CrossFit, Inc. Suspends Use of Facebook and Associated Services
CrossFit has announced in a press release that it has closed its Facebook accounts as of May 22, 2019. CrossFit is an almost 20 year old branded fitness regimen. Its press release goes into quite a bit of detail into the problems caused by use of Facebook and its subsidiary services such as Instagram and enumerates eight specific examples of deal-breakers.
Earlier on SN:
Facebook Still Tracks You After You Deactivate Your Account (2019)
Didn't Think Facebook Could Get Any Worse? Think Again. (2018)
Why No One Trusts Facebook (2014)
CrossFit, Inc. Suspends Use of Facebook and Associated Properties After Unexplained Ban
CrossFit, Inc. defends relentlessly the right of its affiliates, trainers, and athletes to practice CrossFit, build voluntary CrossFit associations and businesses, and speak openly and freely about the ideas and principles that animate our views of exercise, nutrition, and health. This website—and, until recently, CrossFit's Facebook and Instagram accounts—has long catalogued CrossFit's tireless defense of its community against overreaching governments, malicious competitors, and corrupt academic organizations.
Recently, Facebook deleted without warning or explanation the Banting7DayMealPlan user group. The group has 1.65 million users who post testimonials and other information regarding the efficacy of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. While the site has subsequently been reinstated (also without warning or explanation), Facebook's action should give any serious person reason to pause, especially those of us engaged in activities contrary to prevailing opinion.
https://www.crossfit.com/battles/crossfit-suspends-facebook-instagram
Related Stories
Selena Larson writes at ReadWrite that Facebook has a perception problem, which is largely driven by the fact it controls huge amounts of data and uses people as fodder for advertising and just can't shake its ultimately flawed nature and gain the trust of consumers.
"Perhaps the largest driver of skepticism towards Facebook is the level of control it gives users-which is arguably limited. Sure, you can edit your profile so other people can't see your personal information, but Facebook can, and it uses your data to serve advertisers says Larson. "Keep in mind: This is information you provided just once in the last 10 years-for instance, when you first registered your account and offered up your favorite movies, TV shows and books-is now given tangentially to advertisers or companies wanting a piece of your pocketbook."
Another thing people hate about Facebook is that when the time comes for someone to abandon the social network, whether over privacy concerns or frustration with the company, Facebook intentionally makes it hard to leave. "Even if you delete your account, your ghost remains. Your email address is still tied to a Facebook account and your face is still recognizably tagged as you, even if the account it's associated with has vanished." Even when you die, Facebook continues to make money off you.
Facebook has many exciting projects, but it won't have an audience left unless it addresses its perception problem says Larson. "Trust is paramount, especially on the Internet, and people need to know that Facebook is making things to improve the human experience, not just spending billions to make even more billions off our personal information," concludes Larson. "Prove to us you don't just care about money, Facebook, and perhaps we'll all realize how much you really have grown in the last 10 years."
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
Source: https://www.engadget.com/2018/12/19/facebook-data-privacy-access-tech-companies/
Just about 24 hours ago, we published a story recapping Facebook's terrible 2018. But the year isn't over, and it looks like the drama is going to continue until the bitter end. According to an investigation by The New York Times that cites interviews with more than 60 people, including former Facebook employees, the company gave Amazon, Microsoft, Netflix, Spotify and other tech firms far greater access to user data than previously disclosed. Earlier this month, the paper reported how some of these companies were receiving favored access to people's information, but we didn't know it was allegedly giving certain ones the ability to read, write and delete private messages.
The data sharing was so deep that even Facebook's business partners were surprised by it: Spotify said it was unaware of this special access while Netflix claims it never checked people's private messages on Facebook nor did it ever "ask for the ability to do so." Apple, meanwhile, was white-listed to view users' phone numbers and calendar entries, but it said it was not aware of this special access.
[...] The biggest issue with Facebook, which hasn't responded to our request for comment, is that it always waits until after a bombshell to clarify its policies -- that's how it got into this mess to begin with.
Meanwhile takyon notes that:
After a year from hell, Facebook parties like it's 2017
Last weekend, Facebook hosted a lavish two-day Christmas party for employees. The event, held this year at the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco, had a winter village theme. It looked like a lovely time for all!
The party was documented by attendees who naturally posted pictures to Instagram (owned by Facebook!). In one corner they delighted to dancers and performers dressed as elves, and discussed perhaps the news this weekend (posted on a blog by Facebook on Friday evening) that a bug had let developers see photos that users uploaded but never actually posted. It affected 6.8 million users. Or maybe they didn't bother discussing this – it seemed a relatively minor screw-up based on the year Facebook has had.
Apparently the mirror reflecting their past year has a bit of distortion.
CNet:
I thought the precautions would reduce how much data Facebook gathered about me. Turns out, I was wasting my time.
Even when your account is deactivated, the social network continues collecting data about your online activities. All that data gets sent back to Facebook and is tied to your account while it's in this state of limbo. It's as if you'd changed nothing.
