive-date=July 3, 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref> In February 2014, [[Derek Muller]] used his YouTube account ''[[Veritasium]]'' to upload a video titled "Facebook Fraud". Within three days, the video had gone viral with more than a million views (it has reached 6,371,759 views as of December 15, 2021). In the video, Muller illustrates how after paying US$50 to Facebook advertising, the "likes" to his fan page have tripled in a few days and soon reached 70,000 "likes", compared to his original 2,115 likes before the advertising. Despite the significant increase in likes, Muller noticed his page has actually decreased in engagement – there were fewer people commenting, sharing, and liking his posts and updates despite the significant increase in "likes". Muller also noticed that the users that "liked" his page were users that liked hundreds of other pages, including competing pages such as [[AT&T]] and [[T-Mobile]]. He theorizes that users are purposely clicking "like" on any and every page to deter attention away from the pages they were paid to "like". Muller claims, "I never bought fake likes, I used Facebook legitimate advertising, but the results are as if I paid for fake likes from a click farm".<ref name="Facebook Fraud">{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211221/oVfHeWTKjag |archive-date=2021-12-21 |url-status=live|title=Facebook Fraud |via=YouTube|date=February 10, 2014 |access-date=June 11, 2014}}{{cbignore}}</ref>{{better source needed|date=February 2015}} In response to the fake "likes" complaints, Facebook told ''[[Business Insider]]'': {{cquote|We're always focused on maintaining the integrity of our site, but we've placed an increased focus on abuse from fake accounts recently. We've made a lot of progress by building a combination of automated and manual systems to block accounts used for fraudulent purposes and Like button clicks. We also take action against sellers of fake clicks and help shut them down.<ref name="Facebook Advertising" />}} === Undesired targeting === On August 3, 2007, several British companies, including [[First Direct]], [[Vodafone]], [[Virgin Media]], [[The Automobile Association]], [[Halifax (United Kingdom bank)|Halifax]] and [[Prudential PLC|Prudential]] pulled advertising in Facebook after finding that their ads were displayed on the page of the [[British National Party]], a far-right political party.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6929161.stm|work=BBC News|title=Firms withdraw BNP Facebook ads|date=August 3, 2007|access-date=April 30, 2010}}</ref> === Facilitation of housing discrimination === Facebook has faced allegations that its advertising platforms facilitate [[housing discrimination]] by means of internal functions for [[targeted advertising]], which allowed advertisers to target or exclude specific audiences from campaigns.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /> Researchers have also found that Facebook's advertising platform may be inherently discriminatory, since ad delivery is also influenced by how often specific demographics interact with specific types of advertising – even if they are not explicitly determined by the advertiser.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/4/18295190/facebook-ad-delivery-housing-job-race-gender-bias-study-northeastern-upturn|title=Facebook's ad delivery could be inherently discriminatory, researchers say|last=Robertson|first=Adi|date=April 4, 2019|website=The Verge|access-date=April 8, 2019}}</ref> Under the United States' [[Fair Housing Act]], it is illegal to show a preference for or against tenants based on specific [[protected class]]es (including race, ethnicity, and disabilities), when advertising or negotiating the rental or sale of housing. In 2016, [[ProPublica]] found that advertisers could target or exclude users from advertising based on an "Ethnic Affinity" – a demographic trait which is determined based on a user's interests and behaviors on Facebook, and not explicitly provided by the user. This could, in turn, be used to discriminate based on race.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-lets-advertisers-exclude-users-by-race|title=Facebook Lets Advertisers Exclude Users by Race|last=Julia Angwin|first=Terry Parris Jr|date=October 28, 2016|website=ProPublica|language=en|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref> In February 2017, Facebook stated that it would implement stronger measures to forbid discriminatory advertising across the entire platform. Advertisers who attempt to create ads for housing, employment, or credit (HEC) opportunities would be blocked from using ethnic affinities (renamed "multicultural affinities" and now classified as behaviors) to target the ad. If an advertiser uses any other audience segment to target ads for HEC, they would be informed of the policies, and be required to affirm their compliance with relevant laws and policies.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/02/improving-enforcement-and-promoting-diversity-updates-to-ads-policies-and-tools/|title=Improving Enforcement and Promoting Diversity: Updates to Ads Policies and Tools|date=February 8, 2017|via=Facebook|language=en|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref> However, in November 2017, ProPublica found that automated enforcement of these new policies was inconsistent. They were also able to successfully create housing ads that excluded users based on interests and other factors that effectively imply associations with protected classes, including interests in [[wheelchair ramp]]s, the Spanish-language television network [[Telemundo]], and New York City ZIP codes [[Redlining|with majority minority populations]]. In response to the report, Facebook temporarily disabled the ability to target any ad with exclusions based on multicultural affinities.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/11/29/facebook-stop-allowing-advertisers-exclude-racial-and-ethnic-groups-targeting/905133001/|title=Facebook halts ads that exclude racial and ethnic groups|website=USA Today|language=en|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-advertising-discrimination-housing-race-sex-national-origin|title=Facebook (Still) Letting Housing Advertisers Exclude Users by Race|last=Julia Angwin|first=Ariana Tobin|date=November 21, 2017|website=ProPublica|language=en|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref> In April 2018, Facebook permanently removed the ability to create exclusions based on multicultural affinities. In July 2018, Facebook signed a legally binding agreement with the [[State of Washington]] to take further steps within 90 days to prevent the use of its advertising platform for housing discrimination against protected classes.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/24/17609178/facebook-racial-dicrimination-ad-targeting-washington-state-attorney-general-agreement|title=Facebook signs agreement saying it won't let housing advertisers exclude users by race|last=Statt|first=Nick|date=July 24, 2018|website=The Verge|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref> The following month, Facebook announced that it would remove at least 5,000 categories from its exclusion system to prevent "misuse", including those relating to races and religions.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/21/17764480/facebook-ad-targeting-options-removal-housing-racial-discrimination|title=Facebook will remove 5,000 ad targeting categories to prevent discrimination|last=Statt|first=Nick|date=August 21, 2018|website=The Verge|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref> On March 19, 2019, Facebook settled a lawsuit over the matter with the National Fair Housing Alliance, agreeing to create a separate portal for HEC advertising with limited targeting options by September 2019, and to provide a public archive of all HEC advertising.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebook-agrees-to-dismantle-targeted-advertising-system-for-job-housing-and-loan-ads-after-discrimination-complaints/2019/03/19/7dc9b5fa-4983-11e9-b79a-961983b7e0cd_story.html|title=Facebook agrees to overhaul targeted advertising system for job, housing and loan ads after discrimination complaints|date=March 19, 2019|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/facebook-inc-does-have-to-respect-civil-rights-legislation-after-all/585286/|title=Facebook Does Have to Respect Civil-Rights Legislation, After All|last=Madrigal|first=Alexis C.|date=March 20, 2019|website=The Atlantic|language=en-US|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref> On March 28, 2019, the [[U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development]] (HUD) filed a lawsuit against Facebook, having filed a formal complaint against the company on August 13, 2018. The HUD also took issue with Facebook's tendency to deliver ads based on users having "particular characteristics [that are] most likely to engage with the ad".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/28/tech/facebook-hud-ad-discrimination/index.html|title=HUD charges Facebook with housing discrimination in ads|last=Yurieff|first=Kaya|date=March 28, 2019|publisher=CNN|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/28/18285178/facebook-hud-lawsuit-fair-housing-discrimination|title=Facebook has been charged with housing discrimination by the US government|last=Brandom|first=Russell|date=March 28, 2019|website=The Verge|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref> == Fake accounts == In August 2012, Facebook revealed that more than 83 million Facebook accounts (8.7% of total users) are fake accounts.<ref>{{cite news |title=Facebook: About 83 million accounts are fake |newspaper=[[USA Today]] |url=https://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-08-03/cnbc-facebook-fake-accounts/56759964/1 |access-date=August 4, 2012 |date=August 3, 2012}}</ref> These fake profiles consist of duplicate profiles, accounts for [[spam (electronic)|spamming]] purposes and personal profiles for business, organization or non-human entities such as pets.<ref>{{cite news |title=Unreal: Facebook reveals 83 million fake profiles |newspaper=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]] |url=https://www.smh.com.au/world/unreal-facebook-reveals-83-million-fake-profiles-20120803-23kzj.html |access-date=August 4, 2012}}</ref> As a result of this revelation, the share price of Facebook dropped below $20.<ref>{{cite news |title=Facebook share price slumps below $20 amid fake account flap |newspaper=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/aug/02/facebook-share-price-slumps-20-dollars |access-date=August 4, 2012 |location=London |first=Dominic |last=Rushe |date=August 2, 2012}}</ref> Furthermore, there is much effort to detect fake profiles using automated means, in one such work, machine learning techniques are used to detect fake users.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Gupta|first1=Aditi|title=2017 ISEA Asia Security and Privacy (ISEASP)|chapter=Towards detecting fake user accounts in facebook|journal=Asia Security and Privacy (ISEASP)|date=2017|pages=1–6|doi=10.1109/ISEASP.2017.7976996|isbn=978-1-5090-5942-3|s2cid=37561110}}</ref> Facebook initially refused to remove a "business" page devoted to a woman's [[anus]], created without her knowledge while she was underage, due to other Facebook users having expressed interest in the topic. After [[BuzzFeed]] published a story about it, the page was finally removed. The page listed her family's former home address as that of the "business".<ref name="butthole">{{Cite web|url=https://hits1061seattle.iheart.com/content/2020-01-30-facebook-takes-4-years-to-remove-a-womans-butthole-as-a-business-page/|title=Facebook Takes 4 Years to Remove A Woman's Butthole as a Business Page|website=HITS 106.1}}</ref> == User interface == === Upgrades === ==== September 2008 ==== In September 2008, Facebook permanently moved its users to what they termed the "New Facebook" or Facebook 3.0.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Facebook Blog – Moving to the new Facebook|url=http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=30074837130|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081029204526/http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=30074837130|archive-date=October 29, 2008|url-status=dead}}</ref> This version contained several different features and a complete layout redesign. Between July and September, users had been given the option to use the new Facebook in place of the original design,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://newsroom.fb.com/|title=Facebook Newsroom|website=newsroom.fb.com}}</ref> or to return to the old design. Facebook's decision to migrate their users was met with some controversy in their community. Several [[Facebook groups|groups]] started opposing the decision, some with over a million users.<ref>{{cite web|title=Petition against Facebook redesign fails as old version disabled|url=http://www.nma.co.uk/Articles/39583/Petition+against+Facebook+redesign+fails+as+old+version.html|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120912093200/http://www.nma.co.uk/Articles/39583/Petition+against+Facebook+redesign+fails+as+old+version.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 12, 2012}}</ref> ==== October 2009 ==== In October 2009, Facebook redesigned the news feed so that the user could view all types of things that their friends were involved with. In a statement, they said,<ref name="Facebook">{{cite web|url=http://developers.facebook.com/news.php?blog=1&year=2009&month=10|title=facebook DEVELOPERS|last=Haugen|first=Austin|date=October 23, 2009|via=Facebook|access-date=October 25, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091223060103/http://developers.facebook.com/news.php?blog=1&year=2009&month=10|archive-date=December 23, 2009}}</ref> <blockquote>your applications [stories] generate can show up in both views. The best way for your stories to appear in the News Feed filter is to create stories that are highly engaging, as high quality, interesting stories are most likely to garner likes and comments by the user's friends. </blockquote>This redesign was explained as:<ref name="Facebook" /> <blockquote> News Feed will focus on popular content, determined by an algorithm based on interest in that story, including the number of times an item is liked or commented on. Live Feed will display all recent stories from a large number of a user's friends. </blockquote> The redesign was met immediately with criticism with users, many who did not like the amount of information that was coming at them. This was also compounded by the fact that people could not select what they saw. ==== November/December 2009 ==== In November 2009, Facebook issued a proposed new privacy policy, and adopted it unaltered in December 2009. They combined this with a rollout of new privacy settings. This new policy declared certain information, including "lists of friends", to be "publicly available", with no privacy settings; it was previously possible to keep access to this information restricted. Due to this change, the users who had set their "list of friends" as private were forced to make it public without even being informed, and the option to make it private again was removed. This was protested by many people and privacy organizations such as the EFF.<ref name="EFF-2009-12-privacy">{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly|title=Facebook's New Privacy Changes: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly &#124; Electronic Frontier Foundation|website=Eff.org|date=December 9, 2009|access-date=August 7, 2010}}</ref> The change was described by Ryan Tate as ''Facebook's Great Betrayal'',<ref name="gawker-5426176">{{cite web|url=http://gawker.com/5426176/facebooks-great-betrayal |title=Gawker.com |website=Gawker.com |date=December 13, 2009 |access-date=June 11, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130517063406/http://gawker.com/5426176/facebooks-great-betrayal |archive-date=May 17, 2013 }}</ref> forcing user profile photos and friends lists to be visible in users' public listing, even for users who had explicitly chosen to hide this information previously,<ref name="EFF-2009-12-privacy" /> and making photos and personal information public unless users were proactive about limiting access.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dotrights.org/what-does-facebooks-privacy-transition-mean-you |title=What Does Facebook's Privacy Transition Mean for You? &#124; ACLUNC dotRights |website=Dotrights.org |date=December 4, 2009 |access-date=December 13, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091212225501/http://dotrights.org/what-does-facebooks-privacy-transition-mean-you |archive-date=December 12, 2009 }}</ref> For example, a user whose "Family and Relationships" information was set to be viewable by "Friends Only" would default to being viewable by "Everyone" (publicly viewable). That is, information such as the gender of the partner the user is interested in, relationship status, and family relations became viewable to those even without a Facebook account. Facebook was heavily criticized<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8405334.stm|title=Facebook faces criticism on privacy change|work=BBC News|date=December 10, 2008|access-date=December 13, 2009}}</ref> for both reducing its users' privacy and pushing users to remove privacy protections. Groups criticizing the changes include the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]<ref name="EFF-2009-12-privacy" /> and [[American Civil Liberties Union]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=Nat_Petition_Facebook_Policy&JServSessionIdr004=tun9qkc7f3.app20a |title=ACLU.org |website=Secure.aclu.org |access-date=June 11, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120224093555/https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=Nat_Petition_Facebook_Policy |archive-date=February 24, 2012 }}</ref> Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, had hundreds of personal photos and his events calendar exposed in the transition.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://gawker.com/5423914/facebook-ceos-private-photos-exposed-by-the-new-open-facebook/gallery |title=Facebook CEO's Private Photos Exposed by the New 'Open' Facebook |website=Gawker.com |access-date=December 13, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091214015731/http://gawker.com/5423914/facebook-ceos-private-photos-exposed-by-the-new-open-facebook/gallery |archive-date=December 14, 2009 }}</ref> Facebook has since re-included an option to hide friends lists from being viewable; however, this preference is no longer listed with other privacy settings, and the former ability to hide the friends list from selected people among one's own friends is no longer possible.<ref>{{cite web|last=McCarthy|first=Caroline|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10413835-36.html|title=Facebook backtracks on public friend lists &#124; The Social – CNET News|publisher=CNET|access-date=December 13, 2009}}</ref> Journalist Dan Gillmor deleted his Facebook account over the changes, stating he "can't entirely trust Facebook"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mediactive.com/2009/12/12/facebook-starting-over/ |title=Mediactive.com |website=Mediactive.com |date=December 12, 2009 |access-date=June 11, 2013}}</ref> and Heidi Moore at Slate's Big Money temporarily deactivated her account as a "conscientious objection".<ref>{{cite web|last=Oremus |first=Will |url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/sausage/2009/12/10/facebook-privacy-drop-dead |title=TheBigMoney.com |website=TheBigMoney.com |access-date=June 11, 2013}}</ref> Other journalists have been similarly disappointed and outraged by the changes.<ref name="gawker-5426176" /> Defending the changes, founder Mark Zuckerberg said "we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100113145423/http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 13, 2010 |title=ReadWriteWeb.com |website=ReadWriteWeb.com |access-date=June 11, 2013 }}</ref> The Office of the [[Privacy Commissioner of Canada]] launched another investigation into Facebook's privacy policies after complaints following the change.<ref>{{cite news|author=Benny Evangelista |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?&entry_id=56175 |title= <!--ACTUAL ARTICLE TITLE BELONGS HERE! --> |work=San Francisco Chronicle |date=January 27, 2010 |access-date=February 23, 2014}}</ref> ==== January 2018 ==== Following a difficult 2017, marked by accusations of relaying [[fake news]] and revelations about groups close to Russia which tried to influence the 2016 US presidential election (see [[Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections]]) via advertisements on his service, Mark Zuckerberg, announced in his traditional January post: {{Blockquote |text="We're making a major change to how we build Facebook. I'm changing the goal I give our product teams from focusing on helping you find relevant content to helping you have more meaningful social interactions". |author=Mark Zuckerberg}} Following surveys on Facebook users,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Deppa|first1=Seetharaman|title=Facebook to Rank News Sources by Quality to Battle Misinformation|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-to-rank-news-sources-by-quality-to-battle-misinformation-1516394184|access-date=March 5, 2018|work=The New York Times|date=January 11, 2018}}</ref> this desire for change will take the form of a reconfiguration of the [[News Feed]] algorithms to: *Prioritize content of family members and friends (Mark Zuckerberg January 12, Facebook:<ref name="auto">Mark Zuckerberg, [https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104413015393571], Facebook, January 12, 2018</ref> "The first changes you'll see will be in News Feed, where you can expect to see more from your friends, family and groups".) *Give priority to news articles from local sources considered more credible The recent changes of the News Feed algorithm<ref name="auto" /> (see content : [[News Feed#History]]) are expected to improve "the amount of meaningful content viewed".<ref>{{cite news|last1=Isaac|first1=Mike|title=Facebook Overhauls News Feed to Focus on What Friends and Family Share|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/technology/facebook-news-feed.html|access-date=March 5, 2018|work=The New York Times|date=January 11, 2018}}</ref> To this end, the new algorithm is supposed to determine the publications around which a user is most likely to interact with his friends, and make them appear higher in the News Feed instead of items for example from media companies or brands. These are posts "that inspire back-and-forth discussion in the comments and posts that you might want to share and react to".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/01/news-feed-fyi-bringing-people-closer-together/ |title=News Feed FYI: Bringing People Closer Together|last=Mosseri|first=Adam|date=January 11, 2018|website=Facebook newsroom|access-date=March 5, 2018}}</ref> But, as even Mark Zuckerberg admitted,<ref name="auto" /> he "expect the time people spend on Facebook and some measures of engagement will go down. But I also expect the time you do spend on Facebook will be more valuable". The less public content a Facebook user sees on their [[News Feed]], the less brands are able to reach consumers. That's unarguably a major lose for advertisers<ref>{{cite news|last1=ENGEL BROMWICH|first1=JONAH|last2=HAAG|first2=MATTHEW|title=Facebook Is Changing. What Does That Mean for Your News Feed?|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/12/technology/facebook-news-feed-changes.html|access-date=March 5, 2018|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=January 12, 2018}}</ref> and publishers. This change which seems to be just another update of the social network, is widely criticized because of the heavy consequences it might lead to "In countries such as the Philippines, Myanmar and South Sudan and emerging democracies such Bolivia and Serbia, it is not ethical to plead platform neutrality or to set up the promise of a functioning news ecosystem and then simply withdraw at a whim".<ref name="The Guardian">{{cite news|last1=Bell|first1=Emily|title=Why Facebook's news feed changes are bad news for democracy |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2018/jan/21/why-facebook-news-feed-changes-bad-news-democracy |access-date=March 11, 2018|work=The Guardian|date=January 21, 2018}}</ref> Indeed, in such countries, Facebook was the promise of a reliable and objective platform on which they could hope for raw information. Independent media companies tried to fight censorship through their articles and were promoting in a way the right for citizens to know what is going on in their countries. The company's way of handling scandals and criticism over [[fake news]] by diminishing its media company image is even defined as "potentially deadly"<ref name="The Guardian" /> regarding the poor and fraught political environments like Myanmar or South Sudan appealed by the "free basics" programme of the social network. Serbian journalist Stevan Dojcinovic goes further by describing Facebook as a "monster" and accuses the company of "showing a cynical lack of concern for how its decisions affect the most vulnerable".<ref name="auto1">{{cite news|last1=Dojcinovic|first1=Stevan|title=Hey, Mark Zuckerberg: My Democracy Isn't Your Laboratory |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2018/jan/21/why-facebook-news-feed-changes-bad-news-democracy |access-date=March 11, 2018|work=The New York Times|date=November 15, 2017}}</ref> Indeed, Facebook had experimented with withdrawing media companies' news on user's newsfeed in few countries such as Serbia. Stevan Docjcinovic then wrote an article explaining how Facebook helped them "to bypass mainstream channels and bring [their] stories to hundreds of thousands of readers".<ref name="auto1" /> The rule about publishers is not being applied to paid posts raising the journalist's fears about the social network "becoming just another playground for the powerful"<ref name="auto1" /> by letting them for example buy Facebook ads. Critics are also visible in other media companies depicting the private company as the "destroyer of worlds". LittleThings CEO, Joe Speiser states that the algorithm shift "took out roughly 75% of LittleThings" organic traffic while hammering its profit margins"<ref>{{cite news|last1=Shields|first1=Mike|title=Facebook's algorithm has wiped out a once flourishing digital publisher|url=http://uk.businessinsider.com/littlethings-online-publisher-shuts-down-and-blames-facebook-algorithm-2018-2|access-date=March 12, 2018|work=The New York Times|date=February 28, 2018}}</ref> compelling them to close their doors because they were relying on Facebook to share content. == Net neutrality == === "Free Basics" controversy in India === In February 2016, [[TRAI]] ruled against differential data pricing for limited services from mobile phone operators effectively ending zero-rating platforms in India. Zero rating provides access to a limited number of websites for no charge to the end user. Net-neutrality supporters from India ([[Save the Internet|SaveTheInternet.in]]) brought out the negative implications of the Facebook Free Basic program and spread awareness to the public.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://blog.savetheinternet.in/what-facebook-wont-tell-you-about-freebasics/ |title=The top 10 facts about FreeBasics |date=December 28, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160302080224/http://blog.savetheinternet.in/what-facebook-wont-tell-you-about-freebasics/ |archive-date=March 2, 2016 }}</ref> Facebook's Free Basics program<ref>{{cite web|url=https://info.internet.org/en/story/free-basics-from-internet-org/|title=Free Basics by Facebook|work=Internet.org}}</ref> was a collaboration with [[Reliance Communications]] to launch Free Basics in India. The TRAI ruling against differential pricing marked the end of Free Basics in India.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf |title=TRAI Releases the 'Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016' |publisher=TRAI |date=February 8, 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160208211507/http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf |archive-date=February 8, 2016 }}</ref> Earlier, Facebook had spent US$44&nbsp;million in advertising and it implored all of its Indian users to send an email to the Telecom Regulatory Authority to support its program.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://backchannel.com/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-free-internet-program-6ae3f9ffd1b4#.rop8p9gaw |title=How India Pierced Facebook's Free Internet Program |magazine=Wired |publisher=Backchannel |date=February 1, 2016}}</ref> TRAI later asked Facebook to provide specific responses from the supporters of Free Basics.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/PR-12012016.pdf |title=TRAI letter to Facebook |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160219123100/http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/PR-12012016.pdf |archive-date=February 19, 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/net-neutrality-debate-trai-to-write-back-to-free-basics-supporters-784397 |title=Trai to Seek Specific Replies From Facebook Free Basic Supporters |agency=Press Trust of India |date=December 31, 2015}}</ref> == Treatment of potential competitors == In December 2018 details on Facebook's behavior against competitors surfaced. The UK parliament member Damian Collins released files from a court ruling between Six4Three and Facebook. According to those files, the social media company Twitter released its app Vine in 2013. Facebook blocked Vine's Access to its data.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.sueddeutsche.de/digital/facebook-zuckerberg-datenschutz-1.4242037|title=Gut für die Welt, aber nicht für uns|last1=Brühl|first1=Jannis|year=2018|work=Süddeutsche Zeitung|access-date=December 10, 2018|last2=Tanriverdi|first2=Hakan|language=de|issn=0174-4917}}</ref> In July 2020, Facebook along with other tech giants [[Apple Inc.|Apple]], [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]] and Google were accused of maintaining harmful power and anti-competitive strategies to quash potential competitors in the market.<ref>{{Cite news|date=July 30, 2020|title=Tech bosses grilled over claims of 'harmful' power|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53583941|access-date=July 30, 2020}}</ref> The CEOs of respective firms appeared in a teleconference on July 29, 2020, before the lawmakers of the [[United States Congress]].<ref>{{Cite web|author=Brian Fung|title=Congress grilled the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. Here are the big takeaways|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/29/tech/tech-antitrust-hearing-ceos/index.html|access-date=July 30, 2020|publisher=CNN}}</ref> == See also == {{Portal|Companies|Internet}} <!-- Please keep entries in alphabetical order & add a short description [[WP:SEEALSO]] --> {{div col|colwidth=20em|small=yes}} *[[Criticism of Apple Inc.|Criticism of Apple]] *[[Criticism of Google]] *[[Criticism of Microsoft]] *[[Criticism of Yahoo!]] *''[[Europe v Facebook]]'' *[[Facebook content management controversies]] *[[Facebook Files]] *[[Facebook history]] *[[Facebook malware]] *[[Facebook Analytics]] *[[Facebook Pixel]] *[[Filter bubble]] *[[Instagram#Impact on people|Instagram's impact on people]] *[[Issues involving social networking services]] *[[Online hate speech]] *[[Social media and suicide]] *[[Surveillance capitalism]] *[[Unauthorized access in online social networks]] *[[Ireland as a tax haven]] *[[Techlash]] {{div col end}} <!-- please keep entries in alphabetical order --> == References == {{Reflist}} == Further reading == * {{cite magazine|url=http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/26834/|title=How Facebook Leveraged Publishers' Desperation to Build a Web-Wide Tracking System|last=Mims|first=Christopher|date=June 1, 2011|magazine=[[Technology Review]]|access-date=June 1, 2011}} * [https://web.archive.org/web/20130607113306/http://www.lifeivy.com/post/facebook-friend-or-foe/ "Facebook: Friend or Foe?"]. ''LifeIvy''. May 15, 2013 *{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/the-secret-agenda-of-a-facebook-quiz.html| title=The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz |last=Funk|first=McKenzie|date=November 19, 2016|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=January 25, 2017}} *[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-39947942 How Facebook's tentacles reach further than you think] (May 26, 2017), ''[[BBC]]'' *{{Citation | last=Lanchester | first=John | author-link = John Lanchester | title=You Are the Product | journal=[[London Review of Books]] | volume=39 | number=16 | date= August 2017 | pages=3–10 |url=https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n16/john-lanchester/you-are-the-product}} * {{Citation | last=Oremus | first=Will | title=Are You Really the Product? The history of a dangerous idea | journal=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] | date= April 2018 | volume=39 | issue=16 |url=https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n16/john-lanchester/you-are-the-product}} * {{Citation|first=Aaron|last=Greenspan|title=Reality Check:Facebook, Inc.|url=https://www.plainsite.org/realitycheck/facebook.html|date=January 24, 2019}} == External links == *{{commons category-inline}} {{Facebook navbox}} {{Censorship and websites}} {{Evolutionary psychology}} {{Digital media use and mental health}} [[Category:Facebook criticisms and controversies| ]] [[Category:Internet privacy]] [[Category:Criticisms of companies|Facebook]] [[Category:Criticisms of software and websites|Facebook]] [[Category:Privacy controversies and disputes]]'
