Skip to main content

View Diary: Facebook is Murdering Dogs (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Separate issue, Granny (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dream It Real

    The solution you suggest is a workaround for another issue entirely.

    Facebook recently stopped delivering content from a Page to all but 16 percent of its subscribers. In other words, even people who want to receive content do not. The only way to get it onto their timelines is to pay facebook to promote the posts. Though I consider that part of their business plan odious, because it essentially ransoms content back to whomever wrote it, it's not what I'm referring to in the diary.

    The problem I am addressing seems more innocuous, but it is about randomizing comment order, and there is not a workaround for that.

    Guaranteed. A lot of people have been trying very hard to find one.

    Half the proceeds from my Indiegogo campaign go to dog rescue.

    by Gottlieb on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 12:41:30 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's only somewhat separate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama

      If I don't follow a group, I don't get their feed. However, it would be a good idea for a group to post the above method as a way for their followers to actually follow. I follow quite a few rescue groups. Using the method I mentioned, I get ALL of their feeds. Everything. I then share that which needs to be shared. Without the "get notifications" I only get the occasional random stuff.

      I agree that the issue is problematic. Maybe FB needs to work on a way around that for non profit groups.

    •  Sure there is. (8+ / 0-)
      The problem I am addressing seems more innocuous, but it is about randomizing comment order, and there is not a workaround for that.

      Guaranteed. A lot of people have been trying very hard to find one.

      The workaround is to use something other than Facebook... something where your organization controls the comment settings, including the order and threading of the comments. People used the internet to coordinate things long before the rise of Mark Zuckerberg, and they'll likely keep using the internet to coordinate things after Facebook goes the way of Myspace and Friendster.

      As it is, the service Facebook is running is no-charge for consumers and organizations, so you're getting your money's worth.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 12:55:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You don't seem to understand (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dream It Real, KenBee, Calamity Jean

        There was a sudden, unnanounced shift in a fundamental use of provided infrastructure. As people migrate away from the business practice, animals die. The migration will take LOTS of time.

        Facebook's unwillingness to allow an opt-out, or to change it back on those in the experimental group who are seeing actual deaths is not defensible.

        •  You seem to think FB has obligations to you. (12+ / 0-)
          There was a sudden, unnanounced shift in a fundamental use of provided infrastructure.
          See, there's where you lose me. Facebook isn't "infrastructure," like roads or phone lines; it's a service, one that is being offered to you and your organization to use for free in return for providing Facebook's advertisers with your data and attention.
          As people migrate away from the business practice, animals die. The migration will take LOTS of time.
          That might have been something your organization might have considered before putting all your eggs in Facebook's basket.
          Facebook's unwillingness to allow an opt-out, or to change it back on those in the experimental group who are seeing actual deaths is not defensible.
          Sure it's defensible. Their defense is "you are free to use or not use what we provide at any time." You haven't paid them for the service, and thus there's no real or implied contract between your organization and them that obligates them to keep the service running in any certain way.

          It seems to me that if dogs' lives are at stake, the mistake was in entrusting those lives to a free service where the company offering the service was completely free to change the settings or alter your arrangement at any time.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:07:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dream It Real, KenBee

            Regardless of facebook's not being hard infrastructure like a road, you are depending on semantics to defend vile business practices.

            The fact is that it became infrastructure - and not for me, read more carefully, I am quite clear about saying that in my case, I don't like it but it doesn't matter - and as this is a change applied to only a few pages, and one they are not doing for anything other than an experiment on those pages, saying that they are justified in sticking to that experiment in cases where it is doing great harm is just you arguing for the sake of hearing your own voice.

            •  No, that's not true at all. (10+ / 0-)
              The fact is that it became infrastructure
              No, the fact is that some organizations have started treating it like infrastructure.

              That does not create an obligation on Facebook's part to operate as if Facebook were infrastructure.

              Let's use an analogy here: Suppose I have a house with a big front yard on a corner that experiences a large amount of foot traffic—and suppose that people start cutting across my lawn instead of walking all the way around the corner on the sidewalk.

              And then, let's say, I get sick of there being this line across my lawn where repeated footsteps have worn away the grass, so I decide to pave that stretch across my lawn.

