Talk:Criticism of Facebook

Article should be split up

This article has become way too long and major sections (such as the "Privacy issues" section) should be spun off or broken out into separate articles.--Alex Rosenberg (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

See my comments below, I think it is better to keep one major article than break-up. I do think that this article could be condensed a lot and reduced in size however.Britishfinance (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed article splitting

I propose splitting parts of this article into Privacy issues of Facebook and Litigation of Facebook in order to improve the reading experience and to meet the proposed readable prose size.QuickWhitt7 (Talk/Contribs) 09:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

QuickWhitt7, which sections or what prose do you think should be pulled into those? Is it within the criticisms section? If so, this discussion should be coordinated with the discussion on the Criticism of Facebook talk page here: Talk:Criticism_of_Facebook#Article_should_be_split_up. Edit: Brain dead (low blood sugar, so I thought I was on the facebook article talk page). You should coordinate a discussion on the main Facebook article page, since there is a proposed split of of the criticisms sub section there: Facebook#Criticisms_and_controversies. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Having read this article I don't see the immediate rationale of splitting this up (or the tag on the front regarding length). Yes, it is long, but it is not hard to navigate (as the sections/sub-sections are reasonably well laid out). Some of the text could be condensed and edited down (a lot in places), but I think we have a better chance of keeping a good (albeit long) article on issues with Facebook, then breaking it up and having sub-sections fall into neglect.Britishfinance (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Even if the subsections are well laid out, the reading experience suffers from the article's sheer length. Try navigating this article on a mobile device. Important points of this article should be consolidated and major sections need to be condensed or spun off into separate pages. -- Alex Rosenberg (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. This article is too long. WP:SIZESPLIT states that articles over 100kB "Almost certainly should be divided". This article is currently at 320kB, and suffers from accessibility issues due to its length, especially on mobile devices. The two proposed splits are a good starting point. — Newslinger talk 20:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Too unwieldy. Splitting off the largest sections, Privacy and Litigation would be a good start. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Way too long, goes into various issues, some inter-joined, others mostly unrelated. This article is long overdue a split. Will read over and propose some sections later. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I'd also support splitting other primary subsections into separate articles. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Just scrolling past the 31 subsections in the privacy issues section gives me headache. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. They're two major sections, that would benefit from their own separate articles for the sake of reability. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The entry needs to be updated with the UK Competition and Markets Commission report Dec 2019 into the monopoly concerns. Could we add Governmental Criticisms too to include legislation being formed. We could then include Tax havens, Democratic process concerns and climate change concerns being debated across countries? AnabelC (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Split Litigation to List of lawsuits involving Facebook

I've split Litigation to List of lawsuits involving Facebook, given the proposal was made in this section almost two years ago and has consensus. Litigation seemed like the least controversial of the various splits that should be done to this article, so a fair start. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Splitting off Privacy

I've split the privacy material into the existing Privacy concerns of Facebook article. The material will need to be summarized though. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 09:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

We have identical 'Facebook Privacy' content on two pages. To remedy this, I propose the following.

1. I have added a lead section on Privacy here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Privacy_issues and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_concerns_of_Facebook

2. I subsequently propose to delete the content from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Privacy_issues since it is a duplicate. I'm aiming to do that on 6th February 2021. I will try to ensure that all recent edits at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Privacy_issues are included in 'Privacy_concerns_of_Facebook'.

3. I propose to rename the 'Privacy_concerns_of_Facebook' page as 'Facebook_privacy_issues', being neater.

Please let me know if this is wrong. Sadgrove (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Propose article split - again

As stated previously, this article is waaaaaaay too long and sections like Psychological/sociological effects should be given their own article. Perhaps we kick if off with a bunch of drafts to start? edit: I could take a crack at one if other editors care to be involved. QRep2020 (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Censorship of Palestinian apartheid content during the Israeli bombing of Gaza

Hi, can we mention in the controversies section about the claims that social media companies were pressured by the Israeli government to censor any content highlighting the atrocities by Israel? And complicit by preventing pro-Palestine content?