New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext)
'this is a website that lies Anyway ⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ == Censorship == {{Main|Censorship by Facebook}} {{Cleanup split|Lawsuits involving Facebook|date=October 2021}} == Privacy issues == {{Main|Privacy concerns with Facebook}} Facebook has faced a number of privacy concerns; for instance, in August 2019, it was revealed that the company had enlisted contractors to generate transcripts of users' audio chats. The contractors were tasked with re-transcribing the conversations in order to gauge the accuracy of the automatic transcription tool.<ref name="bloombergreveals">{{cite news|last=Frier|first=Sarah|date=August 13, 2019|title=Facebook Paid Contractors to Transcribe Users' Audio Chats|work=[[Bloomberg News]]|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-13/facebook-paid-hundreds-of-contractors-to-transcribe-users-audio}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=August 13, 2019|title=Facebook paid hundreds of contractors to transcribe users' audio|url=https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-08-13/facebook-paid-hundreds-of-contractors-to-transcribe-audio-of-users|access-date=May 8, 2020|website=[[Los Angeles Times]]|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Haselton|first=Todd|date=August 13, 2019|title=Facebook hired people to transcribe voice calls made on Messenger|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/13/facebook-hired-people-to-transcribe-voice-calls-made-on-messenger.html|access-date=May 8, 2020|publisher=CNBC|language=en}}</ref> In part these concerns stem from the company's revenue model that involves selling information about its users, and the loss of privacy this could entail. In addition, employers and other organizations and individuals have been known to use Facebook data for their own purposes. As a result peoples' identities have sometimes been revealed without their permission. In response, pressure groups and governments have increasingly asserted the users' right to privacy and to control their personal data. == Psychological/sociological effects == {{See also|Digital media use and mental health|Evolutionary medicine|Evolutionary mismatch|Evolutionary psychiatry|Screen time}} In addition to noting with evolutionary biologist [[George Christopher Williams|George C. Williams]] in the development of [[evolutionary medicine]] that most [[Chronic condition|chronic medical conditions]] are the consequence of [[evolutionary mismatch]]es between a [[Stateless society|stateless]] [[Evolutionary psychology#Environment of evolutionary adaptedness|environment]] of [[nomad]]ic [[hunter-gatherer]] life in [[Band society|bands]] and contemporary human life in [[Sedentism|sedentary]] [[Modernity|technologically modern]] [[State (polity)|state societies]] (e.g. [[Psychology#WEIRD bias|WEIRD societies]]),<ref>{{cite book|last1=Nesse|first1=Randolph|author-link1=Randolph M. Nesse|last2=Williams|first2=George C.|author-link2=George Christopher Williams|title=Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine|year=1994|page=9|publisher=[[Vintage Books]]|place=New York|isbn=978-0-679-74674-4}}</ref> psychiatrist [[Randolph M. Nesse]] has argued that evolutionary mismatch is an important factor in the development of certain mental disorders.<ref name="Nesse 2005 pp. 904–905">{{cite book|last1=Nesse|first1=Randolph M.|author-link1=Randolph M. Nesse|editor-last=Buss|editor-first=David M.|editor-link=David Buss|title=The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology|chapter=32. Evolutionary Psychology and Mental Health|pages=904–905|year=2005|edition=1st|place=[[Hoboken, New Jersey|Hoboken, NJ]]|publisher=[[Wiley (publisher)|Wiley]]|isbn=978-0-471-26403-3}}</ref><ref name="Nesse 2016 pp. 1008–1009">{{cite book|last1=Nesse|first1=Randolph M.|author-link1=Randolph M. Nesse|editor-last1=Buss|editor-first1=David M.|editor-link1=David Buss|year=2016|orig-year=2005|title=The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Volume 2: Integrations|edition=2nd|chapter=43. Evolutionary Psychology and Mental Health|pages=1008–1009|place=[[Hoboken, New Jersey|Hoboken, NJ]]|publisher=[[Wiley (publisher)|Wiley]]|isbn=978-1-118-75580-8}}</ref><ref name="Nesse 2019 pp. 31–36">{{cite book|last=Nesse|first=Randolph|author-link=Randolph M. Nesse|title=Good Reasons for Bad Feelings: Insights from the Frontier of Evolutionary Psychiatry|publisher=[[Dutton (imprint)|Dutton]]|year=2019|pages=31–36|isbn=978-1-101-98566-3}}</ref> In 1948, 50 percent of U.S. households owned at least one [[Car|automobile]].<ref>{{cite report|title=Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1955|year=1955|edition=76|series=[[Statistical Abstract of the United States]]|publisher=[[United States Census Bureau|U.S. Census Bureau]]|page=554|url=https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1955/compendia/statab/76ed/1955-05.pdf|access-date=June 29, 2021}}</ref> In 2000, a majority of U.S. households had at least one personal computer and [[internet access]] the following year.<ref name="auto2">{{cite report|last=File|first=Thom|date=May 2013|title=Computer and Internet Use in the United States|series=Current Population Survey Reports|publisher=[[United States Census Bureau|U.S. Census Bureau]]|place=Washington, D.C.|url=https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-569.pdf|access-date=February 11, 2020}}</ref> In 2002, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having a mobile phone.<ref name="Tuckel & O'Neill">{{cite report|last1=Tuckel|first1=Peter|last2=O'Neill|first2=Harry|title=Ownership and Usage Patterns of Cell Phones: 2000–2005|year=2005|series=JSM Proceedings, Survey Research Methods Section|place=[[Alexandria, Virginia|Alexandria, VA]]|publisher=[[American Statistical Association]]|page=4002|url=http://www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y2005/files/JSM2005-000345.pdf|access-date=September 25, 2020}}</ref> In September 2007, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having [[Broadband#Internet broadband|broadband internet]] at home.<ref>{{cite news|title=Demographics of Internet and Home Broadband Usage in the United States|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|date=April 7, 2021|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/#who-has-home-broadband|access-date=May 19, 2021}}</ref> In January 2013, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported owning a [[smartphone]].<ref name="Pew 4-7-2021">{{cite news|title=Demographics of Mobile Device Ownership and Adoption in the United States|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|date=April 7, 2021|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/|access-date=May 19, 2021}}</ref> === Facebook addiction === {{See also|Digital media use and mental health#ADHD|Human multitasking|Media multitasking|Mobile phones and driving safety|Problematic social media use|Texting while driving}} The "World Unplugged" study, which was conducted in 2011, claims that for some users quitting social networking sites is comparable to quitting smoking or giving up alcohol.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8436831/Student-addiction-to-technology-similar-to-drug-cravings-study-finds.html |title=Student 'addiction' to technology 'similar to drug cravings', study finds |location=London |first=Andrew |last=Hough |date=April 8, 2011}}</ref> Another study conducted in 2012 by researchers from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business in the United States found that drugs like alcohol and tobacco could not keep up with social networking sites regarding their level of addictiveness.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9054243/Facebook-and-Twitter-more-addictive-than-tobacco-and-alcohol.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120202180847/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9054243/Facebook-and-Twitter-more-addictive-than-tobacco-and-alcohol.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=February 2, 2012 |title=Facebook and Twitter 'more addictive than tobacco and alcohol' |location=London |date=February 1, 2012}}</ref> A 2013 study in the journal ''CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking'' found that some users decided to quit social networking sites because they felt they were addicted. In 2014, the site went down for about 30 minutes, prompting several users to call emergency services.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Edwards|first1=Ashton|title=Facebook goes down for 30 minutes, 911 calls pour in|url=http://fox13now.com/2014/08/01/facebook-goes-down-for-30-minutes-911-calls-pour-in/|access-date=August 2, 2016|work=Fox13|date=August 1, 2014}}</ref> In April 2015, the [[Pew Research Center]] published a survey of 1,060 U.S. teenagers ages 13 to 17 who reported that nearly three-quarters of them either owned or had access to a [[smartphone]], 92 percent went online daily with 24 percent saying they went online "almost constantly".<ref>{{cite news|last=Lenhart|first=Amanda|title=Teens, Social Media & Technology Overview 2015|date=April 9, 2015|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/|access-date=July 8, 2020}}</ref> In March 2016, ''[[Frontiers in Psychology]]'' published a survey of 457 [[Tertiary education|post-secondary student]] Facebook users (following a [[face validity]] pilot of another 47 post-secondary student Facebook users) at a large university in North America showing that the severity of ADHD symptoms had a [[Statistical significance|statistically significant]] positive correlation with [[Mobile phones and driving safety|Facebook usage while driving a motor vehicle]] and that impulses to use Facebook while driving were more potent among male users than female users.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Turel|first1=Ofir|last2=Bechara|first2=Antoine|title=Social Networking Site Use While Driving: ADHD and the Mediating Roles of Stress, Self-Esteem and Craving|year=2016|journal=[[Frontiers in Psychology]]|volume=7|page=455|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00455|pmid=27065923|pmc=4812103|doi-access=free}}</ref> In June 2018, ''[[Children and Youth Services Review]]'' published a [[regression analysis]] of 283 adolescent Facebook users in the [[Piedmont]] and [[Lombardy]] [[Regions of Italy|regions]] of [[Northern Italy]] (that replicated previous findings among adult users) showing that adolescents reporting higher ADHD symptoms positively predicted [[Problematic social media use|Facebook addiction]], persistent negative [[Attitude (psychology)|attitudes]] about the [[past]] and that the [[future]] is predetermined and not influenced by present [[Action (philosophy)|actions]], and orientation against [[Time management|achieving future goals]], with ADHD symptoms additionally increasing the manifestation of the proposed category of psychological dependence known as "[[problematic social media use]]".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Settanni|first1=Michele|last2=Marengo|first2=Davide|last3=Fabris|first3=Matteo Angelo|last4=Longobardi|first4=Claudio|title=The interplay between ADHD symptoms and time perspective in addictive social media use: A study of adolescent Facebook users|year=2018|journal=[[Children and Youth Services Review]]|publisher=[[Elsevier]]|volume=89|pages=165–170|doi=10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.04.031|s2cid=149795392|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740917310083}}</ref> === Self-harm and suicide === {{Main|Social media and suicide|Facebook Files}} {{blockquote|text=Research shows that people who are feeling suicidal use the internet to search for suicide methods. Websites provide graphic details and information on how to take your own life. This cannot be right. Where this content breaches the policies of internet and social media providers it must be removed.|author=[[Matt Hancock]], [[Secretary of State for Health and Social Care|Health Secretary of the United Kingdom]]<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/26/matt-hancock-facebook-social-media-suicide-self-harm-young-people|title=Health secretary tells social media firms to protect children after girl's death|first=Michael|last=Savage|date=January 26, 2019|access-date=January 30, 2019|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref>}} {{blockquote|I do not think it is going too far to question whether even you, the owners, any longer have any control over [the sites'] content. If that is the case, then children should not be accessing your services at all, and parents should be aware that the idea of any authority overseeing algorithms and content is a mirage.|author=[[Anne Longfield]], [[Children's Commissioner for England]]<ref name="longfield-2019">{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/30/social-media-urged-to-take-moment-to-reflect-after-girls-death|title=Social media urged to take 'moment to reflect' after girl's death|first=Richard Adams Education|last=editor|date=January 30, 2019|access-date=January 30, 2019|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref>}} In January 2019, both the Health Secretary of the United Kingdom, and the Children's Commissioner for England, urged Facebook and other social media companies to take responsibility for the risk to children posed by content on their platforms related to self-harm and suicide.<ref name="longfield-2019" /> === Envy === {{See also|Bandwagon effect|Conspicuous consumption|Conspicuous leisure|Consumerism|Issues in higher education in the United States#Financial value of degrees|LinkedIn#Research on labor market effects|Overtourism|Social aspects of television#Psychological effects|Tragedy of the commons|Viral marketing}} Facebook has been criticized for making people [[envious]] and unhappy due to the constant exposure to positive yet unrepresentative highlights of their peers. Such highlights include, but are not limited to, journal posts, videos, and photos that depict or reference such positive or otherwise outstanding activities, experiences, and facts. This effect is caused mainly by the fact that most users of Facebook usually only display the positive aspects of their lives while excluding the negative, though it is also strongly connected to [[Social inequality|inequality]] and the disparities between social groups as Facebook is open to users from all classes of society. Sites such as AddictionInfo.org<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/2171/1/Potential-Facebook-addiction/Page1.html|title=Potential for Facebook addiction and consequences|date=July 15, 2012}}</ref> state that this kind of envy has profound effects on other aspects of life and can lead to severe depression, [[Self-hatred|self-loathing]], [[Rage (emotion)|rage]] and hatred, [[resentment]], feelings of inferiority and insecurity, [[pessimism]], suicidal tendencies and desires, [[social isolation]], and other issues that can prove very serious. This condition has often been called "Facebook Envy" or "Facebook Depression" by the media.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2282620|title=The Anti-Social Network|website=Slate|date=January 26, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.discovery.com/tech/facebook-breeds-jealousy.html|title=How Facebook Breeds Jealousy|website=Discovery.com|date=February 10, 2010|access-date=February 12, 2011|archive-date=November 20, 2012|archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6CJN2l5Oj?url=http://news.discovery.com/tech/facebook-breeds-jealousy.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10307638-71.html|title=Study: Facebook makes lovers jealous|publisher=CNET|date=August 11, 2009|access-date=February 12, 2011|archive-date=November 20, 2012|archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6CJN3SVJ9?url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10307638-71.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/20431006|title=Jealous much? MySpace, Facebook can spark it|work=NBC News|date=July 31, 2007}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{cite web|url=http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2009/02/post_176.html|title=Facebook Causes Jealousy, Hampers Romance, Study Finds|publisher=University of Guelph|date=February 13, 2007}}</ref><ref name=":7">{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/sex-relationships/dating/2010-11-18-facebook-asthma_N.htm|title=Facebook jealousy sparks asthma attacks in dumped boy|website=USA Today|date=November 19, 2010}}</ref> In ''[[The Theory of the Leisure Class]]'' (1899), economist [[Thorstein Veblen]] observed that "[[Conspicuous consumption]] of valuable goods is a [[Status symbol|means of reputability]] to the [[Robber baron (industrialist)|gentleman of leisure]]",<ref>{{cite book|last=Veblen|first=Thorstein|author-link=Thorstein Veblen|editor-first=Martha|editor-last=Banta|year=2007|orig-year=1899|title=The Theory of the Leisure Class|title-link=The Theory of the Leisure Class|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|place=New York|page=53|isbn=978-0-19-955258-0}}</ref> and that [[conspicuous leisure]] is the "non-productive [[Consumption (economics)|consumption]] of time. Time is consumed non-productively (1) from a [[Contempt|sense of the unworthiness]] of [[Productive and unproductive labour|productive work]], and (2) as an evidence of pecuniary ability to afford a life of [[idleness]]. But the whole of the life of the gentleman of leisure is not spent [[Common knowledge (logic)|before the eyes of the spectators]] who are to be impressed with that spectacle of [[The Theory of the Leisure Class#(i) Occupation|honorific leisure]] which in the ideal scheme makes up his life. For some part of the time his life is perforce withdrawn from the public eye, and of this portion which is spent in private the gentleman of leisure should, for the sake of his good name, be able to give a convincing account."<ref>{{cite book|last=Veblen|first=Thorstein|author-link=Thorstein Veblen|editor-first=Martha|editor-last=Banta|year=2007|orig-year=1899|title=The Theory of the Leisure Class|title-link=The Theory of the Leisure Class|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|place=New York|page=33|isbn=978-0-19-955258-0}}</ref> In 2010, ''[[Social Science Computer Review]]'' published research by economists Ralf Caers and Vanessa Castelyns who sent an online questionnaire to 398 and 353 LinkedIn and Facebook users respectively in [[Belgium]] and found that both sites had become tools for [[Recruitment|recruiting]] job applicants for professional occupations as well as additional information about applicants, and that it was being used by recruiters to decide which applicants would receive interviews.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Caers|first1=Ralf|last2=Castelyns|first2=Vanessa|title=LinkedIn and Facebook in Belgium: The Influences and Biases of Social Network Sites in Recruitment and Selection Procedures|year=2011|journal=[[Social Science Computer Review]]|publisher=[[SAGE Publishing|SAGE Publications]]|volume=29|issue=4|pages=437–448|doi=10.1177/0894439310386567|s2cid=60557417|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258190136}}</ref> In 2017, sociologist Ofer Sharone conducted interviews with unemployed workers to research the effects of LinkedIn and Facebook as labor market intermediaries and found that [[social networking service]]s (SNS) have had a filtration effect that has little to do with evaluations of merit, and that the SNS filtration effect has exerted new pressures on workers to manage their careers to conform to the logic of the SNS filtration effect.<ref>{{cite book|last=Sharone|first=Ofer|editor-first=Steven|editor-last=Vallas|title=Emerging Conceptions of Work, Management and the Labor Market|chapter=LinkedIn or LinkedOut? How Social Networking Sites are Reshaping the Labor Market|series=Research in the Sociology of Work|year=2017|place=[[Bingley]], UK|publisher=[[Emerald Group Publishing|Emerald Publishing Ltd]]|volume=30|pages=1–31|isbn=978-1-78714-460-6|doi=10.1108/S0277-283320170000030001|url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S0277-283320170000030001/full/html?fullSc=1}}</ref> In July 2019, sociologists Steve McDonald, Amanda K. Damarin, Jenelle Lawhorne, and Annika Wilcox performed qualitative interviews with 61 [[Human resources|HR]] recruiters in two [[metropolitan area]]s in the Southern United States and found that recruiters filling low- and general-skilled positions typically posted advertisements on [[Employment website|online job boards]] while recruiters filling high-skilled or [[supervisor]] positions targeted passive candidates on LinkedIn (i.e. employed workers not actively seeking work but possibly willing to change positions), and concluded that this is resulting in a bifurcated [[winner-take-all market|winner-takes-all]] job market with recruiters focusing their efforts on poaching already employed high-skilled workers while active job seekers are relegated to hyper-competitive online job boards.<ref>{{cite book|last1=McDonald|first1=Steve|last2=Damarin|first2=Amanda K.|last3=Lawhorne|first3=Jenelle|last4=Wilcox|first4=Annika|editor-last1=Vallas|editor-first1=Steven|editor-last2=Kovalainen|editor-first2=Anne|title=Work and Labor in the Digital Age|series=Research in the Sociology of Work|chapter=Black Holes and Purple Squirrels: A Tale of Two Online Labor Markets|year=2019|place=[[Bingley]], UK|publisher=[[Emerald Group Publishing|Emerald Publishing Ltd]]|volume=33|pages=93–120|isbn=978-1-78973-586-4|doi=10.1108/S0277-283320190000033006|s2cid=197889035|url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S0277-283320190000033006/full/html}}</ref> A joint study conducted by two German universities demonstrated Facebook envy and found that as many as one out of three people actually feel worse and less satisfied with their lives after visiting the site. Vacation photos were found to be the most common source of feelings of resentment and jealousy. After that, social interaction was the second biggest cause of envy, as Facebook users compare the number of birthday greetings, likes, and comments to those of their friends. Visitors who contributed the least tended to feel the worst. "According to our findings, passive following triggers invidious emotions, with users mainly envying happiness of others, the way others spend their vacations; and socialize", the study states.<ref name="hu-berlin">{{cite web|url=http://warhol.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/~hkrasnova/Ongoing_Research_files/WI%202013%20Final%20Submission%20Krasnova.pdf |date=January 23, 2013 |title=Envy on Facebook: A Hidden Threat to Users' Life Satisfaction? |author1=Hanna Krasnova |author2=Helena Wenninger |author3=Thomas Widjaja |author4=Peter Buxmann |publisher=11th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, February 27 – March 1, 2013, Leipzig, Germany |access-date=June 13, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140601203643/http://warhol.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/~hkrasnova/Ongoing_Research_files/WI%202013%20Final%20Submission%20Krasnova.pdf |archive-date=June 1, 2014 }}</ref> A 2013 study by researchers at the [[University of Michigan]] found that the more people used Facebook, the worse they felt afterwards.<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23709009 BBC News – Facebook use 'makes people feel worse about themselves']. BBC.co.uk (August 15, 2013). Retrieved September 4, 2013.</ref><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":7" /> Narcissistic users who show excessive grandiosity give negative emotion to viewers and cause envy, but as a result, that may cause viewers' loneliness. Viewers sometimes need to terminate relationships with them to avoid this negative emotion. However, this "avoidance" such as "terminate relationships" would be reinforcement and it may lead to loneliness. The cyclical pattern is a vicious circle of loneliness and avoidance coping, the study states.<ref>{{cite journal |date=June 4, 2018 |title=Facebook users' loneliness based on different types of interpersonal relationships: Links to grandiosity and envy |author1=Myung Suh Lim |author2=Junghyun Kim |journal=Information Technology & People |doi=10.1108/ITP-04-2016-0095 |issn=0959-3845}}</ref> === Divorce === {{See also|Online dating service#Social trends and public opinions|Social aspects of television#Psychological effects}} Social networks, like Facebook, can have a detrimental effect on marriages, with users becoming worried about their spouse's contacts and relations with other people online, leading to marital breakdown and divorce.<ref>[http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/s/1405762_divorce_cases_get_the_facebook_factor Divorce cases get the Facebook factor]. – ''MEN Media''. Published January 19, 2011. Retrieved March 13, 2012.</ref> According to a 2009 survey in the UK, around 20 percent of divorce petitions included references to Facebook.<ref>[http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/122309-facebooks-other-top-trend-of.html Facebook's Other Top Trend of 2009: Divorce] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120112072406/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/122309-facebooks-other-top-trend-of.html |date=January 12, 2012 }} – ''Network World''. Published December 22, 2009. Retrieved March 13, 2012.</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/12/facebook-blame-divorce-boom/ | publisher=Fox News Channel | title=Facebook to Blame for Divorce Boom | date=April 12, 2010 | access-date=January 3, 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100415182227/http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/12/facebook-blame-divorce-boom/ | archive-date=April 15, 2010 | url-status=dead | df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>[https://www.nbcnews.com/id/37986320 Facebook is divorce lawyers' new best friend] – MSNBC. Published June 28, 2010. Retrieved March 13, 2012.</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-01/uk/30578492_1_divorce-online-flirty-messages-facebook | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130518102851/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-01/uk/30578492_1_divorce-online-flirty-messages-facebook | url-status=dead | archive-date=May 18, 2013 | work=[[The Times of India]] | title=Facebook flirting triggers divorces | date=January 1, 2012}}</ref> Facebook has given us a new platform for interpersonal communication. Researchers proposed that high levels of Facebook use could result in Facebook-related conflict and breakup/divorce.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Clayton|first1=Russell B.|last2=Nagurney|first2=Alexander|last3=Smith|first3=Jessica R.|date=June 7, 2013|title=Cheating, Breakup, and Divorce: Is Facebook Use to Blame?|journal=Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking|volume=16|issue=10|pages=717–720|doi=10.1089/cyber.2012.0424|issn=2152-2715|pmid=23745615}}</ref> Previous studies have shown that romantic relationships can be damaged by excessive Internet use, Facebook jealousy, partner surveillance, ambiguous information, and online portrayal of intimate relationships.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Utz|first1=Sonja|last2=Beukeboom|first2=Camiel J.|date=July 1, 2011|title=The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness|journal=Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication|language=en|volume=16|issue=4|pages=511–527|doi=10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01552.x|issn=1083-6101|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tokunaga|first=Robert S.|title=Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships|journal=Computers in Human Behavior|language=en|volume=27|issue=2|pages=705–713|doi=10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014|year=2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Muise|first1=Amy|last2=Christofides|first2=Emily|last3=Desmarais|first3=Serge|date=April 15, 2009|title=More Information than You Ever Wanted: Does Facebook Bring Out the Green-Eyed Monster of Jealousy?|journal=CyberPsychology & Behavior|volume=12|issue=4|pages=441–444|doi=10.1089/cpb.2008.0263|pmid=19366318|issn=1094-9313}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kerkhof|first1=Peter|last2=Finkenauer|first2=Catrin|last3=Muusses|first3=Linda D.|date=April 1, 2011|title=Relational Consequences of Compulsive Internet Use: A Longitudinal Study Among Newlyweds|journal=Human Communication Research|language=en|volume=37|issue=2|pages=147–173|doi=10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01397.x|issn=1468-2958|hdl=1871/35795|url=https://research.vu.nl/ws/files/2766702/249473.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Papp|first1=Lauren M.|last2=Danielewicz|first2=Jennifer|last3=Cayemberg|first3=Crystal|date=October 11, 2011|title="Are We Facebook Official?" Implications of Dating Partners' Facebook Use and Profiles for Intimate Relationship Satisfaction|journal=Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking|volume=15|issue=2|pages=85–90|doi=10.1089/cyber.2011.0291|pmid=21988733|issn=2152-2715}}</ref> Excessive Internet users reported having greater conflict in their relationships. Their partners feel neglected and there's lower commitment and lower feelings of passion and intimacy in the relationship. According to the article, researchers suspect that Facebook may contribute to an increase in divorce and infidelity rates in the near future due to the amount and ease of accessibility to connect with past partners.<ref name=":0" /> === Stress === Research performed by psychologists from [[Edinburgh Napier University]] indicated that Facebook adds [[stress (psychological)|stress]] to users' lives. Causes of stress included fear of missing important social information, fear of offending contacts, discomfort or guilt from rejecting user requests or deleting unwanted contacts or being unfriended or blocked by Facebook friends or other users, the displeasure of having friend requests rejected or ignored, the pressure to be entertaining, criticism or [[intimidation]] from other Facebook users, and having to use appropriate etiquette for different types of friends.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2011/02/16/too-many-facebook-friends-causes-stress|title=Does Facebook Stress You Out?|website=Webpronews.com|date=February 17, 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110218023713/http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2011/02/16/too-many-facebook-friends-causes-stress|archive-date=February 18, 2011}}</ref> Many people who started using Facebook for positive purposes or with positive expectations have found that the website has negatively impacted their lives.<ref>Maier, C., Laumer, S., Eckhardt, A., and Weitzel, T. ''Online Social Networks as a Source and Symbol of Stress: An Empirical Analysis'' Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2012, Orlando (FL)</ref> Next to that, the increasing number of messages and social relationships embedded in SNS also increases the amount of social information demanding a reaction from SNS users. Consequently SNS users perceive they are giving too much social support to other SNS friends. This dark side of SNS usage is called 'social overload'. It is caused by the extent of usage, number of friends, subjective social support norms, and type of relationship (online-only vs offline friends) while age has only an indirect effect. The psychological and behavioral consequences of social overload include perceptions of SNS exhaustion, low user satisfaction, and high intentions to reduce or stop using SNS.