              But a while later, I decide that I'd like to reclaim my front yard, maybe put in a fountain or something, so I close off the paved path on my front lawn and put up a fence so that people have to walk all the way to the corner again.

              About a week after I've put the fence up and torn out the paved path, a man is being chased by an axe-wielding murderer and is trying to get to the police station around the corner for safety—and, unable to cut the corner, he is caught by the murderer and killed.

              You would suggest in this situation that I am to blame for this man's murder, because I closed off the path running through my front yard.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:25:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That logic (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dream It Real

                is more tortured than the dogs being dragged into gas chambers today.

                •  Then please enumerate exactly where... (6+ / 0-)

                  ...my analogy breaks down.

                  Facebook's sidewalk isn't a city-owned sidewalk but a privately-owned one; that these organizations are treating it like infrastructure doesn't make it so, nor does it create an obligation on the part of Facebook to keep things running in a way that is most convenient for these organizations.

                  "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                  by JamesGG on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:33:12 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your sense of legality (0+ / 0-)

                    is trumped by your lack of a sense of ethics.

                    •  "Obligation" isn't necessarily... (5+ / 0-)

                      ...all about "legality."

                      Surely we would agree that Facebook is in no way legally obligated to offer this free service to anyone at all. But you are suggesting that they are ethicallyobligated.

                      You're suggesting that because these organizations have (with absolutely no agreement from Facebook to this effect) become dependent on a free service offered by Facebook, Facebook is now ethically obligated in perpetuity to keep this service running in the way that these organizations find most convenient.

                      If Facebook fails to keep this service running in the way these organizations find most convenient, you write, it is Facebook that is ethically culpable for the death of these dogs whose lives are on the line—not the people who actually engage in the action of killing the dogs, and not the people or organizations who chose to make the lives of these dogs dependent on Facebook's service rather than using a different service that offered more in the way of user control.

                      So, to recap: To you, Facebook is "murdering dogs," and those who suggest otherwise "lack a sense of ethics."

                      If nothing else, you have a profound gift for hyperbole.

                      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                      by JamesGG on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 03:10:28 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Would you be making the same (0+ / 0-)

                        argument if twitter ran an experiment in the middle of the Arab Spring that cost lives?

                        Do you not understand that there is a difference between obligation and ethics, between what the law calls for and what is the right thing to do?

                        Do you think it was right for Bain to jack $350M of auto bailout money? It was legal, but was it right?

          •  Actually, you're right, I do (0+ / 0-)

            They have a responsibility to everyone. It's called social responsibility. There is NEVER an argument to be made that if an unintended consequence that costs lives of a business action can easily be reversed at no cost it shouldn't be done.

        •  Of Course It's Defensible (10+ / 0-)

          Facebook is completely agnostic about what people are using the groups for.  Maybe there's a Facebook page that is secretly being used to trade in human sex slaves, and this modification has saved MILLIONS of people from slavery!

          Even if that were true (which I don't believe it is of course) FaceBook wouldn't deserve credit for stopping the sex trade anymore than they deserve blame for killing dogs.

          Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

          by TooFolkGR on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:09:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  If only they would realize the money you sent them (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          debedb, Trobone

          to pay for using their site was intended make them keep it like you prefer! There must be some sort of legal remedy. . .

          "Mitt Romney looks like the CEO who fires you, then goes to the Country Club and laughs about it with his friends." ~ Thomas Roberts MSNBC

          by second gen on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 06:53:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  So post an announcement on the Facebook page, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrugalGranny, second gen, JeffW

          telling people to go somewhere else to follow through on the rescues.  Facebook isn't the only fish in the sea.  If they lose people who go elsewhere for needed services, Facebook will lose (more) money, and that's all they care about.  

          Renewable energy brings national global security.     

          by Calamity Jean on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:24:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Jesus H. Christ (0+ / 0-)

            the point is that during the migration, dogs are dying. They could be saved during that period by customer service clicking on a setting.

            That's called social responsibility. Something people used to give a shit about at this site. Now, this type of corporate not-giving-a-shit is considered okay.