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210517-digital-rights-group-slams-israeli-attempt-to-censor-palestinians-on-social-media/ https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/26/pro-palestine-censorship-facebook-instagram

Move review for this article and splits, merges, and retitle proposals for Meta Platforms family of articles

While there was a closed discussion for a requested move back in November 2021, I would argue at this point that there should be a formal move review and that the whole FAMILY of articles in the Facebook sidebar and the Meta Platforms navbox NEED to be restructured and reorganized with content about the company, issues with its services collectively, and issues with its business practices versus content about the services themselves, their features, and related articles being separated. Contrary to the previous discussion, most of the content in the Criticism of Facebook article is content summarizing criticism of Facebook, Inc. that was rebranded as Meta Platforms in October 2021 rather than criticism of the Facebook service of the company in the form product performance reviews. Per the precision criterion of WP:TITLE, I would argue that this article should be retitled Criticism of Meta Platforms, that its sections should be split and merged with certain other articles in the Facebook sidebar as well as sections of the articles about other Meta Platforms services that overlap (since many of the issues are the same issues).

Similarly, I would argue that the History of Facebook article should be retitled History of Facebook, Inc. because most of its content is about the company rather than the service and only includes the history of the company before the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The business history that is included there stops in April 2018 even though the company continued to be called Facebook, Inc. until October 2021 and the Facebook service continues to be offered to this day. Likewise, I would argue that the Initial public offering of Facebook article should be retitled Initial public offering of Facebook, Inc. because the Facebook service did not file the IPO but rather the company did. I do not think that these article title moves would sacrifice the recognizability, naturalness, or concision criteria of WP:TITLE. On the other hand, I would argue that 2021 Facebook leak article should be retitled 2021 Facebook files leak or 2021 Facebook company files leak because it wasn't the Facebook service user data that was hacked but internal company documents that were leaked to The Wall Street Journal, but without including "Inc." to satisfy the concision criterion. I think the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal should remain as is also to satisfy the concision criterion.

With respect to restructuring and reorganizing of content, I would argue that there should be a separate sidebar for Meta Platforms and articles about the company, and separate sidebar to include articles about the Facebook service, its features, and other Meta Platforms services and their features. I don't know how to calculate reading prose size, but the current byte and reference counts for the Criticism of Facebook article, the Instagram article, the WhatsApp article, the Reality Labs article, and the Messenger article are as follows:

• Criticism of Facebook (222,726 bytes; 375 refs)
• Instagram (218,369 bytes; 469 refs)
• WhatsApp (175,058 bytes; 339 refs)
• Reality Labs (85,910 bytes; 124 refs)
• Messenger (73,886 bytes; 163 refs)

As such, I would argue that significant amounts of content from these articles and others needs to be merged into separate articles. Here are some suggestions, with potential titles for the hypothetical new articles with the merged content and the existing articles and article sections that would hypothetically be included:

Consumer and labor relations of Meta Platforms

• Criticism of Facebook: Treatment of employees and contractors
• Criticism of Facebook: Better Business Bureau review
• Criticism of Facebook: Terms of use controversy

Human factors issues with Meta Platforms services

• Criticism of Facebook: Psychological/sociological effects
• Criticism of Facebook: User interface
• Criticism of Facebook: Influence of elections
• Instagram: Scientific studies

Advertising on Meta Platforms services

• Criticism of Facebook: Advertising
• Instagram: Advertising
• 2020 Facebook ad boycotts

Anti-competition concerns with Meta Platforms

• Criticism of Facebook: Copying competitors' products and features
• Criticism of Facebook: Misleading campaigns against competitors
• Criticism of Facebook: Treatment of potential competitors
• List of mergers and acquisitions by Meta Platforms
• Giphy: Attempted acquisition by Meta Platforms

Regulatory and tax avoidance issues with Meta Platforms

• Criticism of Facebook: Tax avoidance
• Criticism of Facebook: Net neutrality
• Criticism of Facebook: Lobbying
• Internet.org: Net neutrality criticism in India

Engineering and security issues with Meta Platforms services

• Criticism of Facebook: Security
• Criticism of Facebook: Technical
• Criticism of Facebook: Interoperability and data portability
• 2021 Facebook outage

Privacy issues with Meta Platforms services

• Privacy issues with Facebook
• Instagram: Governmental response
• Meta Portal: Privacy

Censorship by Meta Platforms services

• Censorship by Facebook

Censorship of Meta Platforms services

• Censorship of Facebook
• Criticism of Facebook: Third-party responses to Facebook

Content management on Meta Platforms services

• Facebook content management controversies

I'm sure there are other articles where the content overlaps that I'm not aware of and don't know the criteria for splits and merges, so I would like to hear from other editors before there are any splits, merges, or article title moves formally proposed. I also don't know who closed the previous discussion. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Readable prose size for the Criticism of Facebook article is currently 85 kB. Per the WP:Splitting rule of thumb for size splits, it is an article that should probably be divided strictly on its size alone. The readable prose sizes of other related articles are listed below. After reviewing WP:Notability, it is not clear that splitting and merging articles as proposed would violate that policy. Some additional proposed merges/splits and some revisions to proposals also listed below after looking over the Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook articles.