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Maier | first1 = C. | last2 = Laumer | first2 = S. | last3 = Eckhardt | first3 = A. | last4 = Weitzel | first4 = T. | year = 2014| title = Giving too much Social Support: Social Overload on Social Networking Sites | journal = European Journal of Information Systems | volume = 24| issue = 5| pages = 447–464| doi = 10.1057/ejis.2014.3 | s2cid = 205122288 }}</ref> === Narcissism === {{Main|Digital media use and mental health#NPD|Narcissistic personality disorder|Facebook like button|Mass shootings in the United States#Contributing factors|Microblogging|Reblogging|Selfie|Virtue signalling}} {{See also|Fear of missing out|Law of effect|Like button|Problematic social media use|Social rejection|White savior}} In July 2018, a [[meta-analysis]] published in ''Psychology of Popular Media'' found that [[Narcissistic personality disorder#Types|grandiose narcissism]] positively correlated with time spent on social media, frequency of [[Microblogging|status updates]], number of friends or followers, and frequency of posting [[Selfie|self-portrait digital photographs]],<ref>{{cite journal|last1=McCain|first1=Jessica L.|last2=Campbell|first2=W. Keith|title=Narcissism and Social Media Use: A Meta-Analytic Review|year=2018|journal=Psychology of Popular Media Culture|volume=7|issue=3|pages=308–327|publisher=[[American Psychological Association]]|doi=10.1037/ppm0000137|s2cid=152057114|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305766785|access-date=June 9, 2020}}</ref> while a meta-analysis published in the ''[[Journal of Personality]]'' in April 2018 found that the positive correlation between grandiose narcissism and [[social networking service]] usage was replicated across platforms (including Facebook).<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gnambs|first1=Timo|last2=Appel|first2=Markus|title=Narcissism and Social Networking Behavior: A Meta-Analysis|year=2018|journal=[[Journal of Personality]]|volume=86|issue=2|pages=200–212|publisher=[[Wiley-Blackwell]]|pmid=28170106|doi=10.1111/jopy.12305}}</ref> In March 2020, the ''Journal of Adult Development'' published a [[Regression discontinuity design|regression discontinuity analysis]] of 254 [[Millennials|Millennial]] Facebook users investigating differences in narcissism and Facebook usage between the age [[Cohort (statistics)|cohorts]] born from 1977 to 1990 and from 1991 to 2000 and found that the later born Millennials scored [[Statistical significance|significantly]] higher on both.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Brailovskaia|first1=Julia|last2=Bierhoff|first2=Hans-Werner|title=The Narcissistic Millennial Generation: A Study of Personality Traits and Online Behavior on Facebook|year=2020|journal=Journal of Adult Development|volume=27|issue=1|pages=23–35|publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media]]|doi=10.1007/s10804-018-9321-1|s2cid=149564334}}</ref> In June 2020, ''[[Addictive Behaviors]]'' published a [[systematic review]] finding a consistent, positive, and significant correlation between grandiose narcissism and the proposed category of [[psychological dependence]] called "[[problematic social media use]]".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Casale|first1=Silvia|last2=Banchi|first2=Vanessa|title=Narcissism and problematic social media use: A systematic literature review|year=2020|journal=Addictive Behaviors Reports|volume=11|page=100252|publisher=[[Elsevier]]|doi=10.1016/j.abrep.2020.100252|pmid=32467841|pmc=7244927|doi-access=free}}</ref> Also in 2018, social psychologist [[Jonathan Haidt]] and [[Foundation for Individual Rights in Education|FIRE]] President [[Greg Lukianoff]] noted in ''[[The Coddling of the American Mind]]'' that former Facebook president [[Sean Parker]] stated in a 2017 interview that the [[Facebook like button|Like button]] was consciously designed to [[Priming (psychology)|prime]] users receiving likes to feel a [[dopamine]] [[Rush (psychology)|rush]] as part of a "[[Normative social influence|social-validation]] [[feedback]] [[Control flow#Loops|loop]]".<ref name="Lukianoff & Haidt 2018 p. 147">{{cite book|last1=Lukianoff|first1=Greg|author-link1=Greg Lukianoff|last2=Haidt|first2=Jonathan|author-link2=Jonathan Haidt|title=The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure|title-link=The Coddling of the American Mind|year=2018|place=New York|publisher=[[Penguin Books|Penguin Press]]|page=147|isbn=978-0-7352-2489-6}}</ref> "'''Conspicuous compassion'''" is the practice of publicly donating large sums of money to [[Charity (practice)|charity]] to enhance the [[Reputation|social prestige]] of the donor, and is sometimes described as a type of conspicuous consumption.<ref name="West 2004">{{cite book |last=West |first=Patrick |title=Conspicuous Compassion: Why Sometimes It Really Is Cruel To Be Kind |location=London |publisher=Civitas, Institute for the Study of Civil Society |year=2004 |isbn=978-1-903386-34-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Robert L.|last1=Payton|first2=Michael P.|last2=Moody|title=Understanding Philanthropy: Its Meaning and Mission|year=2008|isbn=978-0-253-00013-2|page=137}}</ref> Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff argued that [[microaggression]] training on [[Higher education in the United States|college campuses in the United States]] has led to a [[Cancel culture|call-out culture]] and a climate of [[self-censorship]] due to fear of [[Shame|shaming]] by [[virtue signalling]] social media [[Mobbing|mobs]] with users who are often anonymous and tend to [[Deindividuation|deindividuate]] as a consequence.<ref name="Lukianoff & Haidt 2018 pp. 71–73">{{cite book|last1=Lukianoff|first1=Greg|author-link1=Greg Lukianoff|last2=Haidt|first2=Jonathan|author-link2=Jonathan Haidt|title=The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure|title-link=The Coddling of the American Mind|year=2018|place=New York|publisher=[[Penguin Books|Penguin Press]]|pages=71–73|isbn=978-0-7352-2489-6}}</ref> Citing February 2017 [[Pew Research Center]] survey data showing that critical Facebook postings expressing "indignant disagreement" were twice as likely to receive likes, comments, or shares (along with a similar finding for [[Twitter]] posts published in ''[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America|PNAS USA]]'' in July 2017),<ref>{{cite news|title=Critical posts get more likes, comments, and shares than other posts|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|date=February 21, 2017|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/02/23/partisan-conflict-and-congressional-outreach/pdl-02-23-17_antipathy-new-00-02/|access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Brady|first1=William J.|last2=Wills|first2=Julian A.|last3=Jost|first3=John T.|author-link3=John Jost|last4=Tucker|first4=Joshua A.|last5=Van Bavel|first5=Jay J.|title=Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks|date=July 11, 2017|journal=[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America|PNAS USA]]|publisher=[[National Academy of Sciences]]|volume=114|issue=28|pages=7313–7318|doi=10.1073/pnas.1618923114|pmid=28652356|pmc=5514704|doi-access=free}}</ref> Haidt and Tobias Rose-Stockwell cite the phrase "'''moral grandstanding'''" to describe how having an audience on social media forums converts much of its interpersonal communication into a public performance.<ref name="Haidt & Rose-Stockwell" /> Following the [[murder of George Floyd]] in May 2020 and the [[George Floyd protests|subsequent protests in his name]], [[Civiqs]] and [[YouGov]]/''[[The Economist|Economist]]'' polls showed that while net support for [[Black Lives Matter]] among [[White American]]s increased from –4 points to +10 points in early June 2020 (with 43 percent in support) it fell to –6 points by early August 2020,<ref>{{cite news|last=Tesler|first=Michael|title=Support For Black Lives Matter Surged During Protests, But Is Waning Among White Americans|website=[[FiveThirtyEight]]|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/support-for-black-lives-matter-surged-during-protests-but-is-waning-among-white-americans/|date=August 19, 2020|access-date=September 2, 2021}}</ref> and by April 2021, further Civiqs polls showed that support for Black Lives Matter among White Americans had reverted to roughly its level of support prior to George Floyd's murder (37 percent in favor and 49 percent opposed).<ref>{{cite news|last=Samuels|first=Alex|title=How Views On Black Lives Matter Have Changed – And Why That Makes Police Reform So Hard|website=[[FiveThirtyEight]]|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-views-on-black-lives-matter-have-changed-and-why-that-makes-police-reform-so-hard/|date=April 13, 2021|access-date=September 2, 2021}}</ref> In a February 2021 interview on ''[[Firing Line (TV program)|Firing Line]]'', journalist [[Charles M. Blow]] criticized a minority of young white protestors in the George Floyd protests in the United States whom he argued were using the protests for their own [[Personal development|personal growth]] to substitute for social [[rites of passage]] (e.g. [[prom]]) and summertime social gatherings (e.g. attending [[movie theater]]s or [[concert]]s) that were precluded by [[COVID-19 lockdowns]] and [[social distancing]] measures, noting that as lockdowns began to be relaxed and removed, support for Black Lives Matter among whites began to decline.<ref>{{cite interview|last=Blow|first=Charles M.|author-link=Charles M. Blow|interviewer=[[Margaret Hoover]]|date=February 5, 2021|title=Charles Blow|work=[[Firing Line (TV program)|Firing Line]]|publisher=[[WNET]]|url=https://www.pbs.org/wnet/firing-line/video/charles-blow-a2kchq/|access-date=September 2, 2021}}</ref> In February 2021, ''[[Psychological Medicine]]'' published a survey reviewing 14,785 publicly reported murders in English language news worldwide between 1900 and 2019 compiled in a database by psychiatrists at the [[New York State Psychiatric Institute]] and the [[Columbia University Irving Medical Center]] that found that of the 1,315 personal-cause [[mass murder]]s (i.e. driven by personal motivations and not occurring within the context of war, [[State-sponsored terrorism|state-sponsored]] or [[List of designated terrorist groups|group-sponsored terrorism]], [[gang]] activity, or [[organized crime]]) only 11 percent of mass murderers and only 8 percent of mass shooters had a "[[serious mental illness]]" (e.g. [[schizophrenia]], [[bipolar disorder]], [[major depressive disorder]]), that mass shootings have become more common than other forms of mass murder since 1970 (with 73 percent occurring in the United States alone), and that mass shooters in the United States were more likely to have [[Criminal record|legal histories]], to engage in [[recreational drug use]] or [[alcohol abuse]], and to display non-[[psychosis|psychotic]] psychiatric or [[Neurological disorder|neurologic]] symptoms.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Brucato|first1=Gary|last2=Appelbaum|first2=Paul S.|author-link2=Paul S. Appelbaum|last3=Hesson|first3=Hannah|last4=Shea|first4=Eileen A.|last5=Dishy|first5=Gabriella|last6=Lee|first6=Kathryn|last7=Pia|first7=Tyler|last8=Syed|first8=Faizan|last9=Villalobos|first9=Alexandra|last10=Wall|first10=Melanie M.|author10-link=Melanie Wall|last11=Lieberman|first11=Jeffrey A.|author-link11=Jeffrey Lieberman|last12=Girgis|first12=Ragy R.|year=2021|title=Psychotic symptoms in mass shootings v. mass murders not involving firearms: findings from the Columbia mass murder database|journal=[[Psychological Medicine]]|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|pages=1–9|pmid=33595428|doi=10.1017/S0033291721000076|s2cid=231944742|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/abs/psychotic-symptoms-in-mass-shootings-v-mass-murders-not-involving-firearms-findings-from-the-columbia-mass-murder-database/50514607ADF1AC2ECEB43369B6153E34#|access-date=August 16, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Preidt|first=Robert|date=February 25, 2021|title=Mental Illness Not a Factor in Most Mass Shootings|website=[[WebMD]]|publisher=[[Internet Brands]]|url=https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20210225/mental-illness-not-a-factor-in-most-mass-shootings|access-date=August 16, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Ramsland|first1=Katherine|date=February 26, 2021|title=Is There a Link Between Madness and Mass Murder?|work=[[Psychology Today]]|publisher=Sussex Publishers|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shadow-boxing/202102/is-there-link-between-madness-and-mass-murder|access-date=August 16, 2021}}</ref> Survey coauthor psychiatrist [[Paul S. Appelbaum]] argued that the data from the survey indicated that "difficulty coping with life events seem more useful foci for prevention [of mass shootings] and policy than an emphasis on serious mental illness",<ref>{{cite web|title=Researchers Issue First Report on Mass Shootings from the Columbia Mass Murder Database|date=February 18, 2021|publisher=[[Columbia University Irving Medical Center]]|url=https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/researchers-issue-first-report-mass-shootings-columbia-mass-murder-database|access-date=August 17, 2021}}</ref> while psychiatrist Ronald W. Pies has suggested that [[psychopathology]] should be understood as a three-gradation [[Normal distribution|continuum]] of [[Distress (medicine)|mental, behavioral and emotional disturbance]] with most mass shooters falling into a middle category of "persistent emotional disturbance".<ref>{{cite news|last=Pies|first=Ronald W.|date=February 17, 2020|title=Mass Shooters and the Psychopathology Spectrum|work=[[Psychiatric Times]]|publisher=MJH Associates|url=https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/mass-shooters-and-psychopathology-spectrum|access-date=August 17, 2021}}</ref> In 2015, psychiatrists James L. Knoll and George D. Annas noted that the tendency of most media attention following mass shootings on mental health leads to [[Sociocultural anthropology|sociocultural factors]] being comparatively overlooked.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Knoll|first1=James L.|last2=Annas|first2=George D.|editor-last1=Gold|editor-first1=Liza H.|editor-last2=Simon|editor-first2=Robert I.|year=2015|title=Gun Violence and Mental Illness|chapter=4. Mass Shootings and Mental Illness|place=New York|publisher=[[American Psychiatric Association]]|pages=91–94|url=https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/appi.books.9781615371099|isbn=978-1-58562-498-0}}</ref> Instead, Knoll and Annas cite research by social psychologists [[Jean Twenge]] and [[W. Keith Campbell]] on [[Narcissistic personality disorder|narcissism]] and [[social rejection]] in the personal histories of mass shooters, as well as cognitive scientist [[Steven Pinker]]'s suggestion in ''[[The Better Angels of Our Nature]]'' (2011) that further reductions in human violence may be dependent upon reducing human narcissism.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Twenge|first1=Jean|author-link1=Jean Twenge|last2=Campbell|first2=W. Keith|author-link2=W. Keith Campbell|year=2010|title=The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement|place=New York|publisher=[[Atria Publishing Group]]|pages=199–200|isbn=978-1-4165-7599-3}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Pinker|first=Steven|author-link=Steven Pinker|year=2011|title=The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined|title-link=The Better Angels of Our Nature|place=New York|publisher=[[Penguin Books]]|pages=519–521|isbn=978-0-14-312201-2}}</ref> === Non-informing, knowledge-eroding medium === {{Main|News Feed|Facebook Files|Big data|Confirmation bias|Echo chamber (media)|Facebook like button|Filter bubble|Infotainment|Political polarization|Radicalization}} {{See also|Like button|Negative partisanship|Online youth radicalization|Political polarization in the United States|Social aspects of television#Political polarization}} Facebook is a Big Tech company with over 2.7&nbsp;billion monthly active users as of the second quarter of 2020 and therefore has a meaningful impact on the masses that use it.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Facebook MAU worldwide 2020|url=https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/|access-date=January 6, 2021|website=Statista|language=en}}</ref> [[Big data]] algorithms are used in personalized content creation and automatization; however, this method can be used to manipulate users in various ways.<ref>{{Citation|last=Harari|first=Yuval Noah|title=Danksagung|date=2017|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.17104/9783406704024-539|work=Homo Deus|pages=539–540|publisher=Verlag C.H.BECK oHG|doi=10.17104/9783406704024-539|isbn=978-3-406-70402-4|access-date=January 6, 2021}}</ref> The problem of misinformation is exacerbated by the educational bubble, users' critical thinking ability and news culture.<ref>{{Citation|last=Reviglio|first=Urbano|title=Serendipity by Design? How to Turn from Diversity Exposure to Diversity Experience to Face Filter Bubbles in Social Media|date=2017|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70284-1_22|work=Internet Science|series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science|volume=10673|pages=281–300|place=Cham|publisher=Springer International Publishing|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-70284-1_22|isbn=978-3-319-70283-4|access-date=January 6, 2021}}</ref> Based on a 2015 study, 62.5% of the Facebook users are oblivious to any curation of their [[News Feed]]. Furthermore, scientists have started to investigate algorithms with unexpected outcomes that may lead to antisocial political, economic, geographic, racial, or other discrimination. Facebook has remained scarce in transparency of the inner workings of the algorithms used for News Feed correlation.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Eslami|first1=Motahhare|last2=Rickman|first2=Aimee|last3=Vaccaro|first3=Kristen|last4=Aleyasen|first4=Amirhossein|last5=Vuong|first5=Andy|last6=Karahalios|first6=Karrie|last7=Hamilton|first7=Kevin|last8=Sandvig|first8=Christian|date=April 18, 2015|title="I always assumed that I wasn't really that close to [her]": Reasoning about Invisible Algorithms in News Feeds|chapter="I always assumed that I wasn't really that close to &#91;her&#93;": Reasoning about Invisible Algorithms in News Feeds|chapter-url=https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2702123.2702556|journal=Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems|language=en|location=Seoul Republic of Korea|publisher=ACM|pages=153–162|doi=10.1145/2702123.2702556|isbn=978-1-4503-3145-6|s2cid=15264571}}</ref> Algorithms use the past activities as a reference point for predicting users' taste to keep them engaged. However, this leads to the formation of a [[filter bubble]] that starts to refrain users from diverse information. Users are left with a skewed worldview derived from their own preferences and biases.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Adee|first=Sally|date=November 2016|title=Burst the filter bubble|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0262407916321820|journal=New Scientist|language=en|volume=232|issue=3101|pages=24–25|doi=10.1016/S0262-4079(16)32182-0}}</ref> In 2015, researchers from Facebook published a study indicating that the Facebook algorithm perpetuates an echo chamber amongst users by occasionally hiding content from individual feeds that users potentially would disagree with: for example the algorithm removed one in every 13 diverse content from news sources for self-identified liberals. In general, the results from the study indicated that the Facebook algorithm ranking system caused approximately 15% less diverse material in users' content feeds, and a 70% reduction in the click-through-rate of the diverse material.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tufekci|first=Zeynep|date=2015|title=Facebook said its algorithms do help form echo chambers, and the tech press missed it|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/npqu.11519|journal=New Perspectives Quarterly|volume=32|issue=3|pages=9–12|doi=10.1111/npqu.11519|via=Wiley Online Library}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Eytan|first1=Bakshy|last2=Messing|first2=Solomon|last3=Adamic|first3=Lada A|date=2015|title=Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook|url=https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6239/1130.abstract?casa_token=GLv-98tAgZoAAAAA:UizWz6J0-GmPTWQEy9cnDsBHrxO3dyUsCjPFSxJMje5zxpCsjd6uN-gzrJ7Lusx0tJdvPonqTvimFgQ|journal=Science|volume=348|issue=6239|pages=1130–1132|doi=10.1126/science.aaa1160|pmid=25953820|bibcode=2015Sci...348.1130B|s2cid=206632821|via=American Association for the Advancement of Science}}</ref> In 2018, social psychologist [[Jonathan Haidt]] and [[Foundation for Individual Rights in Education|FIRE]] President [[Greg Lukianoff]] argued in ''[[The Coddling of the American Mind]]'' that the [[filter bubble]]s created by the [[News Feed]] algorithm of Facebook and other platforms are one of the principal factors amplifying [[political polarization in the United States]] since 2000 (when a majority of U.S. households first had at least one personal computer and then internet access the following year).<ref>{{cite book|last1=Lukianoff|first1=Greg|author-link1=Greg Lukianoff|last2=Haidt|first2=Jonathan|author-link2=Jonathan Haidt|title=The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure|title-link=The Coddling of the American Mind|year=2018|place=New York|publisher=[[Penguin Books|Penguin Press]]|pages=126–132|isbn=978-0-7352-2489-6}}</ref><ref name="auto2"/> In his ''[[Reflections on the Revolution in France]]'' (1790), philosopher [[Edmund Burke]] observed "We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages."<ref>{{cite book|last=Burke|first=Edmund|author-link=Edmund Burke|editor-last=Mitchell|editor-first=L. G.|orig-year=1993|year=2009|title=Reflections on the Revolution in France|title-link=Reflections on the Revolution in France|edition=Reissue|place=New York|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|page=87|isbn=978-0-19-953902-4}}</ref> In ''[[The Signal and the Noise]]'' (2012), statistician [[Nate Silver]] noted that [[IBM]] had estimated that the world was generating 2.5 [[Names of large numbers|quintillion]] [[byte]]s of data each day (more than 90 percent of which was created in the previous two years), and that the increase in data was analogous to increases in [[Publishing|book production]] as a consequence of the invention of the [[printing press]] in 1440 by [[Johannes Gutenberg]] as well as the effect of the increase in book production in causing the [[Reformation]], the [[Counter-Reformation]], and the [[European wars of religion]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Silver|first=Nate|author-link=Nate Silver|title=The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail – But Some Don't|title-link=The Signal and the Noise|publisher=[[Penguin Books]]|place=New York City|edition=2nd|orig-year=2012|year=2015|pages=1–12|isbn=978-0-14-312508-2}}</ref> Citing Burke, Jonathan Haidt and Tobias Rose-Stockwell suggested in ''[[The Atlantic]]'' in December 2019 that because the proportion of most of the information that [[Generation Z]] receives due to regular social media usage is information created primarily within the past month (e.g. [[Cats and the Internet|cat videos]], [[Tabloid journalism|tabloid]] gossip about [[Celebrity|celebrities]], [[Sensationalism|sensationalistic]] [[hot take]]s on news items) rather than information created in decades or centuries past, members of Generation Z are less familiar with the [[General knowledge|accumulated knowledge]] and [[wisdom]] of humanity (e.g. [[A Syntopicon|great ideas]], [[Great Books of the Western World|great books]], history) than generations past, and as a consequence, are more prone to embrace misguided ideas that bring them greater [[Respect|esteem]] and [[Dual strategies theory|prestige]] within their immediate [[social network]] (noting the declining faith among Generation Z in democracy across the [[Left–right political spectrum|ideological spectrum]] in polling data alongside renewed interest in [[socialism]], [[communism]], and [[Nazism]] that is reflective of ignorance of the history of the 20th century).<ref name="Haidt & Rose-Stockwell">{{cite news|last1=Haidt|first1=Jonathan|author-link1=Jonathan Haidt|last2=Rose-Stockwell|first2=Tobias|title=The Dark Psychology of Social Networks|work=[[The Atlantic]]|publisher=[[Emerson Collective]]|year=2019|volume=324|issue=6|pages=57–60|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/social-media-democracy/600763/|access-date=June 11, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Gregory|first=Andy|title=More than a third of millennials approve of communism, YouGov poll indicates|date=November 7, 2019|work=[[The Independent]]|publisher=Independent Digital News & Media Ltd|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/communism-millennials-capitalism-socialism-bernie-sanders-cold-war-yougov-a9188116.html|access-date=June 11, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Saad|first=Lydia|title=Socialism as Popular as Capitalism Among Young Adults in U.S.|date=November 25, 2019|publisher=[[Gallup (company)|Gallup]]|url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capitalism-among-young-adults.aspx|access-date=June 11, 2020}}</ref> Facebook has, at least in the political field, a counter-effect on being informed: in two studies from the US with a total of more than 2,000 participants, the influence of social media on the general knowledge on political issues was examined in the context of two US presidential elections. The results showed that the frequency of Facebook use was moderately negatively related to general political knowledge. This was also the case when considering demographic, political-ideological variables and previous political knowledge. According to the latter, a causal relationship is indicated: the higher the Facebook use, the more the general political knowledge declines.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Lee|first1=Sangwon|last2=Xenos|first2=Michael|year=2019|title=Social distraction? Social media use and political knowledge in two U.S. Presidential elections|journal=Computers in Human Behavior|language=en|volume=90|pages=18–25|doi=10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.006|s2cid=53734285}}</ref> In 2019, Jonathan Haidt argued that there is a "very good chance American democracy will fail, that in the next 30 years we will have a catastrophic failure of our democracy."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/americas-uncivil-war-on-democracy/news-story/45a86ac9b438b85dce0bbbd289e1604e|title=America's Uncivil War on Democracy|author=Kelly, Paul|website=TheAustralian.com|publisher=[[The Australian]]|access-date=July 20, 2019}} Access by subscription only (February 2021).</ref> Following the [[2021 United States Capitol attack]], in February 2021, Facebook announced that it would reduce the amount of political content in users News Feeds.<ref>{{cite interview|last=Dwoskin|first=Elizabeth|interviewer=[[Tonya Mosley]]|date=February 16, 2021|title=Facebook To Scale Back Politics In Users' News Feeds|work=[[Here and Now (Boston)|Here and Now]]|publisher=[[WBUR-FM|WBUR]]|url=https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/02/16/facebook-politics-news-feed|access-date=August 9, 2021}}</ref> === Other psychological effects === It has been admitted by many students that they have experienced [[bullying]] on the site, which leads to psychological harm. Students of high schools face a possibility of bullying and other adverse behaviors over Facebook every day. Many studies have attempted to discover whether Facebook has a positive or negative effect on children's and teenagers' social lives, and many of them have come to the conclusion that there are distinct social problems that arise with Facebook usage. British neuroscientist [[Susan Greenfield, Baroness Greenfield|Susan Greenfield]] stuck up for the issues that children encounter on social media sites. She said that they can rewire the brain, which caused some hysteria over whether or not social networking sites are safe. She did not back up her claims with research, but did cause quite a few studies to be done on the subject. When that self is then broken down by others by badmouthing, criticism, harassment, criminalization or vilification, intimidation, demonization, demoralization, belittlement, or attacking someone over the site it can cause much of the envy, anger, or depression.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Are social networking sites breeding antisocial young people? |first=Alanna |last=Bromley |journal=Journal of Digital Research and Publishing |year=2011 |url=http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/8137/1/DRPJournal_5pm_S2_2011.pdf#page=7}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WoP0y3SylQ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211221/3WoP0y3SylQ |archive-date=2021-12-21 |url-status=live|title=Students Take On Cyberbullying|via=YouTube}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=My Best Day: Presentation of Self and Social Manipulation in Facebook and IM |first=Naomi S. |last=Baron |year=2007 |url=http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/1961/5782/Baron%20-%20My%20Best%20Day.pdf?sequence=1 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130523064049/http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/1961/5782/Baron%20-%20My%20Best%20Day.pdf?sequence=1 |archive-date=May 23, 2013 }}</ref> [[Sherry Turkle]], in her book ''[[Sherry Turkle#Alone Together|Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other]]'', argues that social media brings people closer and further apart at the same time. One of the main points she makes is that there is a high risk in treating persons online with dispatch like objects. Although people are networked on Facebook, their expectations of each other tend to be lessened. According to Turkle, this could cause a feeling of loneliness in spite of being together.<ref>Turkle, Sherry (2011): Alone Together. Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.</ref> Between 2016 and 2018, the number of 12- to 15-year-olds who reported being bullied over social media rose from 6% to 11%, in the region covered by [[Ofcom]].<ref name="longfield-2019" />{{better source needed|date=January 2019}} === User influence experiments === Academic and Facebook researchers have collaborated to test if the messages people see on Facebook can influence their behavior. For instance, in "A 61-Million-Person Experiment in Social Influence And Political Mobilization", during the 2010 elections, Facebook users were given the opportunity to "tell your friends you voted" by clicking on an "I voted" button. Users were 2% more likely to click the button if it was associated with friends who had already voted.<ref name="bond20146mp">{{cite journal |author1=Robert M. Bond |author2=Christopher J. Fariss |author3=Jason J. Jones |author4=Adam D. I. Kramer |author5=Cameron Marlow |author6=Jaime E. Settle |author7=James H. Fowler |title=A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization| journal=Nature| year=2012| volume=489| issue=7415| pages=295–298| doi=10.1038/nature11421|pmid=22972300 |pmc=3834737|bibcode=2012Natur.489..295B }}</ref> Much more controversially, a 2014 study of "Emotional Contagion Through Social Networks" manipulated the balance of positive and negative messages seen by 689,000 Facebook users.<ref name="guardian2014">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-users-emotions-news-feeds|title=Facebook reveals news feed experiment to control emotions|access-date=June 30, 2014|newspaper=The Guardian|year=2014|author=Robert Booth}}</ref> The researchers concluded that they had found "some of the first experimental evidence to support the controversial claims that emotions can spread throughout a network, [though] the effect sizes from the manipulations are small."<ref name="pnas2014">{{cite journal | author=Adam D. I. Kramer, Jamie E. Guillory. Jeffrey T. Hancock|title=Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks| journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America| year=2014| volume=111| issue=24| pages=8788–8790| doi=10.1073/pnas.1320040111| pmid=24889601| pmc=4066473|bibcode=2014PNAS..111.8788K|doi-access=free}}</ref> Unlike the "I voted" study, which had presumptively beneficial ends and raised few concerns, this study was criticized for both its ethics and methods/claims. As controversy about the study grew, Adam Kramer, a lead author of both studies and member of the Facebook data team, defended the work in a Facebook update.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.facebook.com/akramer/posts/10152987150867796|title=Facebook update|website=[[Facebook]]|access-date=July 14, 2019}}{{subscription required}}</ref> A few days later, Sheryl Sandburg, Facebook's COO, made a statement while traveling abroad. While at an Indian Chambers of Commerce event in New Delhi she stated that "This was part of ongoing research companies do to test different products, and that was what it was. It was poorly communicated and for that communication we apologize. We never meant to upset you."