            It's pathetic how difficult the minor change it would take to save lives and suffering seems to be to comprehend.

            •  Jesus H. Christ, yourself. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JeffW

              Clicking on a link and waiting for it to come up takes, what?, ten seconds?  I sincerely doubt that saving ten seconds is really going to make a significant difference.  

              Renewable energy brings national global security.     

              by Calamity Jean on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 10:31:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I've Only Ever Adopted Rescue Dogs (5+ / 0-)

        And I've found all of them on Petfinder.  Maybe they could use that.

        Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

        by TooFolkGR on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 12:59:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow - genius! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dream It Real

          No one would have thought of that!

          Petfinder is not for coordinating rescue efforts. You obviously have no fucking idea how much work, and how many people, it took to get your dogs on Petfinder.

          Someone had to get them out of a shelter. Someone had to arrange transport, vets, foster homes, visits, write a description. If you think that the only dogs on petfinders are shelter posts, you just don't know what is involved, and perhaps you ought to look into it before you defend business practices that cost lives.

          Especially if you like dogs, which you seem to.

          •  Even if Every Word You're Saying is True (6+ / 0-)

            This is more about incompetence by operators of rescues than it is about facebook.

            But you're right, I like dogs.

            Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

            by TooFolkGR on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:11:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Whoa there (11+ / 0-)

            No need to be nasty. Best Friends has been rescuing animals since well before FB.  They would continue to do so without FB. They have a model that works. They have networks of volunteers that are nationwide. Maybe there are lessons to be learned from their model. They use FB, but they are NOT reliant on it.

          •  you're not winning support (10+ / 0-)

            by being a smart ass

          •  You are not being a constructive help (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            trumpeter, FrugalGranny, alain2112

            for rescuers in this diary, IMHO.

            Various sugestions are being helpfully offered - you might want to step back and take a look at your original premise.

            "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

            by wader on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 03:50:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What suggestions? (0+ / 0-)

              Not one. All the suggestions are too bad, take it, so what, dogs die, who's going to bother to complain to facebook, what they do is fine with us. Use twitter?

              Are you kidding? What facebook is doing wouldn't have been considered all right if the experiment was conducted during the Arab Spring. And if you wouldn't believe that it would have been all right then, there's no way to gloss over the parallel here.

              And wader, if you think a donut is frightening, feel free. Have one on me. I'm allowed to feel sorry for someone's dogs all I want. Seems I'm the only one.

              •  It was offered more than once (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrugalGranny, debedb, JamesGG, second gen

                that you should consider what organized rescue groups did before Facebook.  As one example, most of the rescue groups I knew used mailing lists, which are often free to setup.

                Google+ was offered, and that's a terrific combination of semi-organized content, subscription and messaging services.  Also free.

                Along those lines, Google Groups happens to be very good for a concentrated subject and/or group of subscribers.  Likewise free.

                Best Friends was mentioned as being effective long before Facebook ever appeared.

                Twitter (which is easy to use for neophytes), gomeetings, gchat, mobile text messages, phone calls, etc.  All mentioned and more.

                I'll add that you can go to a rescue-oriented Usenet newsgroup via any NNTP interface you'd like, such as rec.pets.dogs.rescue

                Foremost in this, if you are not running and/or paying directly for the I/T service being provided, you should expect the need to use workarounds or entire migrations to other tools over time.  This was also offered as planning advice which happens to be true for any organization using free Internet tools.

                Assuming that Facebook ever had your specific requirements in their queue to support a dog rescue operation in the manner of your organizational desire is being rather narrowly focused on a single mission without understanding the worldview of that I/T provider, I feel.  It's either time to adapt to Facebook changes or move on.  I have been communicating with others electronically since old unix BBS and Arpanet days - this need to move to greener pastures happens quite often.

                With many of the above suggestions, I bet you can easily migrate your operation to another method quickly and help the users become effective without much bother.

                "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                by wader on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 06:19:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And (0+ / 0-)

                  Your comment is utterly pointless. The point is that the switch, made without warning, was not something that anyone could have foreseen. So how do you expect millions of people to retool their online strategy - these are not IT people, they are regular people trying to get dogs out of shelters and into homes - instantaneously?

