Under their Facebook Principles, they list:
1. Freedom to Share and Connect
2. Ownership and Control of Information
3. Free Flow of Information
4. Fundamental Equality
5. Social Value
6. Open Platforms and Standards
7. Fundamental Service
8. Common Welfare
9. Transparent Process
10. One World
Their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities are based of their Facebook Principles. Some of the rules that are included on this page are:
• You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.
• You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.
• You will not use your personal profile for your own commercial gain (such as selling your status update to an advertiser).
• You will not use Facebook if you are under 13.
• You will keep your contact information accurate and up-to-date.
• You will not tag users or send email invitations to non-users without their consent.
1. This first example violates the rule; “You will not use your personal profile for your own commercial gain”. This user is using his status as a way to advertise the sale of his belonging.
Admin response: I don’t think it is an issue for people to be posting advertisements for personal belongings as long as it’s not for personal businesses. It would be hard to determine if the user is in fact selling the object as a business, but I think it would be out of the scope of an admin to go through every status to look for business ads. There are already options for users to hide posts from a user or “Mark as spam”, so users who don’t wish to view these status are able to block them. These features are similar to those Gazan (2009) saw in Answerbag. If a user reported this posting, I would be forced to remove it because it does break the rules that the user agreed to when they signed up to use Facebook.
2. This second example is in clear violation of the rule; “You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” This status update is extremely violent and is very threatening towards the subject.
Admin response: Users are encouraged to share what is on their mind. Their current thoughts may not always be the happiest thoughts. Gazan (2009), writes that a result of self-aware behavior has both positive and negative effects. Grimes et al. (2008) cited Koster (2006) who said, “Users have the right to speak and express themselves freely…” I would let this go if I came across it, but if a user reported it; I would probably remove the posting. This falls under the sticky subject of censorship, but it clearly breaks the terms that the user agreed to. Dibbell (2008) wrote that the Internet is serious business, but caring too much is what the “griefers” want. Again, users have the option of blocking this user’s posts or reporting it as spam.
3. The third example violates the rule; “You will not tag users or send email invitations to non-users without their consent.“ Facebook allows users to tag themselves and others of their current location. Although not obvious, I personally know that this person was not informed that they would be tagged in posting.
Admin response: Facebook already has the option toggle if “Friends can check my in to Places”, but it is turned on by default. I think there is a privacy concern with this feature and people may not want to allow people to tell Facebook where there are. Also, users may not be interested in where users are at any given time. I think that this still does have its uses. Madison (2006) wrote that physical spaces can “enliven and stimulate a group, or deaden it”. I would turn off this feature by default and if a user would like to use this feature, they have the option to turn it on.
• Value users trust
• Encourage informal groups (Madison, 2009)
• Use oversight from other users to filter out bad postings (Cosley et al, 2005)
• Encourage self-aware behavior (Gazan, 2009)
• Inform and provide users with the tools to share/hide their information