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://money.cnn.com/2014/07/02/technology/social/facebook-apology/index.html?iid=TL_Popular|title=Facebook still won't say 'sorry' for mind games experiment |access-date=July 3, 2014|publisher=[[CNNMoney]]|author=David Goldman|date=July 2, 2014}}</ref> Shortly thereafter, on July 3, 2014, [[USA Today]] reported that the privacy watchdog group [[Electronic Privacy Information Center]] (EPIC) had filed a formal complaint with the [[Federal Trade Commission]] claiming that Facebook had broken the law when it conducted the study on the emotions of its users without their knowledge or consent. In its complaint, EPIC alleged that Facebook had deceived users by secretly conducting a psychological experiment on their emotions: "At the time of the experiment, Facebook did not state in the Data Use Policy that user data would be used for research purposes. Facebook also failed to inform users that their personal information would be shared with researchers."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Guynn|first1=Jessica|title=Privacy watchdog files complaint over Facebook study|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/07/03/facebook-emotion-study-complaint-epic/12157471/|work=[[USA Today]]|access-date=July 5, 2014|date=July 3, 2014}}</ref> Beyond the ethical concerns, other scholars criticized the methods and reporting of the study's findings. John Grohol, writing for [[Psych Central]], argued that despite its title and claims of "[[emotional contagion]]", this study did not look at emotions at all. Instead, its authors used an application (called "Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count" or LIWC 2007) that simply counted positive and negative words to infer users' sentiments. He wrote that a shortcoming of the LIWC tool is that it does not understand negations. Hence, the tweet "I am not happy" would be scored as positive: "Since the LIWC 2007 ignores these subtle realities of informal human communication, so do the researchers." Grohol concluded that given these subtleties, the [[effect size]] of the findings are little more than a "statistical blip". <blockquote>Kramer et al. (2014) found a 0.07%—that's not 7 percent, that's 1/15th of one percent!!—decrease in negative words in people's status updates when the number of negative posts on their Facebook news feed decreased. Do you know how many words you'd have to read or write before you've written one less negative word due to this effect? Probably thousands.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Grohol|first1=John|title=Emotional Contagion on Facebook? More Like Bad Research Methods|url=http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2014/06/23/emotional-contagion-on-facebook-more-like-bad-research-methods/|website=[[Psych Central]]|publisher=[[PsychCentral]]|access-date=July 12, 2014|archive-date=July 12, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140712053542/http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2014/06/23/emotional-contagion-on-facebook-more-like-bad-research-methods/|url-status=dead}}</ref></blockquote> The consequences of the controversy are pending (be it FTC or court proceedings) but it did prompt an "Editorial Expression of Concern"<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sciences|first=National Academy of|date=July 22, 2014|title=Editorial Expression of Concern: Experimental evidence of massivescale emotional contagion through social networks|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|language=en|volume=111|issue=29|pages=10779|doi=10.1073/pnas.1412469111|issn=0027-8424|pmid=24994898|pmc=4115552|bibcode=2014PNAS..11110779.|doi-access=free}}</ref> from its publisher, the [[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]], as well as a blog posting from [[OkCupid]] titled "We experiment on human beings!"<ref>{{cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150123110808/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/we-experiment-on-human-beings/|url=http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/we-experiment-on-human-beings/|date=July 28, 2014|first=Christian|last=Rudder|archive-date=January 23, 2015|title=We experiment on human beings|website=okcupid.com|access-date=July 14, 2019}}</ref> In September 2014, law professor James Grimmelmann argued that the actions of both companies were "illegal, immoral, and mood-altering" and filed notices with the Maryland Attorney General and Cornell Institutional Review Board.<ref>{{cite web | first1 = James | last1 = Grimmelmann | title = Illegal, immoral, and mood-altering: How Facebook and OkCupid broke the law when they experimented on users | date = September 23, 2014 |url=https://medium.com/@JamesGrimmelmann/illegal-unethical-and-mood-altering-8b93af772688 | access-date = September 24, 2014}}</ref> In the UK, the study was also criticized by the [[British Psychological Society]] which said, in a letter to ''[[The Guardian]]'', "There has undoubtedly been some degree of harm caused, with many individuals affected by increased levels of negative emotion, with consequent potential economic costs, increase in possible mental health problems and burden on health services. The so-called 'positive' manipulation is also potentially harmful."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/01/facebook-socially-irresponsible |title=Facebook's 'experiment' was socially irresponsible |work=The Guardian |date=July 1, 2014 |access-date=August 4, 2014}}</ref> == Tax avoidance == {{See also|Ireland as a tax haven}} Facebook uses a complicated series of [[Shell corporations|shell companies]] in [[tax haven]]s to avoid paying billions of dollars in [[corporate tax]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/23/facebook-tax-profits-outside-us|title=Facebook paid £2.9m tax on £840m profits made outside US, figures show|first=Rupert|last=Neate|date=December 23, 2012|access-date=October 25, 2016|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref> According to ''[[The Express Tribune]]'', Facebook is among the corporations that "avoided billions of dollars in tax using offshore companies."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/1550750/3-paradise-papers-reveal-hidden-wealth-global-elite/ |title=Paradise Papers reveal hidden wealth of global elite|work=[[The Express Tribune]]|date= November 6, 2017}}</ref> For example, Facebook routes billions of dollars in profits using the [[Double Irish arrangement|Double Irish]] and [[Dutch Sandwich (tax avoidance)|Dutch Sandwich]] tax avoidance schemes to bank accounts in the [[Cayman Islands]]. The Dutch newspaper ''[[NRC Handelsblad]]'' concluded from the [[Paradise Papers]] published in late 2017 that Facebook pays "practically no taxes" worldwide.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/11/10/belastingontwijking-is-simpel-op-te-lossen-13926791-a1580748|newspaper=[[NRC Handelsblad]]|date=November 11, 2017|access-date=July 14, 2019|title=Belastingontwijking is simpel op te lossen|first= Wouter|last=van Noort|trans-title=Tax avoidance can easily be solved|language=nl}} The quote, as heading of the article, comes from the French economist [[Gabriel Zucman]].</ref> For example, Facebook paid: * In 2011, £2.9m tax on £840m profits in the UK; * In 2012 and 2013 no tax in the UK; * In 2014 £4,327 tax on hundreds of millions of pounds in UK revenues which were transferred to tax havens.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34504474|title=Facebook paid £4,327 corporation tax in 2014|date=October 12, 2015|access-date=October 25, 2016|publisher=BBC}}</ref> According to economist and member of the [[PvdA (NL)|PvdA]] delegation inside the [[Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats|Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats in the European Parliament]] (S&D) [[Paul Tang (politician)|Paul Tang]], between 2013 and 2015 the EU lost an estimated €1,453m&nbsp;– €2,415m to Facebook.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://static.financieel-management.nl/documents/16690/EU-Tax-Revenue-Loss-from-Google-and-Facebook.pdf|title=EU Tax Revenue Loss from Google and Facebook|last=Tang|first=Paul|date=September 2017}}</ref> When comparing to others countries outside the EU, the EU is only taxing Facebook with a rate of 0.03% to 0.1% of its revenue (around 6% of its EBT) whereas this rate is near 28% in countries outside the EU. Even had a rate between 2% and 5% been applied during this period – as suggested by the [[Economic and Financial Affairs Council|ECOFIN]] Council – a fraud of this rate by Facebook would have meant a loss to the EU between €327m and €817m.<ref name=":5" /> {| class="wikitable" |+Revenues, profits, tax and effective tax rates, Facebook Inc. 2013–2015.<ref name=":5" /> ! colspan="2" rowspan="2" | ! colspan="3" |Revenue (m EUR) ! colspan="3" |EBT (m EUR) ! colspan="3" |Tax (m EUR) ! colspan="3" |Tax / EBT ! colspan="3" |Tax / Revenue |- !Total !EU !Rest of the world !Total !EU !Rest of the world !Total !EU !Rest of the world !Total !EU !Rest of the world !Total !EU !Rest of the world |- |'''Facebook Inc.''' |'''2013''' |5,720 |3,069 |2,651 |2,001 |(4) |2,005 |911 |3 |908 |46% |n.a |45% |15.93% |'''0.10%''' |'''34.25%''' |- | |'''2014''' |10,299 |5,017 |5,282 |4,057 |(20) |4,077 |1,628 |5 |1,623 |40% |n.a |40% |15.81% |'''0.09%''' |'''30.73%''' |- | |'''2015''' |16,410 |8,253 |8,157 |5,670 |(43) |5,627 |2,294 |3 |2,291 |40% |6% |41% |13.98% |'''0.03%''' |'''28.09%''' |} On July 6, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a petition in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, asking for a court order to enforce an administrative summons issued to Facebook, Inc., under [[Internal Revenue Code]] section 7602,<ref>{{usc|26|7602}}.</ref> in connection with an [[Internal Revenue Service]] examination of Facebook's year 2010 U.S. Federal income tax return.<ref>Seth Fiegerman, "Facebook is being investigated by the IRS", July 7, 2016, CNN, at [https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/07/technology/facebook-irs-investigation/index.html].</ref><ref>''United States of America v. Facebook, Inc. and Subsidiaries'', case no. 16-cv-03777, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco Div.).</ref> In November 2017, the ''[[Irish Independent]]'' recorded that for the 2016 financial year, Facebook had paid €30&nbsp;million of [[Corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland|Irish corporation tax]] on €12.6&nbsp;billion of revenues that were routed through Ireland, giving an [[Corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland#ETR|Irish effective tax rate]] of under 1%.<ref name="wwx">{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.ie/business/technology/facebook-paid-just-30m-tax-in-ireland-despite-earning-12bn-36362527.html|title=Facebook paid just €30m tax in Ireland despite earning €12bn|work=Irish Independent|date=November 29, 2017}}</ref> The €12.6&nbsp;billion of 2016 Facebook revenues routed through Ireland was almost half of Facebook's global revenues.<ref name="face3">{{cite news|url=https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/facebook-ireland-pays-tax-of-just-30m-on-126bn-816238.html|title=Facebook Ireland pays tax of just €30m on €12.6bn|newspaper=Irish Examiner|date=November 29, 2017}}</ref> In April 2018, ''[[Reuters]]'' wrote that all of Facebook's non–U.S. accounts were legally housed in Ireland for tax purposes, but were being moved due to the May 2018 EU [[GDPR]] regulations.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-eu-exclusive/exclusive-facebook-to-put-1-5-billion-users-out-of-reach-of-new-eu-privacy-law-idUSKBN1HQ00P|title=Exclusive: Facebook to put 1.5 billion users out of reach of new EU privacy law|work=[[Reuters]]|author=David Ingram|date=April 18, 2018}}</ref> In November 2018, the ''[[Irish Times]]'' reported that Facebook routed over €18.7&nbsp;billion of revenues through Ireland (almost half all global revenues), on which it paid €38&nbsp;million of Irish corporation tax.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/facebook-ireland-pays-38m-tax-on-251m-profit-1.3713161|title=Facebook Ireland pays €38m tax on €18.7 billion of revenue channeled through Ireland in 2017|newspaper=[[The Irish Times]]|author=Peter Hamilton|date=November 28, 2018|quote=The social media giant channelled €18.7 billion in revenue through its Irish subsidiary, an increase of 48 per cent from the €12.6 billion recorded in 2016. While gross profit amounted to €18.1 billion, administrative expenses of €17.8 billion meant profit before tax increased 44 per cent to €251 million.}}</ref> == Treatment of employees and contractors == === Moderators === {{See also|Cognizant#Working conditions and mental health issues|Arvato#Facebook content moderation}} Facebook hires some employees through contractors, including [[Accenture]], [[Arvato]], [[Cognizant]], [[CPL Resources]], and [[Genpact]], to serve as [[content moderators]], reviewing potentially problematic content posted to both Facebook and Instagram.{{refn|<ref name=verge19>{{cite web |last1=Newton |first1=Casey |title=THE TRAUMA FLOOR: The secret lives of Facebook moderators in America |url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona |access-date=February 25, 2019 |website=The Verge |date=February 25, 2019}}</ref><ref name="Irish Times moderators">{{cite web|first1=Jennifer|last1=O'Connell|access-date=June 21, 2019|title=Facebook's dirty work in Ireland: 'I had to watch footage of a person being beaten to death'|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/facebook-s-dirty-work-in-ireland-i-had-to-watch-footage-of-a-person-being-beaten-to-death-1.3841743|website=[[The Irish Times]]|date=March 30, 2019}}</ref><ref name="Bodies in Seats">{{cite web|first1=Casey|last1=Newton|access-date=June 21, 2019|title=Three Facebook moderators break their NDAs to expose a company in crisis|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/19/18681845/facebook-moderator-interviews-video-trauma-ptsd-cognizant-tampa|date=June 19, 2019|website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|first1=Queenie|last1=Wong|access-date=June 21, 2019|title=Murders and suicides: Here's who keeps them off your Facebook feed|url=https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-content-moderation-is-an-ugly-business-heres-who-does-it/|publisher=[[CNET]]|date=June 19, 2019}}</ref>}} Many of these contractors face unrealistic expectations, harsh working conditions, and constant exposure to disturbing content, including [[graphic violence]], [[animal abuse]], and [[child pornography]].<ref name=verge19 /><ref name="Irish Times moderators" /> Contractor employment is contingent on achieving and maintaining a score of 98 on a 100-point scale on a metric known as "accuracy". Falling below a score of 98 can result in [[Dismissal (employment)|dismissal]]. Some have reported [[posttraumatic stress disorder]] (PTSD) stemming from lack of access to counseling, coupled with unforgiving expectations and the violent content they are assigned to review.<ref name=verge19 /> Content moderator Keith Utley, who was employed by Cognizant, experienced a heart attack during work in March 2018; the office lacked a [[defibrillator]], and Utley was transported to a hospital where he died.<ref name="Bodies in Seats" /><ref>{{cite web|first1=Lisa|last1=Eadicicco|access-date=June 20, 2019|title=A Facebook content moderator died after suffering heart attack on the job|url=https://www.mysanantonio.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Facebook-content-moderator-died-after-heart-attack-14018228.php|date=June 19, 2019|website=[[San Antonio Express-News]]}}</ref> Selena Scola, an employee of contractor Pro Unlimited, Inc., sued her employer after she developed PTSD as a result of "constant and unmitigated exposure to highly toxic and extremely disturbing images at the workplace".<ref>{{cite web|first1=Emanuel|last1=Maiberg|first2=Jason|last2=Koebler|first3=Joseph|last3=Cox|access-date=June 21, 2019|title=A Former Content Moderator Is Suing Facebook Because the Job Reportedly Gave Her PTSD|url=https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zm5mw5/facebook-content-moderation-lawsuit-ptsd|date=September 24, 2018|website=[[Vice Media|Vice]]}}</ref> In December 2019, former Cpl employee Chris Gray began legal action in the High Court of Ireland, claiming damages for PTSD suffered as a moderator,<ref>{{cite web|first1=Chris|last1=Gray|first2=Alex|last2=Hern|access-date=February 25, 2020|title=Ex-Facebook worker claims disturbing content led to PTSD |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/04/ex-facebook-worker-claims-disturbing-content-led-to-ptsd|date=December 4, 2019|website=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref> the first of an estimated 20+ pending cases. In February 2020, employees in Tampa, Florida filed a lawsuit against Facebook and Cognizant alleging they developed PTSD and related mental health impairments as a result of constant and unmitigated exposure to disturbing content.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Facebook sued by Tampa workers who say they suffered trauma from watching videos|url=https://tampabay.com/news/2020/02/06/facebook-sued-by-tampa-workers-who-suffered-trauma-from-watching-videos/|website=Tampa Bay Times|language=en|access-date=May 8, 2020}}</ref> In February 2020, the European Union Commissioners criticized the plans that Facebook has for dealing with the working conditions of those who are contracted to moderate content on the social media platform.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/facebooks-approach-to-content-moderation-slammed-by-eu-commissioners/|title=Facebook's approach to content moderation slammed by EU commissioners|last=Leprince-Ringuet|first=Daphne|publisher=ZDNet|language=en|access-date=February 19, 2020}}</ref> Facebook agreed to settle a [[class action lawsuit]] for $52&nbsp;million on May 12, 2020, which included a $1,000 payment to each of the 11,250 moderators in the class, with additional compensation available for the treatment of PTSD and other conditions resulting from the jobs.<ref>{{cite web|first1=Casey|last1=Newton|access-date=June 1, 2020|title=Facebook will pay $52 million in settlement with moderators who developed PTSD on the job|url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/21255870/facebook-content-moderator-settlement-scola-ptsd-mental-health|date=May 12, 2020|website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|access-date=June 1, 2020|title=In Settlement, Facebook To Pay $52 Million To Content Moderators With PTSD|url=https://www.npr.org/2020/05/12/854998616/in-settlement-facebook-to-pay-52-million-to-content-moderators-with-ptsd|publisher=[[NPR]]|first=Bobby|last=Allyn|date=May 12, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|access-date=June 1, 2020|title=Facebook to pay $52m for failing to protect moderators from 'horrors' of graphic content|url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/12/facebook-settlement-mental-health-moderators|date=May 13, 2020|website=[[The Guardian]]|first=Kari|last=Paul}}</ref> === Employees === Plans for a Facebook-owned real estate development known as "[[Willow Village]]" have been criticized for resembling a "[[company town]]", which often curtails the rights of residents, and encourages or forces employees to remain within an environment created and monitored by their employer outside of work hours.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Streitfeld |first1=David |title=Welcome to Zucktown. Where Everything Is Just Zucky. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/technology/facebook-zucktown-willow-village.html |access-date=February 25, 2019 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=March 21, 2018}}</ref> Critics have referred to the development as "Zucktown" and "Facebookville" and the company has faced additional criticism for the effect it will have on existing communities in California. The operational manager at Facebook as of March 2021, along with three former candidates of the Facebook hiring process complained to the EEOC of racial bias being practiced at the company against Black people. The current employee, Oscar Veneszee Jr. accused the firm of conducting subjective evaluations and pushing the idea of racial stereotypes. The EEOC has labeled the practice as 'systemic' racial bias and has initiated an investigation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/05/facebook-systemic-racial-bias-hiring-eeoc-investigation|title=Facebook faces US investigation for 'systemic' racial bias in hiring|access-date=March 6, 2021|website=The Guardian|date=March 6, 2021}}</ref> == Misleading campaigns against competitors == In May 2011, emails were sent to journalists and bloggers making critical allegations about Google's privacy policies; however, it was later discovered that the anti-Google campaign, conducted by PR giant [[Burson-Marsteller]], was paid for by Facebook in what CNN referred to as "a new level skullduggery" and which ''[[The Daily Beast|Daily Beast]]'' called a "clumsy smear". While taking responsibility for the campaign, Burson-Marsteller said it should not have agreed to keep its client's (Facebook's) identity a secret. "Whatever the rationale, this was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should have been declined", it said.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://money.cnn.com/2011/05/12/technology/facebook_google/index.htm|title=Facebook vs. Google fight turns nasty|first=Julianne|last=Pepitone|website=CNNMoney|access-date=February 23, 2019}}</ref> In December 2020, [[Apple Inc.|Apple Inc]]. announced an initiative of Anti-Tracking measures (opt-in tracking policy) to be introduced to their App Store Services. Facebook quickly reacted and started to criticise the initiative, claiming the Apple's anti-tracking privacy focused change will have "harmful impact on many small businesses that are struggling to stay afloat and on the free internet that we all rely on more than ever". Facebook also launched a so-called "Speak Up For Small Businesses" page. Apple in their response stated that "users should know when their data is being collected and shared across other apps and websites – and they should have the choice to allow that or not". Apple was also backed up by [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) who stated that "Facebook touts itself in this case as protecting small businesses, and that couldn't be further from the truth".<ref>{{Cite web|title=EFF Calls Facebook's Criticism of Apple's Pro-Privacy Tracking Change 'Laughable'|url=https://www.macrumors.com/2020/12/19/eff-calls-facebook-criticism-of-apple-laughable/|access-date=February 9, 2021|website=MacRumors|language=en}}</ref> == Copying competitors' products and features == Beyond acquiring competitors in the social and messaging space with strong potential, Facebook often simply copies products or features to get to the market faster. Internal emails have shown that Facebook's leadership, including Mark Zuckerberg were frustrated by the time the company spends on prototyping,and suggested to explore copying entire products like Pinterest. "Copying is faster than innovating" – admitted an employee on the internal email thread, which continued: "If you gave the top-down order to go ahead, copy e.g. Pinterest or the gaming dynamics on Foursquare ... I am sure [a] very small team of engineers, a [product manager], and a designer would get it done super quickly."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348082/zuckerberg-facebook-house-committee-emails-app-development-speed-copying-innovation|title = Emails show Mark Zuckerberg feared app startups were building faster than Facebook in 2012|date = July 30, 2020}}</ref><ref>https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/0006754900067553.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref> Many Facebook employees seem to be questioning Facebook's approach of cloning competitors. According to leaks, a top quoted question in Facebook's internal all-hands was: "What is our next big product, which does not imitate already existing products on the market?"<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://techweez.com/2021/04/23/facebook-employees-tired-of-cloning-apps-features/|title = Facebook Employees Are Tired of Cloning Apps and Features|date = April 23, 2021}}</ref> === Snapchat === In 2014 Facebook launched Slingshot, an app for sending ephemeral photos like Snapchat does. In 2016 the company built Instagram Stories, which is a copy of Snapchat's most popular feature.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/2018/10/30/18044962/facebook-stories-business-user-growth-q3-earnings-zuckerberg|title = The 'Stories' product that Facebook copied from Snapchat is now Facebook's future|date = October 30, 2018}}</ref> === TikTok === In August 2020, Facebook has built Instagram Reels, a feature that functions and looks similar to TikTok.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/08/05/as-facebook-launches-tiktok-clone-a-look-back-at-6-other-rival-products-it-copied/?sh=31ac8a455c5a|title = As Facebook Launches TikTok Clone, A Look Back at 6 Other Rival Products It Copied|website = [[Forbes]]}}</ref> === Pinterest === Facebook, for several months, was experimenting with an app called Hobbi, that took many cues from Pinterest.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/13/facebooks-latest-experiment-is-hobbi-an-app-to-document-your-personal-projects/|title = Facebook's latest experiment is Hobbi, an app to document your personal projects}}</ref> === Clubhouse === In the summer of 2021, Facebook started to roll out Live Audio Rooms, which resembles Clubhouse.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/21/22540508/facebook-live-audio-rooms-clubhouse-rival-spaces-greenhouse|title = Facebook's Clubhouse competitor starts rolling out in the US today|date = June 21, 2021}}</ref> == Content == {{Main|Facebook content management controversies}} {{Cleanup split|Facebook content management controversies|date=March 2022}} Facebook has been criticized for removing or allowing various content on posts, photos and entire groups and profiles. == Technical == === Real-name policy controversy and compromise === {{Main|Facebook real-name policy controversy}} Facebook has a [[real-name system]] policy for [[user profile]]s. The real-name policy stems from the position "that way, you always know who you're connecting with. This helps keep our community safe."<ref name="Grinberg" /> The real-name system does not allow adopted names or pseudonyms,<ref>{{cite web |first=Caroline |last=Copley |title=German court rules Facebook may block pseudonyms |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-germany-pseudonymns-idUSKCN0W521V |work=[[Reuters]] |date=March 4, 2016 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and in its enforcement has suspended accounts of legitimate users, until the user provides identification indicating the name.<ref name="fake name-very rare">{{cite web |first=Barbara |last=Ortutay |title=Real users caught in Facebook fake-name purge |url=http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Real-users-caught-in-Facebook-fake-name-purge-3231397.php |website=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |publisher=[[Hearst Communications]] |date=May 25, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> Facebook representatives have described these incidents as very rare.<ref name="fake name-very rare" /> A user claimed responsibility via the [[Anonymous social media|anonymous]] [[Android (operating system)|Android]] and [[iOS]] app [[Secret (app)|Secret]] for reporting "fake names" which caused user profiles to be suspended, specifically targeting the stage names of [[drag queen]]s.<ref>{{cite web |first=Karyne |last=Levy |title=Facebook Apologizes For 'Real Name' Policy That Forced Drag Queens To Change Their Profiles |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-apologizes-for-real-name-policy-2014-10 |website=[[Business Insider]] |publisher=[[Axel Springer SE]] |date=October 1, 2014 |access-date=March 23, 2017}}</ref> On October 1, 2014, [[Chris Cox (Facebook)|Chris Cox]], Chief Product Officer at Facebook, offered an apology: "In the two weeks since the real-name policy issues surfaced, we've had the chance to hear from many of you in these communities and understand the policy more clearly as you experience it. We've also come to understand how painful this has been. We owe you a better service and a better experience using Facebook, and we're going to fix the way this policy gets handled so everyone affected here can go back to using Facebook as you were."<ref>{{cite web |first=Jordan |last=Crook |title=Facebook Apologizes To LGBT Community And Promises Changes To Real Name Policy |url=https://techcrunch.com/2014/10/01/facebook-apologizes-to-lgbt-community-and-promises-changes-to-real-name-policy/ |website=[[TechCrunch]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=October 1, 2014 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> On December 15, 2015, Facebook announced in a press release<ref>{{cite web |url=http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/12/community-support-fyi-improving-the-names-process-on-facebook/ |title=Community Support FYI: Improving the Names Process on Facebook |last1=Osofsky |first1=Jason |last2=Gage |first2=Todd |date=December 15, 2015 |website=Facebook Newsroom |via=Facebook |access-date=December 16, 2015}}</ref> that it would be providing a compromise to its real name policy after protests from groups such as the gay/lesbian community and abuse-victims.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/facebook-modifies-real-names-policy-testing-use-of-assumed-names-1.2702400 |title=Facebook modifies 'real names' policy, testing use of assumed names |last=AFP |date=December 16, 2015 |website=CTV News |access-date=December 16, 2015}}</ref> The site is developing a protocol that will allow members to provide specifics as to their "special circumstance" or "unique situation" with a request to use pseudonyms, subject to verification of their true identities. At that time, this was already being tested in the U.S. Product manager Todd Gage and vice president of global operations Justin Osofsky also promised a new method for reducing the number of members who must go through ID verification while ensuring the safety of others on Facebook. The fake name reporting procedure will also be modified, forcing anyone who makes such an allegation to provide specifics that would be investigated and giving the accused individual time to dispute the allegation.<ref>{{cite web |first=Amanda |last=Holpuch |title=Facebook adjusts controversial 'real name' policy in wake of criticism |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/15/facebook-change-controversial-real-name-policy |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=December 15, 2015 |access-date=March 23, 2017}}</ref> === Deleting users' statuses === There have been complaints of user statuses being mistakenly or intentionally deleted for alleged violations of Facebook's posting guidelines. Especially for non-English speaking writers, Facebook does not have a proper support system to genuinely read the content and make decisions. Sometimes the content of a status did not have any "abusive" or defaming language, but it nevertheless got deleted on the basis that it had been secretly reported by a group of people as "offensive". For other languages than English, Facebook till now is not able to identify the group approach that is used to vilify humanitarian activism. In another incident, Facebook had to apologize after it deleted a free speech group's post about the abuse of human rights in Syria. In that case, a spokesman for Facebook said the post was "mistakenly" removed by a member of its moderation team, which receives a high volume of take-down requests.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jul/06/facebook-apologises-free-speech-syria |title=Facebook apologises for deleting free speech group's post on Syrian torture |website=The Guardian |date=July 6, 2013 |access-date=June 4, 2013|location=London |first=Josh |last=Halliday}}</ref> === Enabling of harassment === Facebook instituted a policy by which it is now self-policed by the community of Facebook users.{{when|date=February 2015}} Some users have complained that this policy allows Facebook to empower abusive users to harass them by allowing them to submit reports on even benign comments and photos as being "offensive" or "in violation of Facebook Rights and Responsibilities" and that enough of these reports result in the user who is being harassed in this way getting their account blocked for a predetermined number of days or weeks, or even deactivated entirely.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.softpedia.com/news/Jealous-Wives-Are-Getting-Courtney-Stodden-Banned-on-Facebook-227862.shtml |title=Jealous Wives Are Getting Courtney Stodden Banned on Facebook – Softpedia |website=News.softpedia.com |date=October 14, 2011 |access-date=July 31, 2012}}</ref> Facebook UK policy director Simon Milner told [[Wired (magazine)|''Wired'']] magazine that "Once the piece of content has been seen, assessed and deemed OK, (Facebook) will ignore further reports about it."