                  Would you be as forgiving of say Twitter or fb had they experimented in a similar fashion during the Arab Spring? Might it then occur to you that there could be an issue of social responsibility? Or do you just not give a shit because it's dogs who are dying? Which is fine - that's up to you.

                  And, for the umpteenth time, it is not my rescue, I am not affected. Clear? I am reporting on what is happening to others.

                  And you can yell at me all you like - it doesn't make tens of thousands of users upon whom that was sprung without warning able to make an instantaneous switch. Obviously they are working to switch now. Having been put in that position is indefensible - other than on the bizarre corporatist grounds you are promoting. And facebook not responding to please to stop it, when it would cost them zero, is indefensible. You defend it merely on grounds of droit de seigneur. Which is wild.

                  The point is that in the meantime there have been many, many needless deaths.  

                  Needless deaths and suffering that could have been avoided without loss of any kind to the precious corporation you are so keenly defending.

                  •  It was pointless to use Facebook for the style (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FrugalGranny, debedb, second gen

                    of organizing to begin with.  Not a good fit at all and I don't blame them for changing.

                    Without considering better I/T options, I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish by literally defending to extremes the notion that Facebook is killing dogs, etc.  It's a useless point: they experiment with their site constantly.

                    If users can learn to figure our the decidely user-unfriendly Facebook, they can quite easily go to one of the many means mentioned above.  All I/T needs reevaluation at times and you are not helping your cause by sticking fingers in your ears and holding your breath at the same time.  You could be looking at lasting solutions instead of stamping your feet.

                    Do you realize that dog rescue groups have used email mailing lists and newsgroups for far longer than Facebook?

                    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                    by wader on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 07:57:36 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  it is pointless to talk to you. (0+ / 0-)

                      The fact is that people are scrambling, have been for two months. The networks can not be reconstituted instantly. A large percentage of the people using it had to overcome lots of learning obstacles to do that much. Getting everyone to just switch is just not something that happens fast. Especially, by the way, when a page's posts are only relayed to the feeds to of 16 percent of the fans to a page.

                      What would it cost facebook to stop conducting the limited experiment on those rescues? Tell me, please. What would it cost. If they are only doing this to a few pages, why not shift it to other pages, like mine, on which no one gets hurt?

                      How can you defend that they ignore a problem that has deadly effect?

                      Your attitude is identical to Bain Capital's. No social responsibility called for, the buck rules, fuck 'em if it kills anybody.

                      •  Without clear direction of what to do and where (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FrugalGranny

                        to go, of course migration will be difficult.

                        It takes almost no training to send out instructions to people for sending an email to a specific address with the subject word "Join", for example.  That's a mailing list - I was subscribed to a number of them for dog rescue for years - long before Facebook.  It's usually free or very cheap.

                        One of many suggestions.

                        Google Groups is very friendly and easy to use, has subscriptions to be notified of new posts, etc.  It's free, but maybe you didn't want to read that above.

                        You are not helping to lead here, that's fine.  But, don't blame others for giving practical advice from their very real I/T experiences in how this can and likely should be dealt with for the larger group.

                        If you feel that Facebook has ever had your requirements for organization in their roadmap, then send them a Support request for the feature you desire and why it is being requested: ask them to explain what they will or won't do for free.

                        Facebook supports socializing, not formal organizing.  It's not a tool to rely upon for dog rescue organizations to communicate, unfortunately.

                        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                        by wader on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 08:11:21 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Jeebus! (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    debedb, second gen
                    Your comment is utterly pointless. The point is that the switch, made without warning, was not something that anyone could have foreseen. So how do you expect millions of people to retool their online strategy - these are not IT people, they are regular people trying to get dogs out of shelters and into homes - instantaneously?
                    I'm losing my patience. People have replied and you are getting more and more rude.

                    Yes, the damned switch was made without warning. Why in HELL was FB the only method these people were using? Why were there no other methods? I have dealt with a LOT of shelters and rescue groups. They rely on phones, texts, listservs and so on. It's called redundancy. One doesn't have to be an IT person to figure that out.

                    No, I'm not saying they deserved all this. I AM saying that now that this has happened, they need to take immediate steps to get around it.