Facebook says it only removes all of your data if you permanently delete your account. Deactivating isn't as extreme, the company says, and the social network continues collecting your data in case you change your mind and want to return to your profile. Facebook expects deactivated users to return and wants to continue serving them ads relevant to their new interests.
In Soviet America, Facebook will deactivate you?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @07:48PM
They just want you to be fat and sick, so they tell you to eat a high carb diet.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Appalbarry on Sunday May 26 2019, @08:07PM (11 children)
contrary to prevailing opinion.
Is that Crossfit code for "ignores things proven by real science" ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @08:15PM (2 children)
"Real science" has made the US the most unhealthy it has ever been in history.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @09:52PM (1 child)
I don't think "real science" had much to do with it. The sciences that have formed and informed the US' food policy are economics and marketing. I hesitate to call those real sciences.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday May 28 2019, @01:21AM
You are mistaken. The very best science we had said that low salt, low fat, high carbohydrates diets were optimal for human nutrition. This was researched, published, peer-reviewed, taught, preached, and codified as public policy.
No revisionist history here please.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pipedwho on Sunday May 26 2019, @09:54PM (7 children)
It depends on how they formulate their 'low carb' diet requirements. If it's like some over the top programs advocating just fat/meat minus large amounts of good stuff (vegies, nuts, etc), then that is bad. Simply cutting down the carb/sugar intake while keeping other healthy options is supported by science.
The problem with trusting applied 'science' and 'opinion' is that the average layman has no real way to differentiate between someone spouting half understood 'pseudoscientific' methods (ie. science of one element applied to unrelated elements), and options that are actually valid within the requirements of the application.
The media deals with scientific studies in the same way it deals everything. It reports all sorts of opinions and soundbites with incomplete access to the available (or any) evidence. So you get some innocent dude getting tagged as a pedophile on the front page of the local paper (even though any criminal investigation is incomplete and the evidence is slim to non-existent), and you get some controversial non-replicated study being written up as irrefutable fact. If the media reported after appropriate scientific (or legal) process has run its course, then this wouldn't be a problem. But, sadly, the media is concerned with eyeballs, which means reporting controversial views whether they are true or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @10:04PM (6 children)
No, you can easily learn yourself you need to cut carbs to under ~100g (~400 cal) per day. Do this for one week (or even just 3 days for many people). Then you will learn that most of what you thought was hunger your whole life is addictive cravings these people people tricked you into thinking was just a part of life.
The scam they have been pulling is huge. So many health issues are caused by this... they are making money off both sides by selling both the addictive food and the "healthcare".
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Sunday May 26 2019, @10:31PM (4 children)
Absolutely.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @10:44PM (3 children)
Sorry, but your original post is in opposition with your agreement to my post. In "real science" (govo-corporate funded) they still call "low carb" less than 50% calories from carbs. There is definitely nothing from them agreeing with what I said.
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Monday May 27 2019, @01:01AM (2 children)
What you said is a subset of what is supported by current scientific research. You're also not advocating a hard and fast regimen of speculatively chosen foods to supplant an otherwise 'balanced' diet. The research is not fully complete, so changes to specifics will obviously alter adherence to the exact details of the studies. However, the generalities drawn are pointing in the same direction that you've stated. Extrapolating further is where the 'science' boundary is crossed.
Where things go 'pseudoscientific' is when people see a partial or unrelated result in a study and refactor it as a black and white something else. Then we end up with heavily marketed zero carb diets that pick and choose which foods to include and exclude based on other scientifically unsupported factors (probably based on which companies/industries sponsored their work). A classic is crossing over a study for sports nutrition targeting a particular olympic athlete and applying it to the general public that is not otherwise engaging in anywhere near the same energy expenditure or activity.
I do not support "real science" by committee. Especially corporate funded studies that selectively publish only when the results benefit the sponsor (most? all? of them). Things like your proposal for experimentation is valid. It's when 'someone' comes along proposing their own diet with strict rules that purports to be based on scientific research, while actually flying in the face of actual science in every way possible. Sadly, a tiny 5 page book with some basic guidelines on how to eat well will not end up with "New York Times #1 best seller! Over 1 miliion copies sold!" printed on the cover.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27 2019, @03:35AM (1 child)
What I said is not at all a subset of what is supported by current scientific research. They have refused to study it altogether and instead pretend to study it by coming up with their own fake definition of low carb.
I didn't bother to read the rest of your post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27 2019, @06:36PM
You need to spend more time looking at studies and less time trolling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27 2019, @01:35AM
Beans and rice works well for my body (or just white rice), and I don't get thos cravings from that. I never understood the appeal of sugar coated breakfast cereals. I swear those things make you more hungry than you started out!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @08:58PM (7 children)
Play ball and the media will praise you to high heaven. Doubt their narrative publicly, like FB's done by showing that Russians spent barely $50k in ads rather than some vast effort, and they will trash talk you to being the next MySpace.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @09:43PM (3 children)
Saw this quote over at BAR:
"The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses. The press is so powerful in its image-making role, it can make the criminal look like he’s the victim and make the victim look like he’s the criminal. This is the press, an irresponsible press. If you aren't careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --Malcolm X
(Score: 3, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday May 26 2019, @10:31PM (1 child)
So that's where Rupert Murdoch got the idea.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @10:46PM
Traditional news media is a money-loser, but vital infrastructure for the owners to influence opinion their way.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday May 28 2019, @01:26AM
I ran across an example of this earlier this week.