<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.co.uk/article/online-harassment |title= When good lulz go bad: unpicking the ugly business of online harassment |magazine=Wired |date=January 27, 2014 |access-date=August 23, 2017 }}</ref> === Lack of customer support === Like almost all other Web 2.0 sites{{which|date=December 2021}}, Facebook lacks any form of live customer support beyond "community" support pages and FAQ's which offer only general troubleshooting advice, often making it impossible to resolve issues that require the services of an administrator or are not covered in the FAQs. The automated emailing system used when filling out a support form often users back to the help center or to pages that are outdated and cannot be accessed, leaving users at a dead end with no further support available. A person who lost access to Facebook or does not have an account has no easy way to contact the company directly. === Downtime and outages === Facebook has had a number of outages and downtime large enough to draw some media attention. A 2007 outage resulted in a security hole that enabled some users to read other users' personal mail.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/security/0,39044215,62030242,00.htm |title=Caroline McCarthy, "Facebook outage draws more security questions", ''CNET News.com, ZDNet Asia'', August 2, 2007 |website=Zdnetasia.com |date=August 2, 2007 |access-date=March 23, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080531013330/http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/security/0,39044215,62030242,00.htm |archive-date=May 31, 2008 |url-status=dead }}</ref> In 2008, the site was inaccessible for about a day, from many locations in many countries.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/062608_Facebook_Outage_Hits_Some_Countries |title=David Hamilton, "Facebook Outage Hits Some Countries", ''Web Host Industry Review'', Jun. 26, 2008 |website=Thewhir.com |access-date=March 23, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100402044522/http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/062608_Facebook_Outage_Hits_Some_Countries |archive-date=April 2, 2010 }}</ref> In spite of these occurrences, a report issued by [[Pingdom]] found that Facebook had less downtime in 2008 than most social-networking websites.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/social_network/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=214501925&cid=nl_IWK_daily_H |title=K.C. Jones, "Facebook, MySpace More Reliable Than Peers", ''Information Week'', February 19, 2009 |website=InformationWeek |access-date=March 23, 2010 |archive-date=March 14, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090314002839/http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/social_network/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=214501925&cid=nl_IWK_daily_H |url-status=dead }}</ref> On September 16, 2009, Facebook started having major problems loading as people signed in. This was due to a group of hackers deliberately trying to drown out a political speaker who had social networking problems from continuously speaking against the Iranian election results. Just two days later, on September 18, Facebook went down again.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://newsnidea.com/14912/facebook-outage-and-facebook-down-september-18-2009 |access-date=August 30, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100809091218/http://newsnidea.com/14912/facebook-outage-and-facebook-down-september-18-2009/ |archive-date=August 9, 2010 |title=Facebook Outage and Facebook Down September 18 2009}}</ref> In October 2009, an unspecified number of Facebook users were unable to access their accounts for over three weeks.<ref>{{cite web|last=McCarthy|first=Caroline|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10370788-36.html|title=Facebook's mounting customer service crisis &#124; The Social – CNET News|publisher=CNET|date=October 8, 2009|access-date=December 13, 2009|archive-date=February 20, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110220032915/http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10370788-36.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=McCarthy|first=Caroline|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10372417-36.html|title=Downed Facebook accounts still haven't returned &#124; The Social – CNET News|publisher=CNET|date=October 10, 2009|access-date=December 13, 2009|archive-date=October 7, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101007150340/http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10372417-36.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/173550/facebook_outage_silences_150000_users.html|title=Facebook Outage Silences 150,000 Users|magazine=PC World|date=October 13, 2009|access-date=December 13, 2009|archive-date=December 25, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091225222111/http://www.pcworld.com/article/173550/facebook_outage_silences_150000_users.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Gaudin|first=Sharon|url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139311/Facebook_deals_with_missing_accounts_150_000_angry_users|title=Facebook deals with missing accounts, 150,000 angry users|website=Computerworld|date=October 13, 2009|access-date=December 13, 2009}}</ref> On Monday, October 4, 2021, Facebook and its other apps – [[Instagram]], [[WhatsApp|Whatsapp]], [[Facebook Messenger|Messenger]], [[Oculus (brand)|Oculus]], as well as the lesser-known [[Mapillary]] – had an hours-long [[Domain Name System|DNS]]-related global outage.<ref name="Salter">{{Cite web|last=Salter|first=Jim|date=2021-10-04|title=Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Oculus are down. Here's what we know|url=https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/10/facebook-instagram-whatsapp-and-oculus-are-down-heres-what-we-know/|access-date=2021-10-04|website=Ars Technica|language=en-us}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Mapillary is currently experiencing an outage|url=https://twitter.com/mapillary/status/1445088765962166275|url-status=live|access-date=2021-10-04|website=Twitter|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211004192004/https://twitter.com/mapillary/status/1445088765962166275 |archive-date=October 4, 2021 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Patnaik|first1=Subrat|last2=Mathews|first2=Eva|date=2021-10-04|title=Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp hit by global outage|language=en|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/facebook-instagram-down-thousands-users-downdetectorcom-2021-10-04/|access-date=2021-10-04}}</ref> The outage also affected anyone using "Log in with Facebook" to access third-party sites.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Barrett|first=Brian|title=Why Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp All Went Down Today|language=en-US|magazine=Wired|url=https://www.wired.com/story/why-facebook-instagram-whatsapp-went-down-outage/|access-date=2021-10-05|issn=1059-1028}}</ref> The downtime lasted approximately five hours and fifteen minutes, from approximately 15:50 UTC to 21:05 UTC, and affected roughly three billion users.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Patnaik|first1=Subrat|last2=Mathews|first2=Eva|date=4 October 2021|title=Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp hit by global outage|work=Reuters|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/facebook-outages-idUSKBN2GU1TV|access-date=4 October 2021}}</ref> The outage was caused by a [[Border gateway protocol|BGP]] withdrawal of all of the [[Internet Protocol|IP]] routes to their [[Domain Name System|Domain Name (DNS) servers]], which were all self-hosted at the time.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Vaughan-Nichols|first=Steven J.|title=What took Facebook down: Major global outage drags on|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-took-facebook-down-major-global-outage-drags-on/|access-date=2021-10-04|website=ZDNet|language=en}}</ref><ref name="Salter"/> {{Main|2021 Facebook outage}} === Tracking cookies === Facebook has been criticized heavily for 'tracking' users, even when logged out of the site. Australian technologist [[Nik Cubrilovic]] discovered that when a user logs out of Facebook, the cookies from that login are still kept in the browser, allowing Facebook to track users on websites that include "social widgets" distributed by the social network. Facebook has denied the claims, saying they have 'no interest' in tracking users or their activity. They also promised after the discovery of the cookies that they would remove them, saying they will no longer have them on the site. A group of users in the United States have sued Facebook for breaching privacy laws.<ref>{{cite web |last=Reisinger |first=Don |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57437060-93/facebook-sued-for-$15-billion-over-alleged-privacy-infractions/ |title=Facebook sued for $15 billion over alleged privacy infractions |publisher=CNET |date=May 18, 2012 |access-date=February 23, 2014}}</ref> As of December 2015, to comply with a court order citing violations of the [[European Union]] [[Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications]] – which requires users to consent to tracking and storage of data by websites, Facebook no longer allows users in [[Belgium]] to view any content on the service, even public pages, without being registered and logged in.<ref name=verge-belgiumpages>{{cite web|title=After privacy ruling, Facebook now requires Belgium users to log in to view pages|url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/12/2/9838104/facebook-belgium-log-in-privacy-ruling-cookies|website=The Verge|access-date=December 17, 2015}}</ref> === Email address change === In June 2012, Facebook removed all existing email addresses from user profiles, and added a new @facebook.com email address. Facebook claimed this was part of adding a "new setting that gives people the choice to decide which addresses they want to show on their timelines". However, this setting was redundant to the existing "Only Me" privacy setting which was already available to hide addresses from timelines. Users complained the change was unnecessary, they did not want an @facebook.com email address, and they did not receive adequate notification their profiles had been changed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lifehacker.com/5921095/facebook-just-changed-your-email-without-permission-heres-how-to-get-it-back|title=Facebook Changed Everyone's Email to @Facebook.com; Here's How to Fix Yours|first=Whitson|last=Gordon|website=Lifehacker.com|access-date=October 25, 2016}}</ref> The change in email address was synchronized to phones due to a software bug, causing existing email addresses details to be deleted.<ref>{{cite web |first=Casey |last=Johnston |title=@facebook.com e-mail plague chokes phone address books |url=https://arstechnica.com/business/2012/07/facebook-com-e-mail-plague-chokes-phone-address-books/ |website=[[Ars Technica]] |date=July 2, 2012 |access-date=June 14, 2017}}</ref> The facebook.com email service was retired in February 2014.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/24/5443454/facebook-retires-its-email-service|title=Facebook retires its troubled @facebook.com email service|first=Ellis|last=Hamburger|date=February 24, 2014|website=The Verge|access-date=October 25, 2016}}</ref> === Safety Check bug === On March 27, 2016, following a [[2016 Lahore suicide bombing|bombing in Lahore]], Pakistan, Facebook activated its "Safety Check" feature, which allows people to let friends and loved ones know they are okay following a crisis or natural disaster, to people who were never in danger, or even close to the Pakistan explosion. Some users as far as the US, UK and Egypt received notifications asking if they were okay.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.techinsider.io/facebook-safety-check-pakistan-explosion-2016-3|title=Facebook mistakenly asked people if they were in Pakistan following a deadly explosion|website=Tech Insider|access-date=March 27, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cnet.com/news/facebooks-safety-check-malfunctions-after-pakistan-bombing/|title=Facebook's Safety Check malfunctions after Pakistan bombing|publisher=CNET|access-date=March 27, 2016}}</ref> === End-to-end encryption === In February 2021, the [[National Crime Agency]] of the UK expressed its concerns that the installation of end-to-end encryption methods would result in the spread of child pornography going undetected.<ref name=":8">{{Cite news|last=Hamilton|first=Fiona|date=May 21, 2021|title=MI5 chief Ken McCallum accuses Facebook of giving 'free pass' to terrorists|work=[[The Times]]|url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mi5-chief-ken-mccallum-accuses-facebook-of-giving-free-pass-to-terrorists-q0ffxk3ps}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Dearden|first=Lizzie|date=February 10, 2021|title=Facebook encryption will create 'hidden space' for paedophiles to abuse children, National Crime Agency warns|work=[[The Independent]]|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/facebook-encryption-paedophiles-nca-david-wilson-b1800254.html}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Davis|first=Margaret|date=May 25, 2021|title=Up to 850,000 people in UK pose sexual threat to children, says NCA|work=[[London Evening Standard]]|url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/nca-facebook-safety-norfolk-oliver-dowden-b937103.html}}</ref> Facebook representatives had previously told a UK Parliament committee that the use of these stronger encryption methods would render it easier for pedophiles to share child pornography on Facebook's networks.<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":9">{{Cite news|last=Hern|first=Alex|date=January 21, 2021|title=Facebook admits encryption will harm efforts to prevent child exploitation|work=[[The Guardian]]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/21/facebook-admits-encryption-will-harm-efforts-to-prevent-child-exploitation}}</ref> The [[National Center for Missing & Exploited Children|US-based National Center for Missing and Exploited Children]] estimates that around 70% of reports to law enforcement regarding the spread of child pornography on Facebook would be lost as a result of the implementation of end-to-end encryption.<ref name=":9" /> In May 2021, Facebook came under fire from [[Ken McCallum]], the Director-General of [[MI5]], for its plans to introduce [[end-to-end encryption]] into its Messenger and Instagram services.<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":10">{{Cite news|last=Abbot|first=Rachelle|date=May 21, 2021|title=Fed's crypto crackdown: save some of those epic gains for tax|work=[[London Evening Standard]]|url=https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/fed-s-crypto-crackdown-save-some-of-those-epic-gains-for-tax-b936545.html}}</ref> McCallum stated that the introduction of such encryption methods would prevent security organizations from viewing communications related to ongoing terrorist plots and that the implementation of end-to-end encryption would block active [[counter-terrorism]] investigations.<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite news|last=Middleton|first=Joe|date=May 21, 2021|title=MI5 chief accuses Facebook of giving 'free pass' to terrorists|work=[[The Independent]]|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mi5-chief-accuses-facebook-of-giving-free-pass-to-terrorists-b1851158.html}}</ref> == Third-party responses to Facebook == === Government censorship === {{Main|Censorship of Facebook}} Several countries have [[Censorship of Facebook|banned access to Facebook]], including Syria,<ref name="syria">{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSOWE37285020071123|title=Syria blocks Facebook in Internet crackdown|access-date=March 5, 2008|author=Yacoub Oweis, Khaled|work=Reuters|date=November 23, 2007}}</ref> China,<ref name="chinablock">{{cite web|title=China's Facebook Status: Blocked |url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/07/chinas-facebook-status-blocked.html |date=July 8, 2009 |work=ABC News |access-date=July 13, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090711081856/http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/07/chinas-facebook-status-blocked.html |archive-date=July 11, 2009 }}</ref> and Iran.<ref name="iran">{{cite web|access-date=April 30, 2008|url=http://www.hamsaweb.org/crime/4.html|title=Facebook Faces Censorship in Iran|publisher=[[American Islamic Congress]]|date=August 29, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080424001859/http://www.hamsaweb.org/crime/4.html|archive-date=April 24, 2008}}</ref> In 2010, the [[Office of the Data Protection Supervisor]], a branch of the government of the Isle of Man, received so many complaints about Facebook that they deemed it necessary to provide a "Facebook Guidance" booklet (available online as a PDF file), which cited (amongst other things) Facebook policies and guidelines and included an elusive Facebook telephone number. This number when called, however, proved to provide no telephone support for Facebook users, and only played back a recorded message advising callers to review Facebook's online help information.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/odps/facebookguidance.pdf |title=Isle of Man ODPS issues Facebook Guidance booklet |author=ODPS |year=2010 |access-date=May 1, 2013 |publisher=Office of the Data Protection Supervisor |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121102185817/http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/odps/facebookguidance.pdf |archive-date=November 2, 2012 }}</ref> In 2010, Facebook reportedly allowed an objectionable page, deemed by the Islamic Lawyers Forum (ILF), to be anti-Muslim. The ILF filed a petition with [[Pakistan]]'s [[Lahore High Court]]. On May 18, 2010, Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry ordered Pakistan's Telecommunication Authority to block access to Facebook until May 31. The offensive page had provoked street demonstrations in Muslim countries due to [[Depictions of Mohammed|visual depictions of Prophet Mohammed]], which are regarded as blasphemous by Muslims.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breakingnews/breakingnews_world/pakistan-court-orders-facebook-ban-28536530.html|title=Pakistan court orders Facebook ban|newspaper=Belfasttelegraph}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7740295/Facebook-blocked-in-Pakistan-over-Prophet-Mohammed-cartoon-row.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7740295/Facebook-blocked-in-Pakistan-over-Prophet-Mohammed-cartoon-row.html |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|location=London|title=Facebook blocked in Pakistan over Prophet Mohammed cartoon row|first=Rob|last=Crilly|date=May 19, 2010|work=The Daily Telegraph}}{{cbignore}}</ref> A spokesman said [[Pakistan Telecommunication Authority]] would move to implement the ban once the order has been issued by the Ministry of Information and Technology. "We will implement the order as soon as we get the instructions", Khurram Mehran told AFP. "We have already blocked the URL link and issued instruction to Internet service providers yesterday", he added. Rai Bashir told AFP that "We moved the petition in the wake of widespread resentment in the Muslim community against the Facebook contents". The petition called on the government of Pakistan to lodge a strong protest with the owners of Facebook, he added. Bashir said a PTA official told the judge his organization had blocked the page, but the court ordered a total ban on the site. People demonstrated outside court in the eastern city of [[Lahore]], Pakistan, carrying banners condemning Facebook. Protests in Pakistan on a larger scale took place after the ban and widespread news of that objectionable page. The ban was lifted on May 31 after Facebook reportedly assured the Lahore High Court that it would remedy the issues in dispute.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/pakistan.mohammed.day.facebook/index.html?hpt=T1|title=Pakistan blocks YouTube, Facebook over 'sacrilegious content' – CNN|date=May 21, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://geo.tv/5-20-2010/65266.htm|title=Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous material|website=GEO.tv|date=May 20, 2010|access-date=August 7, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pta.gov.pk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1390&catid=92&Itemid=301|title=Home – Pakistan Telecommunication Authority|website=Pta.gov.pk|access-date=August 7, 2010}}</ref> In 2011, a court in Pakistan was petitioned to place a permanent ban on Facebook for hosting a page called "2nd Annual Draw Muhammad Day May 20th 2011".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/archive/print/299124-lhc-moved-for-ban-on-facebook|title=LHC moved for ban on Facebook|website=The News International|access-date=December 16, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/162801/permanently-banning-facebook-court-seeks-record-of-previous-petitions/|title=Permanently banning Facebook: Court seeks record of previous petitions|date=May 6, 2011|website=The Express Tribune|access-date=December 16, 2018}}</ref> === Organizations blocking access === [[Ontario]] government employees, Federal public servants, MPPs, and cabinet ministers were blocked from access to Facebook on government computers in May 2007.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.ctvnews.ca/ont-government-employees-blocked-from-facebook-1.239854|publisher=CTV news|title=Organizations blocking Facebook}}</ref> When the employees tried to access Facebook, a warning message "The Internet website that you have requested has been deemed unacceptable for use for government business purposes". This warning also appears when employees try to access YouTube, [[MySpace]], gambling or pornographic websites.<ref>{{cite news|access-date=March 5, 2008|url=https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/05/03/facebook_banned_for_ontario_staffers.html|title=Facebook banned for Ontario staffers|newspaper=[[Toronto Star]]|date=May 3, 2007|author=Benzie, Robert}}</ref> However, innovative employees have found ways around such protocols, and many claim to use the site for political or work-related purposes.<ref>{{cite web|access-date=March 5, 2008|url=http://blogcampaigning.com/2007/05/23/ontario-politicians-close-the-book-on-facebook/|title=Ontario politicians close the book on Facebook|date=May 23, 2007|publisher=Blog Campaigning|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080314143605/http://blogcampaigning.com/2007/05/23/ontario-politicians-close-the-book-on-facebook/|archive-date=March 14, 2008}}</ref> A number of local governments including those in the UK<ref>{{cite news|access-date=February 2, 2010|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/8231234.stm|title=Facebook banned for council staff | work=BBC News | date=September 1, 2009}}</ref> and Finland<ref>{{cite web|access-date=February 2, 2010|url=http://yle.fi/alueet/keski-pohjanmaa/2009/03/tietoturvauhan_poistuminen_voi_avata_naamakirjan_kokkolassa_624024.html|title=Tietoturvauhan poistuminen voi avata naamakirjan Kokkolassa (In Finnish)|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120222044827/http://yle.fi/alueet/keski-pohjanmaa/2009/03/tietoturvauhan_poistuminen_voi_avata_naamakirjan_kokkolassa_624024.html|archive-date=February 22, 2012}}</ref> imposed restrictions on the use of Facebook in the workplace due to the technical strain incurred. Other government-related agencies, such as the [[US Marine Corps]] have imposed similar restrictions.<ref>{{cite web|access-date=February 2, 2010 |url=http://www.marines.mil/news/messages/Pages/MARADMIN0458-09.aspx |title=Immediate Ban of Internet Social Networking Sites (SNS) On Marine Corps Enterprise Network (MCEN) NIPRNET |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091225100508/http://www.marines.mil/news/messages/Pages/MARADMIN0458-09.aspx |archive-date=December 25, 2009 }}</ref> A number of hospitals in Finland have also restricted Facebook use citing privacy concerns.<ref>{{cite web|access-date=February 2, 2010|url=http://www.mediuutiset.fi/uutisarkisto/article337292.ece|title=Facebook kiellettiin Keski-Suomen sairaanhoitopiirissä (In Finnish)|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091025125634/http://www.mediuutiset.fi/uutisarkisto/article337292.ece|archive-date=October 25, 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|access-date=February 2, 2010|url=http://www.lb.kaleva.fi/uutiset/sairaanhoitopiirin-tyontekijoille-kielto-nettiyhteisoihin/835976|title=Sairaanhoitopiirin työntekijöille kielto nettiyhteisöihin (In Finnish)|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720185115/http://www.lb.kaleva.fi/uutiset/sairaanhoitopiirin-tyontekijoille-kielto-nettiyhteisoihin/835976|archive-date=July 20, 2011}}</ref> === Schools blocking access === The [[University of New Mexico]] (UNM) in October 2005 blocked access to Facebook from UNM campus computers and networks, citing unsolicited emails and a similar site called UNM Facebook.<ref name=lobo>{{cite news|first=Caleb |last=Fort |url=http://www.dailylobo.com/news/2005/10/12/News/Cirt-Blocks.Access.To.Facebook.com-1017983.shtml |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120906075236/http://www.dailylobo.com/news/2005/10/12/News/Cirt-Blocks.Access.To.Facebook.com-1017983.shtml |url-status=dead |archive-date=September 6, 2012 |title=CIRT blocks access to Facebook.com |publisher=Daily Lobo (University of New Mexico) |date=October 12, 2005 |access-date=April 3, 2006 }}</ref> After a UNM user signed into Facebook from off campus, a message from Facebook said, "We are working with the UNM administration to lift the block and have explained that it was instituted based on erroneous information, but they have not yet committed to restore your access." UNM, in a message to students who tried to access the site from the UNM network, wrote, "This site is temporarily unavailable while UNM and the site owners work out procedural issues. The site is in violation of UNM's [[Acceptable Use Policy|Acceptable Computer Use Policy]] for abusing computing resources (e.g., spamming, [[trademark infringement]], etc.). The site forces use of UNM credentials (e.g., NetID or email address) for non-UNM business." However, after Facebook created an encrypted login and displayed a precautionary message not to use university passwords for access, UNM unblocked access the following spring semester.<ref name="UNMUnlbock">{{cite news|url=http://www.unm.edu/~market/cgi-bin/archives/001003.html |title=Popular web site, Facebook.com, back online at UNM |access-date=April 15, 2007 |date=January 19, 2006 |publisher=University of New Mexico |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070212145819/http://www.unm.edu/~market/cgi-bin/archives/001003.html |archive-date=February 12, 2007 }}</ref> The ''[[Columbus Dispatch]]'' reported on June 22, 2006, that [[Kent State University]]'s [[athletic director]] had planned to ban the use of Facebook by athletes and gave them until August 1 to delete their accounts.<ref>{{cite news|first=Ryan |last=Loew |title=Kent banning athlete Web profiles |url=http://www.columbusdispatch.com/news-story.php?story=194268 |newspaper=The Columbus Dispatch |date=June 22, 2006 |access-date=October 6, 2006 }} {{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> On July 5, 2006, the ''[[Kent State University|Daily Kent Stater]]'' reported that the director reversed the decision after reviewing the privacy settings of Facebook. As long as they followed the university's policies of online conduct, they could keep their profiles.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Summer Kent Stater 5 July 2006 — Kent State University|url=https://dks.library.kent.edu/?a=d&d=sks20060705-01.2.4&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-------|access-date=October 8, 2020|website=dks.library.kent.edu}}</ref> === Closed social networks === Several web sites concerned with social networking, such as [[Salesforce.com|Salesforce]] have criticized the lack of information that users get when they share data. Advanced users cannot limit the amount of information anyone can access in their profiles, but Facebook promotes the sharing of personal information for marketing purposes, leading to the promotion of the service using personal data from users who are not fully aware of this. Facebook exposes personal data, without supporting open standards for data interchange.<ref>{{cite web |title=Closed Social Networks as a Gilded Cage |date=August 6, 2007 |url=http://everwas.com/2007/08/closed-social-networks-as-a-gilded-cage.html |access-date=February 23, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029231629/http://everwas.com/2007/08/closed-social-networks-as-a-gilded-cage.html |archive-date=October 29, 2013 |url-status=dead }}</ref> According to several communities<ref>see NSTeens [http://www.nsteens.org/videos/social-networking/ NSTeens video about private social networking] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100310171536/http://www.nsteens.org/videos/social-networking/ |date=March 10, 2010 }}</ref> and authors<ref>Lapeira's post (October 16, 2008) [http://artifactconsulting.com/blog/article.php?story=20081013121052369540 Three types of social networking] {{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> closed social networking, on the other hand, promotes data retrieval from other people while not exposing one's personal information. [[Openbook (Facebook)|Openbook]] was established in early 2010 both as a parody of Facebook and a critique of its changing privacy management protocols.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://youropenbook.org/about.html |title=Openbook – Connect and share whether you want to or not |website=Youropenbook.org |date=May 12, 2010 |access-date=August 7, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100803060358/http://youropenbook.org/about.html |archive-date=August 3, 2010 }}</ref> == Litigation == {{further|Lawsuits involving Facebook}} {{Cleanup split|Lawsuits involving Facebook|date=September 2020}} == Lobbying == In December 2021, news broke on The Wall Street Journal pointing to Meta's lobbying efforts to divide US lawmakers and "muddy the waters" in Congress, to hinder regulation following the 2021 whistleblower leaks.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-whistleblower-pushback-political-spin-zuckerberg-11640786831|title=Facebook’s Pushback: Stem the Leaks, Spin the Politics, Don’t Say Sorry|first=Keach Hagey, Georgia Wells, Emily Glazer, Deepa Seetharaman and Jeff|last=Horwitz|date=December 29, 2021|via=www.wsj.com}}</ref> Facebook's lobbyst team in Washington suggested to Republican lawmakers that the whisteblower "was trying to help Democrats," while the narrative told to Democratic staffers was that Republicans "were focused on the company's decision to ban expressions of support for Kyle Rittenhouse," The Wall Street Journal reported. According to the article, the company's goal was to "muddy the waters, divide lawmakers along partisan lines and forestall a cross-party alliance" against Facebook (now Meta) in Congress.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.yahoo.com/facebook-reportedly-told-republicans-whistleblower-162305207.html|title=Facebook reportedly told Republicans whistleblower was 'trying to help Democrats'|website=news.yahoo.com}}</ref> == Terms of use controversy == While Facebook originally made changes to its terms of use<ref name="facebook.com" /> or, [[terms of service]], on February 4, 2009, the changes went unnoticed until Chris Walters, a blogger for the consumer-oriented blog, ''[[The Consumerist]]'', noticed the change on February 15, 2009.<ref name="PC World">{{cite magazine|url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/159703/facebook_privacy_change_sparks_federal_complaint.html?tk=rel_news|magazine=PC World|title=Facebook Privacy Change Sparks Federal Complaint|access-date=March 5, 2009}}</ref> Walters complained the change gave Facebook the right to "Do anything they want with your content. Forever."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever|work=Consumerist|publisher=Consumer Media LLC|title=Facebook's New Terms Of Service: "We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever."|access-date=February 20, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091008202953/http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever|archive-date=October 8, 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref> The section under the most controversy is the "User Content Posted on the Site" clause. Before the changes, the clause read:<ref name="facebook.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/terms.php|via=Facebook|title=Niet compatibele browser|access-date=August 7, 2010}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=September 2020}}<blockquote>You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.