                    •  Yeah? (0+ / 0-)

                      Show me a rescue that was working along the redundant lines, duplicating everything in more than one place all the time in expectation of such a thing happening?

                      Show me one, and I'll shut up.

                      If you can't, you do the same.

                      •  I already linked to Best Friends (0+ / 0-)

                        If you can't be arsed to follow that link and do some real investigating, then I can't help you.

                        Here is a specific page at that link. Scroll around and find out about the different methods they use.
                        http://bestfriends.capwiz.com/...

                        I'm not going post it a third time.

                        •  Uh, Granny - (0+ / 0-)

                          You were saying that they were using a redundant system. And they are not.

                          I would still ask that you back up that claim, for that is the claim you made. Not that there are other venues. You said, to paraphrase, that the smart groups used redundancy. Show me one.

                          That one ain't it, no matter how many times you post it.

                          You are defending a deathly maneuver by a corporation out of personal animus.

                          •  well bless your heart (0+ / 0-)

                            When shit happens, the message gets out. THEY DO NOT RELY ON ONE METHOD. They use FB for news bits. They don't rely on it for rescues.

                            When they needed my brother (who works there) because of a huge rescue, they emailed him, texted him, AND left notice on a listserve as backup.

                            THAT IS FUCKING REDUNDANCY WHEN IT COMES TO GETTING THE MESSAGE OUT!

                            It means you have more than ONE way to contact the people you need to contact.

                            Since you don't want to see it, you won't.

                            I have nothing more to say to you that hasn't been said already.

                          •  You just made my point (0+ / 0-)

                            They are not in the least redundant. The threaded conversations do not take place on their web site, though comments are available. They take place...

                            on facebook!

                            Getting your brother on the phone is not like calling 14,000 people. And they're not being redundant system-wide. They're, in fact, not in the least bit redundant. You know not of what you speak.

                            And most rescues are not as successful and well-finded as Best Friends, which is one of the finest. If your point is that smaller rescues aren't worth your consideration, well, I wouldn't be surprised.

                            You are simply wrong, and not big enough to admit it, because your personal dislike for me and adherence to your clique is more important to you. So, I really don't care what you have to say any more either.

                  •  The passive voice here is a problem. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FrugalGranny
                    Having been put in that position is indefensible - other than on the bizarre corporatist grounds you are promoting.
                    You write in the passive voice about these organizations "having been put in that position," as if the people running those organizations had nothing to do with how they got there, as if relying on Facebook was unavoidable.

                    That's not at all the case.

                    They chose to rely on a service which was being given to them for free, a service whose terms or interface they knew could be changed by the people running it at any time without any recourse.

                    They could have used other services that would offer them more control, but they chose not to. It wasn't Facebook that chose to (by your terms) entrust the lives of dogs to the reliability of Facebook; those organizations did.

                    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                    by JamesGG on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 06:18:51 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The service is not free (0+ / 0-)

                      It profits from you. And if you fail to recognize that, you are the perfect mark for them.

                      •  That wasn't the point of my comment... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FrugalGranny, Bailey2001

                        ...and you very well know that.

                        The point was that these organizations had a choice as to whether to put all of their eggs into the basket of a company that wasn't charging them for the service, that reserved the right to change the parameters of the service at any time without recourse, and whose interface was entirely out of their own control.

                        They could have chosen differently, because there were many other options that would have given them more control over the interface. But they didn't.

                        So why is it Facebook that is "murdering dogs" when they do something they have always reserved the right to do, and not those who entrusted their coordination to save the dogs' lives to an untrustworthy medium?

                        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                        by JamesGG on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 12:25:46 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  i'm assuming these groups (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FrugalGranny, Bailey2001

                    operated before facebook. so they could go back to that.

                    I'm assuming they could set up other pages on facebook not affected by the beta test if they wanted.

                    how about you stop whining to facebook and do something. acting like a jerk and accuse facebook of killing dogs (which, it is literally not doing in any sense) is not going to help you gain support or solve the issue.

                    facebook has no moral, legal, or business obligation to announce beta tests or gain approval for them.