The Chicago Times Tweet/Headline: https://twitter.com/chicagotribune/status/1131358003930836993 [twitter.com]
The real story is "Man shot while attempting to carjack a concealed carry permit holder has died".
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @09:47PM (1 child)
I'm confused. Did anyone ever think that Russia bought their way into election manipulation? Using fake accounts is so much cheaper and probably much more effective, so why would they spend money?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @10:42PM
They needed money to push propaganda groups into the streams of Facebook users. The media showcased a few, they were ridiculous fakes of real groups, things like "Americans for black lives" or so. It was so ridiculous I don't know if the Russian propaganda effort was really that lame, or that it was fake news planted by the deep state to cast blame on Russia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27 2019, @11:47AM
so you're implying that crossfit is actually the aggressor here and that this is all part of some anti-facegag cabal that was set loose after facegag revealed some phony number about russian advertisement spending?
Can someone flag this comment as insane consensus-cracking whataboutism? I can't believe this person is real.
The real obvious problem is that we got bit in the ass again by someone claiming that, once more, 'if we just centralize the internet, everything will work out great!'
5 years later the centralized internet entity shows its true stripes, continues apace trying to centralize and police the human entire space of human ideology, business, politics and everything else.
Hiring no doubt propagandists to visit even the most obscure forums where it might be criticized to crack any attempt at consensus forming against it.
Beware. Corporations and capitalists will not fix the internet, they've been trying to break it since the beginning.
Kanye was right about at least, and maybe only, one thing: they are lying to you. (i.e. it's not a place for friends, it's a place for enemies)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @08:58PM
Let's hope more businesses realize the hazards of building on quicksand.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Sunday May 26 2019, @09:50PM (5 children)
I don't understand why Facebook did this. Can someone please explain this?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @10:03PM (2 children)
Half the problem is not just they did what they did. It's that they provide no explanation - and refuse to provide any. It makes them appear like some black ops government body that operates with no oversight or due process. Everyone just ignores it until they're on the receiving end of the shafting. Applies to all the 'social media' giants.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Sunday May 26 2019, @10:13PM (1 child)
Handing your company's public profile over to a single company that has no requirement to be fair, provide a specified level of service, or even tell you what they're doing is an insane idea. People buying iOS devices (and those developing for them) are in the same boat. You serve at the pleasure of the King.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday May 27 2019, @01:06AM
iOS is worse, it explicitly says in the terms of service that 3rd party developers are not permitted to compete with Apple. So you bust your ass and if you fail it is all on you, but if you succeed and prove a large untapped market exists for some new application category you only get to reap profits until Apple notices and enters the space with a competitor. Then they, legally and quite by the book, drop your competing app and replace it with their own. Or even if they don;t care to compete they can just drop any app for any reason at all, or without even stating a reason. But no matter, there is no appeal process and when you gave them the hundie to buy the right to develop you already agreed, in a real and legally binding way, (since actual money changed hands, vs a typical EULA) that you understand these rules and that you agreed in advance not to take them to court if you later decide you don't like it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by RamiK on Monday May 27 2019, @02:12AM
They have an AI doing the shutdowns to maintain their safe harbor status. Unfortunately health and fitness groups like CrossFit match the characteristics of a radicalized cult with their closed echo-chamber group-think and limited ethnic, age, national, political and gender diversity.
The real failure however is their review process: It's most likely a manual process that's only triggered following a complaint ticket, takes a while to process and is limited to reversing shutdowns by down-rating the associated decision tree to avoid legal complications.
There's naturally a real whitelist that covers political parties, major religions, governments, academic boards and a few select high-profile businesses... But it's likely operated by a small group of middle-managers and requires an approval from upper-management for any new entry.
TL;DR Facebook doesn't squat.
compiling...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday May 27 2019, @05:09AM
Jews.
(Score: 4, Touché) by mrkaos on Monday May 27 2019, @01:36AM
If only technologists had an organization that vigorously protected their rights.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27 2019, @11:56AM
The obvious problem is that we got bit in the ass again by someone claiming that, once more, 'if we just centralize the internet, everything will work out great!'
5 years later the centralized internet entity shows its true stripes, continues apace trying to centralize and police the human entire space of human ideology, business, politics and everything else.
Hiring no doubt propagandists to visit even the most obscure forums where it might be criticized to crack any attempt at consensus forming against it.
Beware. Corporations and capitalists will not fix the internet, they've been trying to break it since the beginning.
Kanye was right about at least, and maybe only, one thing: they are lying to you. (i.e. it's not a place for friends, it's a place for enemies)
note:posted in response to comment where it will likely not be seen so i also posted it as response to OP