</blockquote>The "license granted" refers to the license that Facebook has to one's "name, likeness, and image" to use in promotions and external advertising.<ref name="facebook.com" /> The new terms of use deleted the phrase that states the license would "automatically expire" if a user chose to remove content. By omitting this line, Facebook license extends to adopt users' content perpetually and irrevocably years after the content has been deleted.<ref name="PC World" /> Many users of Facebook voiced opinions against the changes to the Facebook Terms of Use, leading to an Internet-wide debate over the ownership of content. [[Electronic Privacy Information Center|The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)]] prepared a formal complaint with the [[Federal Trade Commission]]. Many individuals were frustrated with the removal of the controversial clause. Facebook users, numbering more than 38,000, joined a user group against the changes, and a number of blogs and news sites have written about this issue.<ref name="PC World" /> After the change was brought to light in Walters's blog entry, in his blog on February 16, 2009, Zuckerberg addressed the issues concerning the recently made changes to Facebook's terms of use. Zuckerberg wrote "Our philosophy is that people own their information and control who they share it with."<ref name="facebook4">{{cite web|url=http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?blog_id=company&blogger=4|via=Facebook|title=Improving Your Ability to Share and Connect|access-date=March 5, 2009}}</ref> In addition to this statement Zuckerberg explained the paradox created when people want to share their information (phone number, pictures, email address, etc.) with the public, but at the same time desire to remain in complete control of who has access to this info.<ref name="Facebook" /> To calm criticism, Facebook returned to its original terms of use. However, on February 17, 2009, Zuckerberg wrote in his blog, that although Facebook reverted to its original terms of use, it is in the process of developing new terms to address the paradox. Zuckerberg stated that these new terms will allow Facebook users to "share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand." Zuckerberg invited users to join a group entitled "Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" to give their input and help shape the new terms. On February 26, 2009, Zuckerberg posted a blog, updating users on the progress of the new Terms of Use. He wrote, "We decided we needed to do things differently and so we're going to develop new policies that will govern our system from the ground up in an open and transparent way." Zuckerberg introduces the two new additions to Facebook: the Facebook Principles<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=54964476066 |via=Facebook |title=Facebook Town Hall: Proposed Facebook Principles |access-date=March 5, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090227043045/http://www.facebook.com//group.php?gid=54964476066 |archive-date=February 27, 2009 }}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=September 2020}} and the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=67758697570 |via=Facebook |title=Facebook Town Hall: Proposed Statement of Rights and Responsibilities |access-date=March 5, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090227043055/http://www.facebook.com//group.php?gid=67758697570 |archive-date=February 27, 2009 }}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=September 2020}} Both additions allow users to vote on changes to the terms of use before they are officially released. Because "Facebook is still in the business of introducing new and therefore potentially disruptive technologies", Zuckerberg explains, users need to adjust and familiarize themselves with the products before they can adequately show their support.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?blog_id=company&blogger=4|via=Facebook|title=Governing the Facebook Service in an Open and Transparent Way|access-date=March 5, 2009}}</ref> This new voting system was initially applauded as Facebook's step to a more democratized social network system.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/160358/rewriting_facebooks_terms_of_service.html|title=Rewriting Facebook's Terms of Service|magazine=PC World|access-date=March 5, 2009}}</ref> However, the new terms were harshly criticized in a report by computer scientists from the [[University of Cambridge]], who stated that the democratic process surrounding the new terms is disingenuous and significant problems remain in the new terms.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2009/03/29/commentary-on-facebooks-terms-of-service|publisher=University of Cambridge|title=Democracy Theatre on Facebook|access-date=April 4, 2009}}</ref> The report was endorsed by the [[Open Rights Group]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2009/04/01/facebook%E2%80%99s-theatrical-rights-and-wrongs|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090406023013/http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2009/04/01/facebook%E2%80%99s-theatrical-rights-and-wrongs/|url-status=dead|archive-date=April 6, 2009|title=Facebook's theatrical rights and wrongs|publisher=Open Rights Group|access-date=April 4, 2009}}</ref> In December 2009, EPIC and a number of other U.S. privacy organizations filed another complaint<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.epic.org/privacy/inrefacebook/EPIC-FacebookComplaint.pdf|title=Complaint, Request for Investigation, Injunction, and Other Relief|website=Epic.org|access-date=December 16, 2018}}</ref> with the [[Federal Trade Commission]] (FTC) regarding Facebook's Terms of Service. In January 2011 EPIC filed a subsequent complaint<ref>{{cite web|url=http://epic.org/privacy/inrefacebook/EPIC_Facebook_Supp.pdf|title=Supplemental Materials in Support of Pending Complaint and Request for Injunction, Request for Investigation and for Other Relief|website=Epic.org|access-date=December 16, 2018}}</ref> claiming that Facebook's new policy of sharing users' home address and mobile phone information with third-party developers were "misleading and fail[ed] to provide users clear and privacy protections", particularly for children under age 18.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/01/business/la-fi-facebook-minors-20110301 |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=March 1, 2011 |title=Facebook reconsiders allowing third-party applications to ask minors for private information |last=Puzzanghera |first=Jim}}</ref> Facebook temporarily suspended implementation of its policy in February 2011, but the following month announced it was "actively considering" reinstating the third-party policy.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://epic.org/2011/03/facebook-resumes-plan-to-discl.html|title=EPIC – Facebook Resumes Plan to Disclose User Home Addresses and Mobile Phone Numbers|first=Electronic Privacy Information|last=Center|website=epic.org}}</ref> == Interoperability and data portability == Facebook has been criticized for failing to offer users a feature to export their friends' information, such as contact information, for use with other services or software. The inability of users to export their [[social graph]] in an [[open standard]] format contributes to [[vendor lock-in]] and contravenes the principles of [[data portability]].<ref>{{cite web|first=Gavin|last=Baker|title=Free software vs. software-as-a-service: Is the GPL too weak for the Web?|url=http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/free_software_vs_software_service|work=[[Free Software Magazine]]|date=May 27, 2008|access-date=June 29, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130517024735/http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/free_software_vs_software_service|archive-date=May 17, 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref> Automated collection of user information without Facebook's consent violates its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,<ref>{{cite web|title=Statement of Rights and Responsibilities|url=http://www.facebook.com/terms.php|via=Facebook|date=May 1, 2009|access-date=June 29, 2009}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=September 2020}} and third-party attempts to do so (e.g., [[Web scraping]]) have resulted in litigation, [[Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.|Power.com]]. Facebook Connect has been criticized for its lack of [[interoperability]] with [[OpenID]].<ref>{{cite news|first=Michael|last=Calore|title=As Facebook Connect Expands, OpenID's Challenges Grow|url=https://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/12/as-facebook-con|magazine=Wired|date=December 1, 2008|access-date=June 29, 2009|quote=Facebook Connect was developed independently using proprietary code, so Facebook's system and OpenID are not interoperable.&nbsp;... This is a clear threat to the vision of the Open Web, a future when data is freely shared between social websites using open source technologies.}}</ref> === Lawsuits over privacy === Facebook's strategy of making revenue through advertising has created a lot of controversy for its users as some argue that it is "a bit creepy&nbsp;... but it is also brilliant."<ref name="What Facebook Can Sell">{{cite magazine|last1=Thompson |first1=Nicholas |title= What Facebook Can Sell |url=https://newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/02/what-facebook-can-sell.html |magazine=The New Yorker |access-date=May 18, 2014}}</ref> Some Facebook users have raised privacy concerns because they do not like that Facebook sells user's information to third parties. In 2012, users sued Facebook for using their pictures and information on a Facebook advertisement.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Barnett|first1=Emma|title=Facebook Settles Lawsuit With Angry Users|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9284486/Facebook-settles-lawsuit-with-angry-users.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9284486/Facebook-settles-lawsuit-with-angry-users.html |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|website=The Telegraph |access-date=May 18, 2014|location=London|date=May 23, 2012}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Facebook gathers user information by keeping track of pages users have "Liked" and through the interactions users have with their connections.<ref name="Dijck 2013, p. 47">Dijck 2013, p. 47.</ref> They then create value from the gathered data by selling it.<ref name="Dijck 2013, p. 47" /> In 2009 users also filed a lawsuit for Facebook's privacy invasion through the [[Facebook Beacon]] system. Facebook's team believed that through the Beacon system people could inspire their friends to buy similar products, however, users did not like the idea of sharing certain online purchases with their Facebook friends.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Farber |first1=Dan |title= Facebook Beacon Update: No Activities Published Without Users Proactively Consenting |url=https://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/facebook-beacon-update-no-activities-published-without-users-proactively-consenting/7188 |publisher=ZDNet |access-date=May 18, 2014}}</ref> Users were against Facebook's invasion of privacy and sharing that privacy with the world. Facebook users became more aware of Facebook's behavior with user information in 2009 as Facebook launched their new Terms of Service. In Facebook's terms of service, Facebook admits that user information may be used for some of Facebook's own purposes such as sharing a link to your posted images or for their own commercials and advertisements.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Sinker |first1=Daniel |title= Face/Off: How a Little Change in Facebook's User Policy is Making People Rethink the Rights They Give Away Online |url=https://huffingtonpost.com/daniel-sinker/faceoff-how-a-little-chan_b_167695.html |website=HuffPost |access-date=May 28, 2014 |date=February 17, 2009}}</ref> As Dijck argues in his book that, "the more users know about what happens to their personal data, the more inclined they are to raise objections."<ref name="Dijck 2013, p. 47" /> This created a battle between Facebook and Facebook users described as the "battle for information control".<ref name="Dijck 2013, p. 47" /> Facebook users have become aware of Facebook's intentions and people now see Facebook "as serving the interests of companies rather than its users."<ref>Dijck 2013, p. 48.</ref> In response to Facebook selling user information to third parties, concerned users have resorted to the method of "[[Obfuscation]]".<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite journal |last1=Brunton |first1=Finn |title= Vernacular Resistance to Data Collection and Analysis: A Political Theory of Obfuscation |url=http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3493/2955 |journal=First Monday |year=2011 |doi=10.5210/fm.v16i5.3493 |s2cid=46500367 |access-date=May 18, 2014}}</ref> Through obfuscation users can purposely hide their real identity and provide Facebook with false information that will make their collected data less accurate.<ref name="ReferenceA" /> By obfuscating information through sites such as FaceCloak, Facebook users have regained control of their personal information.<ref name="ReferenceA" /> == Better Business Bureau review == {{As of|2010|December}}, the [[Better Business Bureau]] gave Facebook an "A" rating.<ref name="BBB">{{cite web|url=http://sanjose.bbb.org/Business-Report/Facebook-223670|title=BBB Review of Facebook|access-date=December 12, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.trustlink.org/BusinessProfile.aspx?ID=206048589|title=TrustLink Review of Facebook.|access-date=May 5, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100613061557/http://trustlink.org/BusinessProfile.aspx?ID=206048589|archive-date=June 13, 2010|url-status=dead}}</ref> {{As of|2010|December}}, the 36-month running count of complaints about Facebook logged with the Better Business Bureau is 1136, including 101 ("Making a full refund, as the consumer requested"), 868 ("Agreeing to perform according to their contract"), 1 ("Refuse [sic] to adjust, relying on terms of agreement"), 20 ("Unassigned"), 0 ("Unanswered") and 136 ("Refusing to make an adjustment").<ref name="BBB" /> == Security == Facebook's software has proven vulnerable to [[likejacking]]. On July 28, 2010, the [[BBC]] reported that security consultant Ron Bowes used a piece of code to scan Facebook profiles to collect data of 100&nbsp;million profiles. The data collected was not hidden by the user's privacy settings. Bowes then published the list online. This list, which has been shared as a downloadable file, contains the URL of every searchable Facebook user's profile, their name and unique ID. Bowes said he published the data to highlight privacy issues, but Facebook claimed it was already public information.<ref>{{cite news|last=Emery|first=Daniel|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10796584|title=Details of 100&nbsp;m Facebook users collected and published|publisher=BBC|date=July 29, 2010|access-date=August 7, 2010}}</ref> In early June 2013, ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported that an increase in malicious links related to the [[Trojan horse (computing)|Trojan horse]] [[malware]] program [[Zeus (Trojan horse)|Zeus]] were identified by Eric Feinberg, founder of the advocacy group Fans Against Kounterfeit Enterprise (FAKE). Feinberg said that the links were present on popular [[NFL]] Facebook fan pages and, following contact with Facebook, was dissatisfied with the corporation's "after-the-fact approach". Feinberg called for oversight, stating, "If you really want to hack someone, the easiest place to start is a fake Facebook profile—it's so simple, it's stupid."<ref>{{cite news|title=Bits: Malware That Drains Your Bank Account Thriving on Facebook|url=http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/malware-that-drains-your-bank-account-thriving-on-facebook/?smid=tw-share|access-date=June 9, 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 3, 2013|author=Nicole Perlroth}}</ref> === Rewards for vulnerability reporting === On August 19, 2013, it was reported that a Facebook user from [[Palestinian Autonomy]], Khalil Shreateh, found a [[software bug|bug]] that allowed him to post material to other users' Facebook Walls. Users are not supposed to have the ability to post material to the Facebook Walls of other users unless they are approved friends of those users that they have posted material to. To prove that he was telling the truth, Shreateh posted material to Sarah Goodin's wall, a friend of Facebook CEO [[Mark Zuckerberg]]. Following this, Shreateh contacted Facebook's security team with the proof that his bug was real, explaining in detail what was going on. Facebook has a bounty program in which it compensates people a $500+ fee for reporting bugs instead of using them to their advantage or selling them on the black market. However, it was reported that instead of fixing the bug and paying Shreateh the fee, Facebook originally told him that "this was not a bug" and dismissed him. Shreateh then tried a second time to inform Facebook, but they dismissed him yet again. On the third try, Shreateh used the bug to post a message to Mark Zuckerberg's Wall, stating "Sorry for breaking your privacy&nbsp;... but a couple of days ago, I found a serious Facebook exploit" and that Facebook's security team was not taking him seriously. Within minutes, a security engineer contacted Shreateh, questioned him on how he performed the move and ultimately acknowledged that it was a bug in the system. Facebook temporarily suspended Shreateh's account and fixed the bug after several days. However, in a move that was met with much public criticism and disapproval, Facebook refused to pay out the 500+ fee to Shreateh; instead, Facebook responded that by posting to Zuckerberg's account, Shreateh had violated one of their [[terms of service]] policies and therefore "could not be paid". Included with this, the Facebook team strongly censured Shreateh over his manner of resolving the matter. In closing, they asked that Shreateh continue to help them find bugs.<ref>{{cite web|last=Bort |first=Julie |url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/researcher-facebook-ignored-bug-found-143418388.html |title=Researcher: Facebook Ignored the Bug I Found Until I Used It to Hack Zuckerberg |publisher=Yahoo! Finance |date=April 20, 2011 |access-date=August 19, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/tech/social-media/zuckerberg-facebook-hack/ |title=Zuckerberg's Facebook page hacked to prove security exploit |publisher=CNN |date=May 14, 2013 |access-date=August 19, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Tom Warren |url=https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/18/4633046/facebook-security-bug-let-anyone-post-on-walls |title=Facebook ignored security bug, researcher used it to post details on Zuckerberg's wall |website=The Verge |date=August 1, 2013 |access-date=August 19, 2013}}</ref> On August 22, 2013, [[Yahoo News]] reported that [[Marc Maiffret]], a chief technology officer of the [[Cyber security standards|cybersecurity]] firm [[BeyondTrust]], is prompting [[hacker (computer security)|hackers]] to help raise a $10,000 reward for Khalil Shreateh. On August 20, Maiffret stated that he had already raised $9,000 in his efforts, including the $2,000 he himself contributed. He and other hackers alike have denounced Facebook for refusing Shreateh compensation. Maiffret said: "He is sitting there in Palestine doing this research on a five-year-old laptop that looks like it is half broken. It's something that might help him out in a big way." Facebook representatives have since responded, "We will not change our practice of refusing to pay rewards to researchers who have tested vulnerabilities against real users." Facebook representatives also claimed they'd paid out over $1&nbsp;million to individuals who have discovered bugs in the past.<ref>{{cite web|agency=Reuters |url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hacker-exposed-facebook-bug-reward-210333258.html |title=Hacker who exposed Facebook bug to get reward from unexpected source |publisher=Yahoo! Finance |date=August 20, 2013 |access-date=August 22, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130821154141/https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hacker-exposed-facebook-bug-reward-210333258.html |archive-date=August 21, 2013 }}</ref> == Environmental impacts == {{See also|Green computing}} In 2010, [[Prineville, Oregon|Prineville]], Oregon, was chosen as the site for Facebook's new [[data center]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/01/facebook_picks_prineville_for.html|title=Facebook picks Prineville for its first data center|last=Rogoway|first=Mike|date=January 21, 2010|website=The Oregonian|access-date=January 21, 2010}}</ref> However, the center has been met with criticism from environmental groups such as [[Greenpeace]] because the power utility company contracted for the center, [[PacifiCorp]], generates 60% of its electricity from coal.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/youre-so-coal-trying-to-shame-facebook|title=You're 'So Coal': Angling to Shame Facebook | work=The New York Times | first=Leslie|last=Kaufman|date=September 17, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369306,00.asp|title=Greenpeace Attacks Facebook on Coal-Powered Data Center|work=[[PC Magazine]]| first=Chloe| last= Albanesius |date=September 17, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/facebook-dump-coal190210 |title = Facebook update: Switch to renewable energy now Greening Facebook from within | publisher=Greenpeace |date=February 17, 2010}}</ref> In September 2010, Facebook received a letter from Greenpeace containing half a million signatures asking the company to cut its ties to [[Fossil fuel power station|coal-based electricity]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Tonelli |first=Carla |url=http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/09/friendly-push-for-facebook-to-dump-coal |title='Friendly' push for Facebook to dump coal|work=Reuters|date=September 1, 2010 |access-date=February 23, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101013021557/http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/09/friendly-push-for-facebook-to-dump-coal/ |archive-date=October 13, 2010 }}</ref> On April 21, 2011, Greenpeace released a report showing that of the top ten big brands in [[cloud computing]], Facebook relied the most on coal for electricity for its data centers. At the time, data centers consumed up to 2% of all global electricity and this amount was projected to increase. [[Phil Radford]] of Greenpeace said "we are concerned that this new explosion in electricity use could lock us into old, polluting energy sources instead of the clean energy available today".<ref name="Dirty Data Report Card">{{cite web |publisher=[[Greenpeace]] |url=http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2011/Cool%20IT/dirty-data-report-greenpeace.pdf|title=Dirty Data Report Card|access-date=August 22, 2013}}</ref> On December 15, 2011, Greenpeace and Facebook announced together that Facebook would shift to use clean and renewable energy to power its own operations. Marcy Scott Lynn, of Facebook's sustainability program, said it looked forward "to a day when our primary energy sources are clean and renewable" and that the company is "working with Greenpeace and others to help bring that day closer".<ref name="Facebook and Greenpeace Settle Clean Energy Feud">{{cite web |publisher=[[Techcrunch]] |url=https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/15/facebook-greenpeace-settle-clean-energy-feud-after-two-year-campaign/ |title= Facebook and Greenpeace settle Clean Energy Feud |access-date=August 22, 2013}}</ref><ref name="Facebook Commits to Clean Energy Future">{{cite web |publisher=Greenpeace |url=http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/news-releases/Facebook-Commits-to-Clean-Energy-Future/ |title= Facebook Commits to Clean Energy Future |access-date=August 22, 2013}}</ref> == Advertising == === Click fraud === In July 2012, startup Limited Run claimed that 80% of its Facebook [[Click fraud|clicks came from bots]].<ref name="techcrunch">{{cite web|url=https://techcrunch.com/2012/07/30/startup-claims-80-of-its-facebook-ad-clicks-are-coming-from-bots/ |title=Startup Claims 80% Of Its Facebook Ad Clicks Are Coming From Bots |website=TechCrunch.com |date=January 4, 2011 |access-date=July 31, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Rodriguez |first=Salvador |url=https://latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-facebook-ads-80-percent-bots-20120730,0,1602559.story |title=Start-up says 80% of its Facebook ad clicks came from bots |website=Los Angeles Times |date= July 30, 2012|access-date=July 31, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Sengupta |first=Somini |url=http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/bots-raise-their-heads-again-on-facebook/ |title=Bots Raise Their Heads Again on Facebook |website=Bits.blogs.nytimes.com |date=April 23, 2012 |access-date=July 31, 2012}}</ref> Limited Run co-founder Tom Mango told ''[[TechCrunch]]'' that they "spent roughly a month testing this" with six [[web analytics]] services including [[Google Analytics]] and in-house software.<ref name="techcrunch" /> Click fraud (Allege reason) Limited Run said it came to the conclusion that the clicks were fraudulent after running its own analysis. It determined that most of the clicks for which Facebook was charging it came from computers that were not loading Javascript, a programming language that allows Web pages to be interactive. Almost all Web browsers load Javascript by default, so the assumption is that if a click comes from one that is not, it's probably not a real person but a bot.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2012/08/08/stung-by-click-fraud-allegations-facebook-reveals-how-its-fighting-back/|title=Stung By Click Fraud Allegations, Facebook Reveals How It's Fighting Back|first=Robert|last=Hof|website=Forbes|access-date=December 16, 2018}}</ref> === Like fraud === Facebook offers an advertising tool for pages to get more "likes".<ref name="Facebook Advertising Tools">{{cite web|url=https://www.facebook.com/help/633662000000451/?ref=u2u/ |title=Guide to the Ads Create Tool |via=Facebook|access-date=June 11, 2014}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=September 2020}} According to ''[[Business Insider]]'', this advertising tool is called "Suggested Posts" or "Suggested Pages", allowing companies to market their page to thousands of new users for as little as $50.<ref name="Facebook Advertising">{{cite web|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-advertising-fake-likes-2014-2/ |title=Facebook Advertisers Complain Of A Wave Of Fake Likes Rendering Their Pages Useless |website=Business Insider|date=February 11, 2014 |access-date=June 11, 2014}}</ref> Global Fortune 100 firms are increasingly using social media marketing tools as the number of "likes" per Facebook page has risen by 115% globally.{{clarify|date=February 2015}}<ref name="To Be or Not to Be in Social Media Arena as the Most Cost-Efficient Marketing Strategy after the Global Recession">{{cite journal|title=Efficient Marketing Strategy |journal=Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences |volume=24 |pages=260–268 |date=October 5, 2011 |doi=10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.083|last1=Kirtiş |first1=A. Kazım |last2=Karahan |first2=Filiz |doi-access=free }}</ref> Biotechnology company Comprendia investigated Facebook's "likes" through advertising by analyzing the life science pages with the most likes. They concluded that at as much as 40% of "likes" from company pages are suspected to be fake.<ref name="Fake Users">{{cite web|url=http://comprendia.com/2012/08/01/are-40-of-life-science-company-facebook-page-likes-from-fake-users/ |title=Are 40% Of Life Science Company Facebook Page 'Likes' From Fake Users? |date=August 2012 |publisher=Comprendia|access-date=June 7, 2014}}</ref> According to Facebook's annual report, an estimated 0.4% and 1.2% of active users are undesirable accounts that create fake likes.<ref name="Sec Filing">{{cite web|url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680114000007/fb-12312013x10k.htm#s51F87801223F60C3A7C3298EC93DB6AD/ |title=Facebook, Inc. Form 10K. |publisher=United States Securities and Exchange Commission|date=January 28, 2014 |access-date=June 7, 2014}}</ref> Small companies such as PubChase have publicly testified against Facebook's advertising tool, claiming legitimate advertising on Facebook creates fraudulent Facebook "likes". In May 2013, PubChase decided to build up its Facebook following through Facebook's advertising tool, which promises to "connect with more of the people who matter to you". After the first day, the company grew suspicious of the increased likes as they ended up with 900 likes from India. According to PubChase, none of the users behind the "likes" seemed to be scientists. The statistics from [[Google Analytics]] indicate that India is not in the company's main user base. PubChase continues by stating that Facebook has no interface to delete the fake likes; rather, the company must manually delete each follower themselves.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://blog.pubchase.com/what-do-facebook-likes-of-companies-mean// |title=What Do Facebook "likes" of Companies Mean? |publisher=PubChase |date=January 23, 2014 |access-date=June 7, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140703095330/http://blog.pubchase.com/what-do-facebook-likes-of-companies-mean/ |archive-date=July 3, 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref> In February 2014, [[Derek Muller]] used his YouTube account ''[[Veritasium]]'' to upload a video titled "Facebook Fraud". Within three days, the video had gone viral with more than a million views (it has reached 6,371,759 views as of December 15, 2021). In the video, Muller illustrates how after paying US$50 to Facebook advertising, the "likes" to his fan page have tripled in a few days and soon reached 70,000 "likes", compared to his original 2,115 likes before the advertising. Despite the significant increase in likes, Muller noticed his page has actually decreased in engagement – there were fewer people commenting, sharing, and liking his posts and updates despite the significant increase in "likes". Muller also noticed that the users that "liked" his page were users that liked hundreds of other pages, including competing pages such as [[AT&T]] and [[T-Mobile]]. He theorizes that users are purposely clicking "like" on any and every page to deter attention away from the pages they were paid to "like". Muller claims, "I never bought fake likes, I used Facebook legitimate advertising, but the results are as if I paid for fake likes from a click farm".<ref name="Facebook Fraud">{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211221/oVfHeWTKjag |archive-date=2021-12-21 |url-status=live|title=Facebook Fraud |via=YouTube|date=February 10, 2014 |access-date=June 11, 2014}}{{cbignore}}</ref>{{better source needed|date=February 2015}} In response to the fake "likes" complaints, Facebook told ''[[Business Insider]]'': {{cquote|We're always focused on maintaining the integrity of our site, but we've placed an increased focus on abuse from fake accounts recently. We've made a lot of progress by building a combination of automated and manual systems to block accounts used for fraudulent purposes and Like button clicks. We also take action against sellers of fake clicks and help shut them down.<ref name="Facebook Advertising" />}} === Undesired targeting === On August 3, 2007, several British companies, including [[First Direct]], [[Vodafone]], [[Virgin Media]], [[The Automobile Association]], [[Halifax (United Kingdom bank)|Halifax]] and [[Prudential PLC|Prudential]] pulled advertising in Facebook after finding that their ads were displayed on the page of the [[British National Party]], a far-right political party.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6929161.stm|work=BBC News|title=Firms withdraw BNP Facebook ads|date=August 3, 2007|access-date=April 30, 2010}}</ref> === Facilitation of housing discrimination === Facebook has faced allegations that its advertising platforms facilitate [[housing discrimination]] by means of internal functions for [[targeted advertising]], which allowed advertisers to target or exclude specific audiences from campaigns.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /> Researchers have also found that Facebook's advertising platform may be inherently discriminatory, since ad delivery is also influenced by how often specific demographics interact with specific types of advertising – even if they are not explicitly determined by the advertiser.