I just deleted my Facebook account…. yay!!
After many weeks where anoyance with Facebook (and even the whole social-networking phenomenon) has been growing within me… I finally looked into deleting my account. As it turns out, it is not so easy. One can ‘deactivate’ his or her account but it still remains and, you are informed, that unless you check a specific box, your will still get notices and emails. So, I guess Facebook has a different definition of ‘deactivate’ than what shows up in standard dictionaries.
On the ‘deactivate’ page, there is a prominent text box asking if you are ‘deactivating’ your account because of the recent discussions surrounding Facebook’s change to their Terms of Service which, Facebook helpfully points out, are erronious and based on misunderstandings. What happened was that Facebook tried to implement a new Terms of Service, where they stated they now owned all the material people post (including photos, messages), and there was a large user backlash. Facebook backed down and went back to the old Terms of Service to prevent a PR nightmare from unfolding and then pasted messages all over their site stating how luvvy-duvvy Facebook is and how utterly democratic Facebook is. Which is odd because ‘deactivating’ your Facebook account only means that you will not use it any more but Facebook will continue to use it… mostly likely for marketing purposes and, of course, so that they can continue to state that they indeed do still have 150 million users worldwide.
But I did find this link on a wiki somehwere (of course, it was not locatable by putting the words ‘delete’ and ‘account’ into the Facebook search box… hmmm, interesting).
So, to delete your Facebook account go to:
http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account
The above link will allow you to delete your account. The account is not immediately deleted but only ‘deactivated’ and you are given a 14 day grace period where you can think it over. Rest assured Mr. Zuckerberg, I will not be coming back and you better delete all my personal information from your servers in 14 days.
Will the U.S. ever get its defense spending under control?
In all this economic meltdown talk, I was not surprised that the U.S. defense spending budget (which sits at just over $500 Billion… at least, that is the base, publicly disclosed budget… active wars and ‘black’ or secret projects add hundreds of Billions more) rarely if ever came up. As I said, it’s not surprising since defense spending has been a sacred cow in the American imagination but it, and the U.S.’s status as superpower/empire puts a severe strain on the U.S. economy. So, the few times that I heard Obama mention the need to take defense spending more seriously and to try to clean up the cozy and costly relationship between the Pentagon and numerous defense contractors and members of Congress (what Dwight D. Eisenhower famously called the ‘military-industrial-[congressional] complex’), I didn’t think much would come of it. I still don’t but I did find this Alternet article very interesting: “Obama’s Serious about taking an Axe to Corruption and Waster at the Pentagon,” by Alexander Zaitchik.
Of course, there is a lot standing in the way of any reform since defense spending is the biggest barrel of pork one could imagine. And it is probably the biggest example of how the U.S. political system regularly “spreads the wealth” and mostly to a few corporations and military contractors.
For more on the military-industrial complex:
http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/
Why We Fight, 2005 (dir. Eugene Jarecki)
Will social networking survive the recession?
Oh... to think back to the time when the world was filled with 'phantom money'...
While there have been endless references to Facebook and now Twitter circulating on the lips of every journalist and newscaster these days, there have been a growing disucssion of the fact that these sites simply do not make money. Before the most recent financial bubble burst, there was (seemingly) endless supplies of investment capital floating around and the fact that Facebook and Twitter might have, say, 150 million registered users had the financiers throwing… err… investing money in anything that might look promising. Of course, now that we realize that the money venture capitalists had to invest was nothing more than phantom money (monopoly money if you will), there is little to go around. So, I have been wondering if the latest fads in social networking will be jsut that… fads. I mean, it is very surprising that Facebook would still be searching for a workable business model at this point in time and I honestly wonder if there is ever going to be the amount of ‘phantom money’ around like there has been over the last 10 to 15 years. The complete lack of regulation over banking and financial markets in many countries (but especially the U.S.) led to years of magical wealth creation and, as a consequence, the creation of even more ‘phantom money’ to be put back into the system (by large or small investors). Of course, the current financial meltdown (the likes of which have not been seen since the 1930s or the late 1800s) has changed everything completely.
What does this mean for Facebook and Twitter? It will be very interesting to see. One thing is for certain. There is going to be A LOT less phantom money around and a lot fewer investors willing to take a chance on a company that has millions of users but little in the way of actual revenue. In the past, companies like Facebook could probably get by promising that their business model would change and they would find a way to monetize or leverage the millions of users who use their service but do not pay for it. Those days are probably over… at least for a very long time.
At any rate, I came across these interesting articles and thought I should share:
George W. Bush to visit Calgary…
A letter to PM Harper and other ministers arguing that George W. Bush should be arrested under international law (due to the invasion of Iraq in 2003) if he tries to enter Canada.
Recently, it was announced that former U.S. president George W. Bush will speak in Calgary at a function arranged by, presumably, tinePublic Inc. and McCreath Communications… or their presidents, Christian Darbyshire and Andy McCreath. Hmmm… Dubya only a couple hours away…. Of interest also is that the dinner will cost $1500 per plate and is being sponsored, in part, by the Calgary CFA Society, a professional organization for financial analysts… which is of course funny given the endless Enron-esque scandals and deregulation fed economic bubbles that formed under Bush’s term in office.
What is astonishing is that these two guys… Darbyshire and McCreath… are trying to make money off of a guy who is basically responsible for over 600,000 excessive deaths in Iraq since 2003 (see MIT’s Human Cost of the War in Iraq website and look under the section ‘Reports’).
Apparently, I am not the only one who is not very comfortable with ‘Dubya’ coming to Canada and, apparently, this is his first speaking- (if you could call it that) appearance outside of the U.S. since his leaving office. This was sent to me earlier today: a pdf document originating from Lawyers Against the War (see see image to the left).
I also came across the website, The People vs. Bush (http://www.peoplevbush.ca/)… and it is interesting to see the comments on websites and blogs… apparently, there are a lot of individuals in Canada out there who believe that George W. Bush should be barred from entry to Canada and many who believe (and others in his administration) should be tried for a variety of crimes. As the New York Times reported: “A USA Today/Gallup poll in February found that 62 percent of Americans favor a criminal investigation or an independent panel to look into the use of torture, illegal wiretapping, and other alleged abuses of power by the Bush administration.” Which means there is even a lot of resentment in the U.S. out there at this moment too. I also heard many shoe jokes today in reference to his visit. At any rate, Canada should really prevent him from coming.