                    •  How hard is it to understand (0+ / 0-)

                      PEOPLE ARE REVERTING.

                      IN THE MEANTIME DOGS ARE DYING.

                      IT WOULD TAKE ONE CLICK FOR SOME FB ADMIN TO ELIMINATE THAT SUFFERING.

                      ITS THAT FUCKING SIMPLE. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

                      You genuinely amaze me. If you believe corporations have no responsibility not to do harm, then I just have nothing more to say to you.

                      •  how hard is it to understand (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FrugalGranny

                        it's not one click,.

                        there are most likely thousands of lines of code that would need to be adjusted for the groups you care about to become special "please don't beta test me" pages.

                        and no, companies do have a right not to do harm. but organizations like rescue groups have a responsibility as well. facebook is not a dog saving company. it's not a arab uprising company. it has no obligation to any particular group, be it gangdam style or liberal or conservative or animal rights. if a dog saving group wants to do its thing, it's not facebook's job to try and make it as easy as possible. facebook's number one job is to make money for investors by increasing web traffic. if this beta tests goes poorly, the update won't be made system wide. if it is, expect every page to be the same. it is not facebook's job, or obligation, or imperative to go page by page and think, well we could test it here, but they might get mad, so we won't.

                        i've tried explaining how to get around the problem. i've offered a half dozen other ways to communicate for free. i've explained why facebook did what it did, and how it operates on a daily basis with beta testing. your response has been to insult. I'm done with you and any group you're affiliated with. there are many animal rights groups that don't go around insulting those who help.

              •  Forgot to mention (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrugalGranny, Calamity Jean

                You aren't the only one who cares about dogs and supports their rescue.  Your specific gripe about Facebook has no bearing on that fact.

                I find your attitudes towards people who are challenging your limited I/T view of Facebook's need to bend to your will as self-centered and haughty, at best.

                "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                by wader on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 06:21:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wader

                  You stated that better than I could. A lot of suggestions were made and for someone to say we don't care is insulting. Besides, I had my GUS (gave up smoking) diary to monitor. My diary tonight features dogs, of things. :)

                •  Well, and I find your (0+ / 0-)

                  condescension pompous.

                  •  Check out a mirror, please. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FrugalGranny

                    I've seen this act before, unfortunately.

                    You are apparently so deeply web to your local group's current organizational style that anyone who appears to not give you answers that you expected - i.e., ignoring or blithely dismissing all the constructive response provided - apparently causes you to claim some moral high ground that nobody else is allowed to come near when it comes to dogs.  As if your rescue group is the sole proprietor of good conscience and effective management.

                    This has led you to claim that other DKos members are poor owners or implicitly willing to let dogs suffer instead of being rescued, because you cannot fathom any other method of seeking to organize your group aside from demonizing Facebook for not having clue about your ill-fitted use of their site.  And, we cannot give you a better answer than saying it's not a useful tact for your group to take.  Far better to move if Facebook cannot meet your needs any longer.

                    I'm in I/T and trying to help you realize that your way will unfortunately not work, so summarized various easy methods mentioned here and pulled from my experiences.

                    At the same time, I'm not above calling out bad actions when I feel they are evident on the site.  One of my sisters owns a rescue god, transports animals which are scheduled to be put down in shelters, fosters various cats and works for the ASPCA - I have supported her efforts in various ways over the years.  I am no stranger to the good that can be done by rescue groups, but using Facebook as you desire doesn't seem to be a path which will provide you the benefit you need - best to consider a process and tool change now.

                    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                    by wader on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 07:52:34 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It is not my local group. (0+ / 0-)

                      You should read the diary and read what I wrote. That it is not my rescue group. You are responding without even having comprehended what was written.

                      I clearly state:

                      On a page like mine, it doesn't matter. No one is dying. We can seek other venues at leisure.
                      it is not a local group, it groups all over principally, though not exclusively, the United States. Those are only the ones that are complaining.

                      Sticking fingers in the ears? What are you doing by defending facebook's neglecting this situation when it would take zero effort or cost to stop experimenting on the rescues who have told them it is killing animals?

                      How is that a problem?

                      Address that instead of the personal dislike for me you are only able to focus on?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site