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/4/18295190/facebook-ad-delivery-housing-job-race-gender-bias-study-northeastern-upturn|title=Facebook's ad delivery could be inherently discriminatory, researchers say|last=Robertson|first=Adi|date=April 4, 2019|website=The Verge|access-date=April 8, 2019}}</ref> Under the United States' [[Fair Housing Act]], it is illegal to show a preference for or against tenants based on specific [[protected class]]es (including race, ethnicity, and disabilities), when advertising or negotiating the rental or sale of housing. In 2016, [[ProPublica]] found that advertisers could target or exclude users from advertising based on an "Ethnic Affinity" – a demographic trait which is determined based on a user's interests and behaviors on Facebook, and not explicitly provided by the user. This could, in turn, be used to discriminate based on race.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-lets-advertisers-exclude-users-by-race|title=Facebook Lets Advertisers Exclude Users by Race|last=Julia Angwin|first=Terry Parris Jr|date=October 28, 2016|website=ProPublica|language=en|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref> In February 2017, Facebook stated that it would implement stronger measures to forbid discriminatory advertising across the entire platform. Advertisers who attempt to create ads for housing, employment, or credit (HEC) opportunities would be blocked from using ethnic affinities (renamed "multicultural affinities" and now classified as behaviors) to target the ad. If an advertiser uses any other audience segment to target ads for HEC, they would be informed of the policies, and be required to affirm their compliance with relevant laws and policies.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/02/improving-enforcement-and-promoting-diversity-updates-to-ads-policies-and-tools/|title=Improving Enforcement and Promoting Diversity: Updates to Ads Policies and Tools|date=February 8, 2017|via=Facebook|language=en|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref> However, in November 2017, ProPublica found that automated enforcement of these new policies was inconsistent. They were also able to successfully create housing ads that excluded users based on interests and other factors that effectively imply associations with protected classes, including interests in [[wheelchair ramp]]s, the Spanish-language television network [[Telemundo]], and New York City ZIP codes [[Redlining|with majority minority populations]]. In response to the report, Facebook temporarily disabled the ability to target any ad with exclusions based on multicultural affinities.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/11/29/facebook-stop-allowing-advertisers-exclude-racial-and-ethnic-groups-targeting/905133001/|title=Facebook halts ads that exclude racial and ethnic groups|website=USA Today|language=en|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-advertising-discrimination-housing-race-sex-national-origin|title=Facebook (Still) Letting Housing Advertisers Exclude Users by Race|last=Julia Angwin|first=Ariana Tobin|date=November 21, 2017|website=ProPublica|language=en|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref> In April 2018, Facebook permanently removed the ability to create exclusions based on multicultural affinities. In July 2018, Facebook signed a legally binding agreement with the [[State of Washington]] to take further steps within 90 days to prevent the use of its advertising platform for housing discrimination against protected classes.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/24/17609178/facebook-racial-dicrimination-ad-targeting-washington-state-attorney-general-agreement|title=Facebook signs agreement saying it won't let housing advertisers exclude users by race|last=Statt|first=Nick|date=July 24, 2018|website=The Verge|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref> The following month, Facebook announced that it would remove at least 5,000 categories from its exclusion system to prevent "misuse", including those relating to races and religions.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/21/17764480/facebook-ad-targeting-options-removal-housing-racial-discrimination|title=Facebook will remove 5,000 ad targeting categories to prevent discrimination|last=Statt|first=Nick|date=August 21, 2018|website=The Verge|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref> On March 19, 2019, Facebook settled a lawsuit over the matter with the National Fair Housing Alliance, agreeing to create a separate portal for HEC advertising with limited targeting options by September 2019, and to provide a public archive of all HEC advertising.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebook-agrees-to-dismantle-targeted-advertising-system-for-job-housing-and-loan-ads-after-discrimination-complaints/2019/03/19/7dc9b5fa-4983-11e9-b79a-961983b7e0cd_story.html|title=Facebook agrees to overhaul targeted advertising system for job, housing and loan ads after discrimination complaints|date=March 19, 2019|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/facebook-inc-does-have-to-respect-civil-rights-legislation-after-all/585286/|title=Facebook Does Have to Respect Civil-Rights Legislation, After All|last=Madrigal|first=Alexis C.|date=March 20, 2019|website=The Atlantic|language=en-US|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref> On March 28, 2019, the [[U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development]] (HUD) filed a lawsuit against Facebook, having filed a formal complaint against the company on August 13, 2018. The HUD also took issue with Facebook's tendency to deliver ads based on users having "particular characteristics [that are] most likely to engage with the ad".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/28/tech/facebook-hud-ad-discrimination/index.html|title=HUD charges Facebook with housing discrimination in ads|last=Yurieff|first=Kaya|date=March 28, 2019|publisher=CNN|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/28/18285178/facebook-hud-lawsuit-fair-housing-discrimination|title=Facebook has been charged with housing discrimination by the US government|last=Brandom|first=Russell|date=March 28, 2019|website=The Verge|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref> == Fake accounts == In August 2012, Facebook revealed that more than 83 million Facebook accounts (8.7% of total users) are fake accounts.<ref>{{cite news |title=Facebook: About 83 million accounts are fake |newspaper=[[USA Today]] |url=https://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-08-03/cnbc-facebook-fake-accounts/56759964/1 |access-date=August 4, 2012 |date=August 3, 2012}}</ref> These fake profiles consist of duplicate profiles, accounts for [[spam (electronic)|spamming]] purposes and personal profiles for business, organization or non-human entities such as pets.<ref>{{cite news |title=Unreal: Facebook reveals 83 million fake profiles |newspaper=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]] |url=https://www.smh.com.au/world/unreal-facebook-reveals-83-million-fake-profiles-20120803-23kzj.html |access-date=August 4, 2012}}</ref> As a result of this revelation, the share price of Facebook dropped below $20.<ref>{{cite news |title=Facebook share price slumps below $20 amid fake account flap |newspaper=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/aug/02/facebook-share-price-slumps-20-dollars |access-date=August 4, 2012 |location=London |first=Dominic |last=Rushe |date=August 2, 2012}}</ref> Furthermore, there is much effort to detect fake profiles using automated means, in one such work, machine learning techniques are used to detect fake users.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Gupta|first1=Aditi|title=2017 ISEA Asia Security and Privacy (ISEASP)|chapter=Towards detecting fake user accounts in facebook|journal=Asia Security and Privacy (ISEASP)|date=2017|pages=1–6|doi=10.1109/ISEASP.2017.7976996|isbn=978-1-5090-5942-3|s2cid=37561110}}</ref> Facebook initially refused to remove a "business" page devoted to a woman's [[anus]], created without her knowledge while she was underage, due to other Facebook users having expressed interest in the topic. After [[BuzzFeed]] published a story about it, the page was finally removed. The page listed her family's former home address as that of the "business".<ref name="butthole">{{Cite web|url=https://hits1061seattle.iheart.com/content/2020-01-30-facebook-takes-4-years-to-remove-a-womans-butthole-as-a-business-page/|title=Facebook Takes 4 Years to Remove A Woman's Butthole as a Business Page|website=HITS 106.1}}</ref> == User interface == === Upgrades === ==== September 2008 ==== In September 2008, Facebook permanently moved its users to what they termed the "New Facebook" or Facebook 3.0.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Facebook Blog – Moving to the new Facebook|url=http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=30074837130|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081029204526/http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=30074837130|archive-date=October 29, 2008|url-status=dead}}</ref> This version contained several different features and a complete layout redesign. Between July and September, users had been given the option to use the new Facebook in place of the original design,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://newsroom.fb.com/|title=Facebook Newsroom|website=newsroom.fb.com}}</ref> or to return to the old design. Facebook's decision to migrate their users was met with some controversy in their community. Several [[Facebook groups|groups]] started opposing the decision, some with over a million users.<ref>{{cite web|title=Petition against Facebook redesign fails as old version disabled|url=http://www.nma.co.uk/Articles/39583/Petition+against+Facebook+redesign+fails+as+old+version.html|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120912093200/http://www.nma.co.uk/Articles/39583/Petition+against+Facebook+redesign+fails+as+old+version.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 12, 2012}}</ref> ==== October 2009 ==== In October 2009, Facebook redesigned the news feed so that the user could view all types of things that their friends were involved with. In a statement, they said,<ref name="Facebook">{{cite web|url=http://developers.facebook.com/news.php?blog=1&year=2009&month=10|title=facebook DEVELOPERS|last=Haugen|first=Austin|date=October 23, 2009|via=Facebook|access-date=October 25, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091223060103/http://developers.facebook.com/news.php?blog=1&year=2009&month=10|archive-date=December 23, 2009}}</ref> <blockquote>your applications [stories] generate can show up in both views. The best way for your stories to appear in the News Feed filter is to create stories that are highly engaging, as high quality, interesting stories are most likely to garner likes and comments by the user's friends. </blockquote>This redesign was explained as:<ref name="Facebook" /> <blockquote> News Feed will focus on popular content, determined by an algorithm based on interest in that story, including the number of times an item is liked or commented on. Live Feed will display all recent stories from a large number of a user's friends. </blockquote> The redesign was met immediately with criticism with users, many who did not like the amount of information that was coming at them. This was also compounded by the fact that people could not select what they saw. ==== November/December 2009 ==== In November 2009, Facebook issued a proposed new privacy policy, and adopted it unaltered in December 2009. They combined this with a rollout of new privacy settings. This new policy declared certain information, including "lists of friends", to be "publicly available", with no privacy settings; it was previously possible to keep access to this information restricted. Due to this change, the users who had set their "list of friends" as private were forced to make it public without even being informed, and the option to make it private again was removed. This was protested by many people and privacy organizations such as the EFF.<ref name="EFF-2009-12-privacy">{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly|title=Facebook's New Privacy Changes: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly &#124; Electronic Frontier Foundation|website=Eff.org|date=December 9, 2009|access-date=August 7, 2010}}</ref> The change was described by Ryan Tate as ''Facebook's Great Betrayal'',<ref name="gawker-5426176">{{cite web|url=http://gawker.com/5426176/facebooks-great-betrayal |title=Gawker.com |website=Gawker.com |date=December 13, 2009 |access-date=June 11, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130517063406/http://gawker.com/5426176/facebooks-great-betrayal |archive-date=May 17, 2013 }}</ref> forcing user profile photos and friends lists to be visible in users' public listing, even for users who had explicitly chosen to hide this information previously,<ref name="EFF-2009-12-privacy" /> and making photos and personal information public unless users were proactive about limiting access.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dotrights.org/what-does-facebooks-privacy-transition-mean-you |title=What Does Facebook's Privacy Transition Mean for You? &#124; ACLUNC dotRights |website=Dotrights.org |date=December 4, 2009 |access-date=December 13, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091212225501/http://dotrights.org/what-does-facebooks-privacy-transition-mean-you |archive-date=December 12, 2009 }}</ref> For example, a user whose "Family and Relationships" information was set to be viewable by "Friends Only" would default to being viewable by "Everyone" (publicly viewable). That is, information such as the gender of the partner the user is interested in, relationship status, and family relations became viewable to those even without a Facebook account. Facebook was heavily criticized<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8405334.stm|title=Facebook faces criticism on privacy change|work=BBC News|date=December 10, 2008|access-date=December 13, 2009}}</ref> for both reducing its users' privacy and pushing users to remove privacy protections. Groups criticizing the changes include the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]<ref name="EFF-2009-12-privacy" /> and [[American Civil Liberties Union]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=Nat_Petition_Facebook_Policy&JServSessionIdr004=tun9qkc7f3.app20a |title=ACLU.org |website=Secure.aclu.org |access-date=June 11, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120224093555/https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=Nat_Petition_Facebook_Policy |archive-date=February 24, 2012 }}</ref> Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, had hundreds of personal photos and his events calendar exposed in the transition.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://gawker.com/5423914/facebook-ceos-private-photos-exposed-by-the-new-open-facebook/gallery |title=Facebook CEO's Private Photos Exposed by the New 'Open' Facebook |website=Gawker.com |access-date=December 13, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091214015731/http://gawker.com/5423914/facebook-ceos-private-photos-exposed-by-the-new-open-facebook/gallery |archive-date=December 14, 2009 }}</ref> Facebook has since re-included an option to hide friends lists from being viewable; however, this preference is no longer listed with other privacy settings, and the former ability to hide the friends list from selected people among one's own friends is no longer possible.<ref>{{cite web|last=McCarthy|first=Caroline|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10413835-36.html|title=Facebook backtracks on public friend lists &#124; The Social – CNET News|publisher=CNET|access-date=December 13, 2009}}</ref> Journalist Dan Gillmor deleted his Facebook account over the changes, stating he "can't entirely trust Facebook"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mediactive.com/2009/12/12/facebook-starting-over/ |title=Mediactive.com |website=Mediactive.com |date=December 12, 2009 |access-date=June 11, 2013}}</ref> and Heidi Moore at Slate's Big Money temporarily deactivated her account as a "conscientious objection".<ref>{{cite web|last=Oremus |first=Will |url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/sausage/2009/12/10/facebook-privacy-drop-dead |title=TheBigMoney.com |website=TheBigMoney.com |access-date=June 11, 2013}}</ref> Other journalists have been similarly disappointed and outraged by the changes.<ref name="gawker-5426176" /> Defending the changes, founder Mark Zuckerberg said "we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100113145423/http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 13, 2010 |title=ReadWriteWeb.com |website=ReadWriteWeb.com |access-date=June 11, 2013 }}</ref> The Office of the [[Privacy Commissioner of Canada]] launched another investigation into Facebook's privacy policies after complaints following the change.<ref>{{cite news|author=Benny Evangelista |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?&entry_id=56175 |title= <!--ACTUAL ARTICLE TITLE BELONGS HERE! --> |work=San Francisco Chronicle |date=January 27, 2010 |access-date=February 23, 2014}}</ref> ==== January 2018 ==== Following a difficult 2017, marked by accusations of relaying [[fake news]] and revelations about groups close to Russia which tried to influence the 2016 US presidential election (see [[Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections]]) via advertisements on his service, Mark Zuckerberg, announced in his traditional January post: {{Blockquote |text="We're making a major change to how we build Facebook. I'm changing the goal I give our product teams from focusing on helping you find relevant content to helping you have more meaningful social interactions". |author=Mark Zuckerberg}} Following surveys on Facebook users,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Deppa|first1=Seetharaman|title=Facebook to Rank News Sources by Quality to Battle Misinformation|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-to-rank-news-sources-by-quality-to-battle-misinformation-1516394184|access-date=March 5, 2018|work=The New York Times|date=January 11, 2018}}</ref> this desire for change will take the form of a reconfiguration of the [[News Feed]] algorithms to: *Prioritize content of family members and friends (Mark Zuckerberg January 12, Facebook:<ref name="auto">Mark Zuckerberg, [https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104413015393571], Facebook, January 12, 2018</ref> "The first changes you'll see will be in News Feed, where you can expect to see more from your friends, family and groups".) *Give priority to news articles from local sources considered more credible The recent changes of the News Feed algorithm<ref name="auto" /> (see content : [[News Feed#History]]) are expected to improve "the amount of meaningful content viewed".<ref>{{cite news|last1=Isaac|first1=Mike|title=Facebook Overhauls News Feed to Focus on What Friends and Family Share|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/technology/facebook-news-feed.html|access-date=March 5, 2018|work=The New York Times|date=January 11, 2018}}</ref> To this end, the new algorithm is supposed to determine the publications around which a user is most likely to interact with his friends, and make them appear higher in the News Feed instead of items for example from media companies or brands. These are posts "that inspire back-and-forth discussion in the comments and posts that you might want to share and react to".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/01/news-feed-fyi-bringing-people-closer-together/ |title=News Feed FYI: Bringing People Closer Together|last=Mosseri|first=Adam|date=January 11, 2018|website=Facebook newsroom|access-date=March 5, 2018}}</ref> But, as even Mark Zuckerberg admitted,<ref name="auto" /> he "expect the time people spend on Facebook and some measures of engagement will go down. But I also expect the time you do spend on Facebook will be more valuable". The less public content a Facebook user sees on their [[News Feed]], the less brands are able to reach consumers. That's unarguably a major lose for advertisers<ref>{{cite news|last1=ENGEL BROMWICH|first1=JONAH|last2=HAAG|first2=MATTHEW|title=Facebook Is Changing. What Does That Mean for Your News Feed?|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/12/technology/facebook-news-feed-changes.html|access-date=March 5, 2018|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=January 12, 2018}}</ref> and publishers. This change which seems to be just another update of the social network, is widely criticized because of the heavy consequences it might lead to "In countries such as the Philippines, Myanmar and South Sudan and emerging democracies such Bolivia and Serbia, it is not ethical to plead platform neutrality or to set up the promise of a functioning news ecosystem and then simply withdraw at a whim".<ref name="The Guardian">{{cite news|last1=Bell|first1=Emily|title=Why Facebook's news feed changes are bad news for democracy |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2018/jan/21/why-facebook-news-feed-changes-bad-news-democracy |access-date=March 11, 2018|work=The Guardian|date=January 21, 2018}}</ref> Indeed, in such countries, Facebook was the promise of a reliable and objective platform on which they could hope for raw information. Independent media companies tried to fight censorship through their articles and were promoting in a way the right for citizens to know what is going on in their countries. The company's way of handling scandals and criticism over [[fake news]] by diminishing its media company image is even defined as "potentially deadly"<ref name="The Guardian" /> regarding the poor and fraught political environments like Myanmar or South Sudan appealed by the "free basics" programme of the social network. Serbian journalist Stevan Dojcinovic goes further by describing Facebook as a "monster" and accuses the company of "showing a cynical lack of concern for how its decisions affect the most vulnerable".<ref name="auto1">{{cite news|last1=Dojcinovic|first1=Stevan|title=Hey, Mark Zuckerberg: My Democracy Isn't Your Laboratory |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2018/jan/21/why-facebook-news-feed-changes-bad-news-democracy |access-date=March 11, 2018|work=The New York Times|date=November 15, 2017}}</ref> Indeed, Facebook had experimented with withdrawing media companies' news on user's newsfeed in few countries such as Serbia. Stevan Docjcinovic then wrote an article explaining how Facebook helped them "to bypass mainstream channels and bring [their] stories to hundreds of thousands of readers".<ref name="auto1" /> The rule about publishers is not being applied to paid posts raising the journalist's fears about the social network "becoming just another playground for the powerful"<ref name="auto1" /> by letting them for example buy Facebook ads. Critics are also visible in other media companies depicting the private company as the "destroyer of worlds". LittleThings CEO, Joe Speiser states that the algorithm shift "took out roughly 75% of LittleThings" organic traffic while hammering its profit margins"<ref>{{cite news|last1=Shields|first1=Mike|title=Facebook's algorithm has wiped out a once flourishing digital publisher|url=http://uk.businessinsider.com/littlethings-online-publisher-shuts-down-and-blames-facebook-algorithm-2018-2|access-date=March 12, 2018|work=The New York Times|date=February 28, 2018}}</ref> compelling them to close their doors because they were relying on Facebook to share content. == Net neutrality == === "Free Basics" controversy in India === In February 2016, [[TRAI]] ruled against differential data pricing for limited services from mobile phone operators effectively ending zero-rating platforms in India. Zero rating provides access to a limited number of websites for no charge to the end user. Net-neutrality supporters from India ([[Save the Internet|SaveTheInternet.in]]) brought out the negative implications of the Facebook Free Basic program and spread awareness to the public.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://blog.savetheinternet.in/what-facebook-wont-tell-you-about-freebasics/ |title=The top 10 facts about FreeBasics |date=December 28, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160302080224/http://blog.savetheinternet.in/what-facebook-wont-tell-you-about-freebasics/ |archive-date=March 2, 2016 }}</ref> Facebook's Free Basics program<ref>{{cite web|url=https://info.internet.org/en/story/free-basics-from-internet-org/|title=Free Basics by Facebook|work=Internet.org}}</ref> was a collaboration with [[Reliance Communications]] to launch Free Basics in India. The TRAI ruling against differential pricing marked the end of Free Basics in India.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf |title=TRAI Releases the 'Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016' |publisher=TRAI |date=February 8, 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160208211507/http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf |archive-date=February 8, 2016 }}</ref> Earlier, Facebook had spent US$44&nbsp;million in advertising and it implored all of its Indian users to send an email to the Telecom Regulatory Authority to support its program.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://backchannel.com/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-free-internet-program-6ae3f9ffd1b4#.rop8p9gaw |title=How India Pierced Facebook's Free Internet Program |magazine=Wired |publisher=Backchannel |date=February 1, 2016}}</ref> TRAI later asked Facebook to provide specific responses from the supporters of Free Basics.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/PR-12012016.pdf |title=TRAI letter to Facebook |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160219123100/http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/PR-12012016.pdf |archive-date=February 19, 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/net-neutrality-debate-trai-to-write-back-to-free-basics-supporters-784397 |title=Trai to Seek Specific Replies From Facebook Free Basic Supporters |agency=Press Trust of India |date=December 31, 2015}}</ref> == Treatment of potential competitors == In December 2018 details on Facebook's behavior against competitors surfaced. The UK parliament member Damian Collins released files from a court ruling between Six4Three and Facebook. According to those files, the social media company Twitter released its app Vine in 2013. Facebook blocked Vine's Access to its data.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.sueddeutsche.de/digital/facebook-zuckerberg-datenschutz-1.4242037|title=Gut für die Welt, aber nicht für uns|last1=Brühl|first1=Jannis|year=2018|work=Süddeutsche Zeitung|access-date=December 10, 2018|last2=Tanriverdi|first2=Hakan|language=de|issn=0174-4917}}</ref> In July 2020, Facebook along with other tech giants [[Apple Inc.|Apple]], [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]] and Google were accused of maintaining harmful power and anti-competitive strategies to quash potential competitors in the market.<ref>{{Cite news|date=July 30, 2020|title=Tech bosses grilled over claims of 'harmful' power|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53583941|access-date=July 30, 2020}}</ref> The CEOs of respective firms appeared in a teleconference on July 29, 2020, before the lawmakers of the [[United States Congress]].<ref>{{Cite web|author=Brian Fung|title=Congress grilled the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. Here are the big takeaways|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/29/tech/tech-antitrust-hearing-ceos/index.html|access-date=July 30, 2020|publisher=CNN}}</ref> == See also == {{Portal|Companies|Internet}} <!-- Please keep entries in alphabetical order & add a short description [[WP:SEEALSO]] --> {{div col|colwidth=20em|small=yes}} *[[Criticism of Apple Inc.|Criticism of Apple]] *[[Criticism of Google]] *[[Criticism of Microsoft]] *[[Criticism of Yahoo!]] *''[[Europe v Facebook]]'' *[[Facebook content management controversies]] *[[Facebook Files]] *[[Facebook history]] *[[Facebook malware]] *[[Facebook Analytics]] *[[Facebook Pixel]] *[[Filter bubble]] *[[Instagram#Impact on people|Instagram's impact on people]] *[[Issues involving social networking services]] *[[Online hate speech]] *[[Social media and suicide]] *[[Surveillance capitalism]] *[[Unauthorized access in online social networks]] *[[Ireland as a tax haven]] *[[Techlash]] {{div col end}} <!-- please keep entries in alphabetical order --> == References == {{Reflist}} == Further reading == * {{cite magazine|url=http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/26834/|title=How Facebook Leveraged Publishers' Desperation to Build a Web-Wide Tracking System|last=Mims|first=Christopher|date=June 1, 2011|magazine=[[Technology Review]]|access-date=June 1, 2011}} * [https://web.archive.org/web/20130607113306/http://www.lifeivy.com/post/facebook-friend-or-foe/ "Facebook: Friend or Foe?"]. ''LifeIvy''. May 15, 2013 *{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/the-secret-agenda-of-a-facebook-quiz.html| title=The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz |last=Funk|first=McKenzie|date=November 19, 2016|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=January 25, 2017}} *[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-39947942 How Facebook's tentacles reach further than you think] (May 26, 2017), ''[[BBC]]'' *{{Citation | last=Lanchester | first=John | author-link = John Lanchester | title=You Are the Product | journal=[[London Review of Books]] | volume=39 | number=16 | date= August 2017 | pages=3–10 |url=https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n16/john-lanchester/you-are-the-product}} * {{Citation | last=Oremus | first=Will | title=Are You Really the Product? The history of a dangerous idea | journal=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] | date= April 2018 | volume=39 | issue=16 |url=https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n16/john-lanchester/you-are-the-product}} * {{Citation|first=Aaron|last=Greenspan|title=Reality Check:Facebook, Inc.|url=https://www.plainsite.org/realitycheck/facebook.html|date=January 24, 2019}} == External links == *{{commons category-inline}} {{Facebook navbox}} {{Censorship and websites}} {{Evolutionary psychology}} {{Digital media use and mental health}} [[Category:Facebook criticisms and controversies| ]] [[Category:Internet privacy]] [[Category:Criticisms of companies|Facebook]] [[Category:Criticisms of software and websites|Facebook]] [[Category:Privacy controversies and disputes]]'
Unified diff of changes made by edit (edit_diff)