• Facebook: 92 kB
• Instagram: 65 kB
• WhatsApp: 46 kB
• List of Facebook features: 46 kB
• Privacy concerns with Facebook: 46 kB
• Facebook content management controversies: 33 kB
• Meta Platforms: 25 kB
• Reality Labs: 25 kB
• Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal: 22 kB
• Censorship of Facebook: 20 kB
• History of Facebook: 19 kB
• Initial public offering of Facebook: 17 kB
• 2021 Facebook leak: 14 kB
• Facebook like button: 13 kB
• Censorship by Facebook: 11 kB
• Messenger: 9627 B
• Feed (Facebook): 9500 B
• 2021 Facebook outage: 4784 B
• 2020 Facebook ad boycotts: 4178 B
• List of mergers and acquisitions by Meta Platforms: 1528 B

Consumer and labor relations of Meta Platforms

• Instagram: Content ownership

Human factors issues with Meta Platforms services

• Instagram: Mental health
• Facebook: Political manipulation
• Facebook: Impact
• Facebook: Minors exposed to sexual content on VR apps
• Instagram: User behavior
• Instagram: Performative activism
• Instagram: Culture
• Instagram: Algorithmic advertisement with a rape threat
• Instagram: Human exploitation

Anti-competition and corporate governance issues with Meta Platforms

• Instagram: Facebook acquisition as a violation of US antitrust law
• Facebook: Company governance

Content management on Meta Platforms services

• Facebook content management controversies
• Facebook: Content disputes and moderation
• Instagram: Illicit drugs
• Instagram: Women's bodies
• Censorship by Facebook

Censorship of Meta Platforms services

• Instagram: Censorship by countries
• Facebook: Censorship

History of Facebook, Inc.

• Facebook: History

Privacy issues with Meta Platforms services

• Facebook: Privacy
• Facebook: Privacy policy
• Facebook: Shutdown of facial recognition

Regulatory and tax avoidance issues with Meta Platforms

• Facebook: Environment
• Criticism of Facebook: Environmental impacts

Engineering and security issues with Meta Platforms services

• Facebook: Bug Bounty Program
• Facebook: October 4, 2021, global service outage
• Instagram: Security
• Instagram: July 2022 Updates
• Instagram: System

-- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: As of this writing, the readable prose size (RPS) of the Facebook article is currently 94 kB and the Criticism of Facebook article is 87 kB. The RPS of the History section of the Facebook article and the History of Facebook article (the former of which I've proposed merging into the latter) are 29 kB and 19 kB respectively. The RPS of the Criticisms and controversies section of the Facebook article is currently 38 kB. The RPS of the Psychological/sociological effects section of the Criticism of Facebook article is 25 kB. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Kunjan maka tata

7893155 41.116.248.140 (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Kunjan maka tata

12345678910 41.116.248.140 (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

41116248140 41.116.248.140 (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Kunjan maka tata

ekuseni njer 41.116.248.140 (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

New topic suggestion

How about a new topic on the simple realization, that facebook was originally an idea for virtualising for kids at home, schools' facewalls,.. basically photos of everyone so that kids new to the school, can learn who everyone else is / learn someone's name,.. but-virtual.

That's it guys,.. massive deflation / come-down needed. That is what facebook WAS, and that is all that facebook SHOULD BE.

The base idea basically got ripped off, back in the 90s. I know, it was a visiting Canadian? i think? teacher at our school, who introduced us to the old fashioned paper-version, and after a few of us agreed on a virtual one, that the idea took off.

Obviously some git got to register it as their own idea,.. but it was never meant to become the monster it has. 120.21.95.194 (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Protect this article

Why isn't this article protected? It's about criticism of a large corporation that has a lobbying arm. It should be protected, right? 73.250.255.143 (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)