'@@ -1,15 +1,6 @@ -{{short description|Media coverage of the shortcomings of Facebook's market dominance}} -{{Use American English|date=August 2020}} -{{Use mdy dates|date=August 2021}} -{{Very long|rps=108|date=October 2021}} -{{Merge from |Unfollow Everything |discuss=Talk:Criticism of Facebook#Merging Unfollow Everything |date=December 2021 }} -{{Facebook sidebar}} -The '''criticism of Facebook''' or [[Meta Platforms]] has led to international media coverage and significant reporting of its legal troubles and the outsize influence it has on the lives and health of its users and employees, as well on its influence on the way media, specifically news, is reported and distributed. Notable issues include [[Internet privacy]], such as use of a widespread [[Facebook like button#Tracking|"like" button on third-party websites tracking users]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Geoff |last=Duncan |title=Open letter urges Facebook to strengthen privacy |url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/open-letter-urges-facebook-to-strengthen-privacy/ |website=[[Digital Trends]] |date=June 17, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Ian |last=Paul |title=Advocacy Groups Ask Facebook for More Privacy Changes |url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/199099/facebook_privacy_fixes.html |website=[[PC World]] |publisher=[[International Data Group]] |date=June 17, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> possible indefinite records of user information,<ref>{{cite web |first=Maria |last=Aspen |title=How Sticky Is Membership on Facebook? Just Try Breaking Free |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/technology/11facebook.html |website=[[The New York Times]] |date=February 11, 2008 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> automatic [[Facial recognition system|facial recognition]] software,<ref>{{cite web |first=Sebastian |last=Anthony |title=Facebook's facial recognition software is now as accurate as the human brain, but what now? |url=http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/178777-facebooks-facial-recognition-software-is-now-as-accurate-as-the-human-brain-but-what-now |website=[[ExtremeTech]] |publisher=[[Ziff Davis]] |date=March 19, 2014 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Liz |last=Gannes |title=Facebook facial recognition prompts EU privacy probe |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-facial-recognition-prompts-eu-privacy-probe/ |publisher=[[CNET]] |date=June 8, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and its role in the workplace, including employer-employee account disclosure.<ref>{{cite web |first=Matt |last=Friedman |title=Bill to ban companies from asking about job candidates' Facebook accounts is headed to governor |url=http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/03/bill_to_ban_companies_from_req.html |website=[[The Star-Ledger]] |publisher=[[Advance Digital]] |date=March 21, 2013 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> The use of [[Facebook]] can have negative psychological effects that include feelings of romantic jealousy<ref>{{cite web |title=How Facebook Breeds Jealousy |url=https://www.seeker.com/how-facebook-breeds-jealousy-1765020296.html |website=[[Seeker (media company)|Seeker]] |publisher=[[Group Nine Media]] |date=February 10, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Chris |last=Matyszczyk |title=Study: Facebook makes lovers jealous |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/study-facebook-makes-lovers-jealous/ |publisher=[[CNET]] |date=August 11, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and [[Stress (biology)|stress]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Chenda |last=Ngak |title=Facebook may cause stress, study says |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-may-cause-stress-study-says/ |work=[[CBS News]] |date=November 27, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Dave |last=Smith |title=Quitting Facebook will make you happier and less stressed, study says |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/quitting-facebook-will-make-you-happier-and-less-stressed-study-2015-11 |website=[[Business Insider]] |publisher=[[Axel Springer SE]] |date=November 13, 2015 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> a lack of [[attention]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Michael J. |last=Bugeja |title=Facing the Facebook |url=http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006/01/2006012301c/careers.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080220193743/http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006/01/2006012301c/careers.html |website=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] |date=January 23, 2006 |archive-date=February 20, 2008 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and social media addiction that in some cases is comparable to [[Drug-addiction|drug addiction]].<ref>{{cite web |first=Andrew |last=Hough |title=Student 'addiction' to technology 'similar to drug cravings', study finds |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8436831/Student-addiction-to-technology-similar-to-drug-cravings-study-finds.html |website=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |date=April 8, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Facebook and Twitter 'more addictive than tobacco and alcohol' |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9054243/Facebook-and-Twitter-more-addictive-than-tobacco-and-alcohol.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150216152536/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9054243/Facebook-and-Twitter-more-addictive-than-tobacco-and-alcohol.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=February 16, 2015 |website=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |date=February 1, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> +this is a website that lies -Facebook's operations have also received coverage. The company's electricity usage,<ref>{{cite web |first=Robin |last=Wauters |title=Greenpeace Slams Zuckerberg For Making Facebook A 'So Coal Network' (Video) |url=https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/16/greenpeace-slams-zuckerberg-for-making-facebook-a-so-coal-network-video/ |website=[[TechCrunch]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=September 16, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[tax avoidance]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Rupert |last=Neate |title=Facebook paid £2.9m tax on £840m profits made outside US, figures show |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/23/facebook-tax-profits-outside-us |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=December 23, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[Facebook real-name policy controversy|real-name user requirement policies]],<ref name="Grinberg">{{cite web |first=Emanuella |last=Grinberg |title=Facebook 'real name' policy stirs questions around identity |url=http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/16/living/facebook-name-policy |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=September 18, 2014 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[#Censorship|censorship policies]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Vidhi |last=Doshi |title=Facebook under fire for 'censoring' Kashmir-related posts and accounts |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/19/facebook-under-fire-censoring-kashmir-posts-accounts |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=July 19, 2016 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Michael |last=Arrington |author-link=Michael Arrington |title=Is Facebook Really Censoring Search When It Suits Them? |url=https://techcrunch.com/2007/11/22/is-facebook-really-censoring-search-when-it-suits-them/ |website=[[TechCrunch]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=November 22, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal|handling of user data]],<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wong |first1=Julia Carrie |title=The Cambridge Analytica scandal changed the world – but it didn't change Facebook |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/17/the-cambridge-analytica-scandal-changed-the-world-but-it-didnt-change-facebook |access-date=May 2, 2019 |work=The Guardian |date=March 18, 2019}}</ref> and its involvement in the United States [[PRISM (surveillance program)|PRISM surveillance program]] have been highlighted by the media and by critics.<ref>{{cite web |first1=Glenn |last1=Greenwald |first2=Ewen |last2=MacAskill |title=NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=June 7, 2013 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> Facebook has come under scrutiny for 'ignoring' or shirking its responsibility for the content posted on its platform, including [[copyright]] and intellectual property infringement,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/7/9114149/facebook-freebooting-video-copyright-infringement|title=Why Facebook's video theft problem can't last|last=Setalvad|first=Ariha|date=August 7, 2015|website=[[The Verge]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[hate speech]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39272261|title=Facebook, Twitter and Google grilled by MPs over hate speech|date=March 14, 2017|website=[[BBC News]]|publisher=[[BBC]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/9/15/9329119/facebook-germany-hate-speech-xenophobia-migrant-refugee|title=Facebook will work with Germany to combat anti-refugee hate speech|last=Toor|first=Amar|date=September 15, 2015|website=[[The Verge]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> incitement of rape<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8829165/Cyber-anarchists-blamed-for-unleashing-a-series-of-Facebook-rape-pages.html|title=Cyber anarchists blamed for unleashing a series of Facebook 'rape pages'|last=Sherwell|first=Philip|date=October 16, 2011|website=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and terrorism,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.timesofisrael.com/20000-israelis-sue-facebook-for-ignoring-palestinian-incitement/|title=20,000 Israelis sue Facebook for ignoring Palestinian incitement|date=October 27, 2015|website=[[The Times of Israel]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-facebooks-zuckerberg-has-blood-of-slain-israeli-teen-on-his-hands/|title=Israel: Facebook's Zuckerberg has blood of slain Israeli teen on his hands|date=July 2, 2016|website=[[The Times of Israel]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[fake news]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/19/technology/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-fake-news-election/|title=Zuckerberg: Facebook will develop tools to fight fake news|last=Burke|first=Samuel|date=November 19, 2016|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/31/hillary-clinton-says-facebook-must-prevent-fake-news-creating/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/31/hillary-clinton-says-facebook-must-prevent-fake-news-creating/ |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Hillary Clinton says Facebook 'must prevent fake news from creating a new reality'|date=June 1, 2017|website=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://money.cnn.com/2017/05/09/technology/facebook-fake-news/index.html|title=Facebook's global fight against fake news|last=Fiegerman|first=Seth|date=May 9, 2017|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[Facebook murder]], crimes, and violent incidents [[live-streamed]] through its [[Facebook Live]] functionality.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/21/us/facebook-live-gang-rape-chicago|title=Police: At least 40 people watched teen's sexual assault on Facebook Live|last1=Grinberg|first1=Emanuella|last2=Said|first2=Samira|date=March 22, 2017|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/04/us/chicago-facebook-live-beating|title=Chicago torture: Facebook Live video leads to 4 arrests|last=Grinberg|first=Emanuella|date=January 5, 2017|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/facebook-live-killings-ai-artificial-intelligence-not-blame-fatalities-murders-us-steve-stephens-a7706056.html|title=Facebook Live killings: Why the criticism has been harsh|last=Sulleyman|first=Aatif|date=April 27, 2017|website=[[The Independent]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> - -The company and its employees have also been subject to litigation cases over the years,<ref>{{cite web |first=Cyrus |last=Farivar |title=Appeals court upholds deal allowing kids' images in Facebook ads |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/appeals-court-upholds-deal-allowing-kids-images-in-facebook-ads/ |website=[[Ars Technica]] |date=January 7, 2016 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first1=Dan |last1=Levine |first2=Alexei |last2=Oreskovic |title=Yahoo sues Facebook for infringing 10 patents |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yahoo-facebook-lawsuit-idUSBRE82B18M20120312 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=March 12, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Kurt |last=Wagner |title=Facebook lost its Oculus lawsuit and has to pay $500 million |url=https://www.recode.net/2017/2/1/14476500/facebook-oculus-zenimax-lawsuit-500-million |website=[[Recode]] |date=February 1, 2017 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Rusell |last=Brandom |title=Lawsuit claims Facebook illegally scanned private messages |url=https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/19/11712804/facebook-private-message-scanning-privacy-lawsuit |website=[[The Verge]] |date=May 19, 2016 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> with its most prominent case concerning allegations that CEO Mark Zuckerberg broke an [[oral contract]] with [[Cameron Winklevoss]], [[Tyler Winklevoss]], and [[Divya Narendra]] to build the [[ConnectU|then-named "HarvardConnection"]] social network in 2004, instead allegedly opting to [[Intellectual property|steal the idea]] and code to launch Facebook months before HarvardConnection began.<ref>{{cite web |first=Chris |last=Tryhorn |title=Facebook in court over ownership |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/jul/25/digitalmedia.usnews |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=July 25, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Scott |last=Michels |title=Facebook Founder Accused of Stealing Idea for Site |url=https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3391856 |website=[[ABC News]] |publisher=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] |date=July 20, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Nicholas |last=Carlson |title=How Mark Zuckerberg Hacked Into Rival ConnectU In 2004 |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-connectu-2010-3 |website=[[Business Insider]] |publisher=[[Axel Springer SE]] |date=March 5, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> The original lawsuit was eventually settled in 2009, with Facebook paying approximately $20&nbsp;million in cash and 1.25&nbsp;million shares.<ref>{{cite web |first=Charles |last=Arthur |title=Facebook paid up to $65m to founder Mark Zuckerberg's ex-classmates |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/feb/12/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-ex-classmates |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=February 12, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first=Ryan |last=Singel |title=Court Tells Winklevoss Twins to Quit Their Facebook Whining |url=https://www.wired.com/2011/04/winkelvoss-tossed/ |journal=[[Wired (website)|Wired]] |date=April 11, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> A new lawsuit in 2011 was dismissed.<ref>{{cite web |first=Jonathan |last=Stempel |title=Facebook wins dismissal of second Winklevoss case |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-winklevoss-idUSTRE76L4MR20110722 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=July 22, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> Some critics point to problems which they say will result in the demise of Facebook. Facebook has been banned by several governments for various reasons, including Syria,<ref>{{cite web |first=Khaled Yacoub |last=Oweis |title=Syria blocks Facebook in Internet crackdown |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-facebook-idUSOWE37285020071123 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=November 23, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> China,<ref>{{cite web |first=Robin |last=Wauters |title=China Blocks Access To Twitter, Facebook After Riots |url=https://techcrunch.com/2009/07/07/china-blocks-access-to-twitter-facebook-after-riots/ |website=[[TechCrunch]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=July 7, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and Iran.<ref>{{cite web |title=Iranian government blocks Facebook access |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/24/facebook-banned-iran |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=May 24, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> - -{{toclimit|3}} +Anyway +⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ == Censorship == '
New page size (new_size)
212778
Old page size (old_size)
210857
Size change in edit (edit_delta)
1921
Lines added in edit (added_lines)
[ 0 => 'this is a website that lies ', 1 => 'Anyway ', 2 => '⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️⁉️ɪ ᴍɪss ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɢᴇ⁉️𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 💎💎🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛🆂🅻🅰🆃🆃 🧛ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋ⱧØⱠĐØ₦ ✋' ]
Lines removed in edit (removed_lines)
[ 0 => '{{short description|Media coverage of the shortcomings of Facebook's market dominance}}', 1 => '{{Use American English|date=August 2020}}', 2 => '{{Use mdy dates|date=August 2021}}', 3 => '{{Very long|rps=108|date=October 2021}}', 4 => '{{Merge from |Unfollow Everything |discuss=Talk:Criticism of Facebook#Merging Unfollow Everything |date=December 2021 }}', 5 => '{{Facebook sidebar}}', 6 => 'The '''criticism of Facebook''' or [[Meta Platforms]] has led to international media coverage and significant reporting of its legal troubles and the outsize influence it has on the lives and health of its users and employees, as well on its influence on the way media, specifically news, is reported and distributed. Notable issues include [[Internet privacy]], such as use of a widespread [[Facebook like button#Tracking|"like" button on third-party websites tracking users]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Geoff |last=Duncan |title=Open letter urges Facebook to strengthen privacy |url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/open-letter-urges-facebook-to-strengthen-privacy/ |website=[[Digital Trends]] |date=June 17, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Ian |last=Paul |title=Advocacy Groups Ask Facebook for More Privacy Changes |url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/199099/facebook_privacy_fixes.html |website=[[PC World]] |publisher=[[International Data Group]] |date=June 17, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> possible indefinite records of user information,<ref>{{cite web |first=Maria |last=Aspen |title=How Sticky Is Membership on Facebook? Just Try Breaking Free |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/technology/11facebook.html |website=[[The New York Times]] |date=February 11, 2008 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> automatic [[Facial recognition system|facial recognition]] software,<ref>{{cite web |first=Sebastian |last=Anthony |title=Facebook's facial recognition software is now as accurate as the human brain, but what now? |url=http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/178777-facebooks-facial-recognition-software-is-now-as-accurate-as-the-human-brain-but-what-now |website=[[ExtremeTech]] |publisher=[[Ziff Davis]] |date=March 19, 2014 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Liz |last=Gannes |title=Facebook facial recognition prompts EU privacy probe |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-facial-recognition-prompts-eu-privacy-probe/ |publisher=[[CNET]] |date=June 8, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and its role in the workplace, including employer-employee account disclosure.<ref>{{cite web |first=Matt |last=Friedman |title=Bill to ban companies from asking about job candidates' Facebook accounts is headed to governor |url=http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/03/bill_to_ban_companies_from_req.html |website=[[The Star-Ledger]] |publisher=[[Advance Digital]] |date=March 21, 2013 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> The use of [[Facebook]] can have negative psychological effects that include feelings of romantic jealousy<ref>{{cite web |title=How Facebook Breeds Jealousy |url=https://www.seeker.com/how-facebook-breeds-jealousy-1765020296.html |website=[[Seeker (media company)|Seeker]] |publisher=[[Group Nine Media]] |date=February 10, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Chris |last=Matyszczyk |title=Study: Facebook makes lovers jealous |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/study-facebook-makes-lovers-jealous/ |publisher=[[CNET]] |date=August 11, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and [[Stress (biology)|stress]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Chenda |last=Ngak |title=Facebook may cause stress, study says |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-may-cause-stress-study-says/ |work=[[CBS News]] |date=November 27, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Dave |last=Smith |title=Quitting Facebook will make you happier and less stressed, study says |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/quitting-facebook-will-make-you-happier-and-less-stressed-study-2015-11 |website=[[Business Insider]] |publisher=[[Axel Springer SE]] |date=November 13, 2015 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> a lack of [[attention]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Michael J. |last=Bugeja |title=Facing the Facebook |url=http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006/01/2006012301c/careers.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080220193743/http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006/01/2006012301c/careers.html |website=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] |date=January 23, 2006 |archive-date=February 20, 2008 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and social media addiction that in some cases is comparable to [[Drug-addiction|drug addiction]].<ref>{{cite web |first=Andrew |last=Hough |title=Student 'addiction' to technology 'similar to drug cravings', study finds |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8436831/Student-addiction-to-technology-similar-to-drug-cravings-study-finds.html |website=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |date=April 8, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Facebook and Twitter 'more addictive than tobacco and alcohol' |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9054243/Facebook-and-Twitter-more-addictive-than-tobacco-and-alcohol.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150216152536/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9054243/Facebook-and-Twitter-more-addictive-than-tobacco-and-alcohol.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=February 16, 2015 |website=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |date=February 1, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref>', 7 => 'Facebook's operations have also received coverage. The company's electricity usage,<ref>{{cite web |first=Robin |last=Wauters |title=Greenpeace Slams Zuckerberg For Making Facebook A 'So Coal Network' (Video) |url=https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/16/greenpeace-slams-zuckerberg-for-making-facebook-a-so-coal-network-video/ |website=[[TechCrunch]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=September 16, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[tax avoidance]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Rupert |last=Neate |title=Facebook paid £2.9m tax on £840m profits made outside US, figures show |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/23/facebook-tax-profits-outside-us |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=December 23, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[Facebook real-name policy controversy|real-name user requirement policies]],<ref name="Grinberg">{{cite web |first=Emanuella |last=Grinberg |title=Facebook 'real name' policy stirs questions around identity |url=http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/16/living/facebook-name-policy |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=September 18, 2014 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[#Censorship|censorship policies]],<ref>{{cite web |first=Vidhi |last=Doshi |title=Facebook under fire for 'censoring' Kashmir-related posts and accounts |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/19/facebook-under-fire-censoring-kashmir-posts-accounts |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=July 19, 2016 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Michael |last=Arrington |author-link=Michael Arrington |title=Is Facebook Really Censoring Search When It Suits Them? |url=https://techcrunch.com/2007/11/22/is-facebook-really-censoring-search-when-it-suits-them/ |website=[[TechCrunch]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=November 22, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal|handling of user data]],<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wong |first1=Julia Carrie |title=The Cambridge Analytica scandal changed the world – but it didn't change Facebook |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/17/the-cambridge-analytica-scandal-changed-the-world-but-it-didnt-change-facebook |access-date=May 2, 2019 |work=The Guardian |date=March 18, 2019}}</ref> and its involvement in the United States [[PRISM (surveillance program)|PRISM surveillance program]] have been highlighted by the media and by critics.<ref>{{cite web |first1=Glenn |last1=Greenwald |first2=Ewen |last2=MacAskill |title=NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=June 7, 2013 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> Facebook has come under scrutiny for 'ignoring' or shirking its responsibility for the content posted on its platform, including [[copyright]] and intellectual property infringement,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/7/9114149/facebook-freebooting-video-copyright-infringement|title=Why Facebook's video theft problem can't last|last=Setalvad|first=Ariha|date=August 7, 2015|website=[[The Verge]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[hate speech]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39272261|title=Facebook, Twitter and Google grilled by MPs over hate speech|date=March 14, 2017|website=[[BBC News]]|publisher=[[BBC]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/9/15/9329119/facebook-germany-hate-speech-xenophobia-migrant-refugee|title=Facebook will work with Germany to combat anti-refugee hate speech|last=Toor|first=Amar|date=September 15, 2015|website=[[The Verge]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> incitement of rape<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8829165/Cyber-anarchists-blamed-for-unleashing-a-series-of-Facebook-rape-pages.html|title=Cyber anarchists blamed for unleashing a series of Facebook 'rape pages'|last=Sherwell|first=Philip|date=October 16, 2011|website=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and terrorism,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.timesofisrael.com/20000-israelis-sue-facebook-for-ignoring-palestinian-incitement/|title=20,000 Israelis sue Facebook for ignoring Palestinian incitement|date=October 27, 2015|website=[[The Times of Israel]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-facebooks-zuckerberg-has-blood-of-slain-israeli-teen-on-his-hands/|title=Israel: Facebook's Zuckerberg has blood of slain Israeli teen on his hands|date=July 2, 2016|website=[[The Times of Israel]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[fake news]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/19/technology/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-fake-news-election/|title=Zuckerberg: Facebook will develop tools to fight fake news|last=Burke|first=Samuel|date=November 19, 2016|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/31/hillary-clinton-says-facebook-must-prevent-fake-news-creating/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/31/hillary-clinton-says-facebook-must-prevent-fake-news-creating/ |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Hillary Clinton says Facebook 'must prevent fake news from creating a new reality'|date=June 1, 2017|website=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://money.cnn.com/2017/05/09/technology/facebook-fake-news/index.html|title=Facebook's global fight against fake news|last=Fiegerman|first=Seth|date=May 9, 2017|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> [[Facebook murder]], crimes, and violent incidents [[live-streamed]] through its [[Facebook Live]] functionality.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/21/us/facebook-live-gang-rape-chicago|title=Police: At least 40 people watched teen's sexual assault on Facebook Live|last1=Grinberg|first1=Emanuella|last2=Said|first2=Samira|date=March 22, 2017|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/04/us/chicago-facebook-live-beating|title=Chicago torture: Facebook Live video leads to 4 arrests|last=Grinberg|first=Emanuella|date=January 5, 2017|publisher=[[CNN]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/facebook-live-killings-ai-artificial-intelligence-not-blame-fatalities-murders-us-steve-stephens-a7706056.html|title=Facebook Live killings: Why the criticism has been harsh|last=Sulleyman|first=Aatif|date=April 27, 2017|website=[[The Independent]]|access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref>', 8 => '', 9 => 'The company and its employees have also been subject to litigation cases over the years,<ref>{{cite web |first=Cyrus |last=Farivar |title=Appeals court upholds deal allowing kids' images in Facebook ads |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/appeals-court-upholds-deal-allowing-kids-images-in-facebook-ads/ |website=[[Ars Technica]] |date=January 7, 2016 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first1=Dan |last1=Levine |first2=Alexei |last2=Oreskovic |title=Yahoo sues Facebook for infringing 10 patents |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yahoo-facebook-lawsuit-idUSBRE82B18M20120312 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=March 12, 2012 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Kurt |last=Wagner |title=Facebook lost its Oculus lawsuit and has to pay $500 million |url=https://www.recode.net/2017/2/1/14476500/facebook-oculus-zenimax-lawsuit-500-million |website=[[Recode]] |date=February 1, 2017 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Rusell |last=Brandom |title=Lawsuit claims Facebook illegally scanned private messages |url=https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/19/11712804/facebook-private-message-scanning-privacy-lawsuit |website=[[The Verge]] |date=May 19, 2016 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> with its most prominent case concerning allegations that CEO Mark Zuckerberg broke an [[oral contract]] with [[Cameron Winklevoss]], [[Tyler Winklevoss]], and [[Divya Narendra]] to build the [[ConnectU|then-named "HarvardConnection"]] social network in 2004, instead allegedly opting to [[Intellectual property|steal the idea]] and code to launch Facebook months before HarvardConnection began.<ref>{{cite web |first=Chris |last=Tryhorn |title=Facebook in court over ownership |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/jul/25/digitalmedia.usnews |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=July 25, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Scott |last=Michels |title=Facebook Founder Accused of Stealing Idea for Site |url=https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3391856 |website=[[ABC News]] |publisher=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] |date=July 20, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Nicholas |last=Carlson |title=How Mark Zuckerberg Hacked Into Rival ConnectU In 2004 |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-connectu-2010-3 |website=[[Business Insider]] |publisher=[[Axel Springer SE]] |date=March 5, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> The original lawsuit was eventually settled in 2009, with Facebook paying approximately $20&nbsp;million in cash and 1.25&nbsp;million shares.<ref>{{cite web |first=Charles |last=Arthur |title=Facebook paid up to $65m to founder Mark Zuckerberg's ex-classmates |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/feb/12/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-ex-classmates |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=February 12, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first=Ryan |last=Singel |title=Court Tells Winklevoss Twins to Quit Their Facebook Whining |url=https://www.wired.com/2011/04/winkelvoss-tossed/ |journal=[[Wired (website)|Wired]] |date=April 11, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> A new lawsuit in 2011 was dismissed.<ref>{{cite web |first=Jonathan |last=Stempel |title=Facebook wins dismissal of second Winklevoss case |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-winklevoss-idUSTRE76L4MR20110722 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=July 22, 2011 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> Some critics point to problems which they say will result in the demise of Facebook. Facebook has been banned by several governments for various reasons, including Syria,<ref>{{cite web |first=Khaled Yacoub |last=Oweis |title=Syria blocks Facebook in Internet crackdown |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-facebook-idUSOWE37285020071123 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=November 23, 2007 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> China,<ref>{{cite web |first=Robin |last=Wauters |title=China Blocks Access To Twitter, Facebook After Riots |url=https://techcrunch.com/2009/07/07/china-blocks-access-to-twitter-facebook-after-riots/ |website=[[TechCrunch]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=July 7, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref> and Iran.<ref>{{cite web |title=Iranian government blocks Facebook access |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/24/facebook-banned-iran |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=May 24, 2009 |access-date=June 3, 2017}}</ref>', 10 => '', 11 => '{{toclimit|3}}' ]
Whether or not the change was made through a Tor exit node (tor_exit_node)
false
Unix timestamp of change (timestamp)
1647795164