Which Is Safer? Facebook or Myspace? Also, Breastfeeding pics on FB Allowed/Or Not?

[Miggz]

Ok so in your opinion, which is safer, Facebook or Myspace? In my opinion Facebook is indeed safer. I think one of the main reasons Facebook is safer is because it leaves less room for "impostors" to thrive. One of Facebook's main themes is sharing your world with the world by posting pictures of yourself and those around you. This element alone is what made Facebook quite possibly more successful then Myspace, which I kind of see slowly dying out.
I can remember seeing Myspace on the news a lot because pedophiles and other online threats were constantly impersonating others or simply taking up a brand new identity. I mean sure you find a handful of fake celebrities on Facebook, but that number fails to compare to the amount of phonies on Myspace. Again, I feel the main reason Facebook is safer is because Facebook forces its users to share pictures of themselves and the people around them.

My second debate topic is about the whole mothers being asked to remove their pictures of them breastfeeding their children. In your eyes is this right or wrong? I feel that mothers should have the right to post pictures of themselves breastfeeding. Do the creator(s) of Facebook really find breastfeeding pictures pornographic? Its absolutely ridiculous. I don't see anything sexual about an "infant" feeding on her mother's breast. Some parents on the news were saying things like "well these kinds of pictures are not appropriate for Facebook's younger audience." Comments like these make me chuckle. I can understand the whole birds and the bees topic can be a little awkward to discuss with your child at a particular age, but how can they think breastfeeding your infant falls under the umbrella of sex/porn? Can you honestly tell me that some parents are so childish that they can't explain the whole breastfeeding thing at the appropriate time? Makes you wonder which one is the child.

I can understand that not everyone would want to see their friend, cousin, whoever breastfeeding their kid. More often then not, these pictures are thrown in an album entitled "breastfeeding pics" or something on those lines. Also, when you first log on, Facebook provides its users with mini pictures that have been recently uploaded. So I feel there are easy ways to avoid the pictures if one doesn't wish to see them.

That's how I feel on these two issues. Care to debate? ^^

 

[Cherry64]

Did you know that if you search your facebook name on Google that it'll come up with your facebook page, Also if your joined to a network ( I am personally joined to the Calgary AB one) that your network shows up along with a few pictures of you? Go ahead, type in a random name and see what happens. not ONLY does it tell people where you are located, but it shows your profile picture too. Psycho's on the itnernetz wanting to kill anyone, some random civilian, Google is now their best friend. Worst of all they aren't going to patch it or fix it in any way, turns out the thing we signed while joining facebook said that search pages can find profiles just by typing in names.

In all of that I am going to have to Disagree. Myspace is safer if your not dumb.

 

[Miggz]

Well Google, no the internet in general, has always been the best friend to psychos since its creation. Also, if you have your Facebook privacy settings set properly, they won't be able to find your location. Not even through Google, which can also find Myspace profiles. So Google easily exposes both. A picture alone isn't going to do much good, unless its combined with the person's personal information. As long as the person is smart enough not to add people they are 100% clueless about, they will be fine. Actually, even if you add someone of Facebook, your privacy settings are still able to hide valuable information.

Still think Myspace is safer? Perhaps when you read the link I have posted below you'll change your mind.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/10/71948

 

[Crimson King]

From your link:

Today's investigatory target, 39-year-old Andrew Lubrano, has been less careful, and now he faces his fourth arrest for a sex crime. Lubrano was sentenced to three years probation in 1987 for sexual abuse against a 7-year-old boy, according to police. In 1988, he got another probation term for second-degree sex abuse. In 1995, he earned a three-to-nine-year prison term for sexually abusing two boys he'd been babysitting, one 11, the other 9.

God, the system is broken. He managed to molest for kids and got out again?

 

[Miggz]

I know, right? Its so stupid. The last crime is even more stunning. After all that and he still got a babysitting job.

 

[|RK|]

Ok so in your opinion, which is safer, Facebook or Myspace? In my opinion Facebook is indeed safer. I think one of the main reasons Facebook is safer is because it leaves less room for "impostors" to thrive. One of Facebook's main themes is sharing your world with the world by posting pictures of yourself and those around you. This element alone is what made Facebook quite possibly more successful then Myspace, which I kind of see slowly dying out.
I can remember seeing Myspace on the news a lot because pedophiles and other online threats were constantly impersonating others or simply taking up a brand new identity. I mean sure you find a handful of fake celebrities on Facebook, but that number fails to compare to the amount of phonies on Myspace. Again, I feel the main reason Facebook is safer is because Facebook forces its users to share pictures of themselves and the people around them.

I disagree, completely. Since when does being forced to share pictures make anything safer? These pictures, whether your profile is private or not can be seen through Google, as previously stated. On top of that, your friends' pictures and names appear on said "private" page, allowing people to link you to them. This puts your friends in possible danger, however, I will leave that to the imagination. For now. That said, Myspace is more vulnerable to hacker attack due to poor security.

My second debate topic is about the whole mothers being asked to remove their pictures of them breastfeeding their children. In your eyes is this right or wrong? I feel that mothers should have the right to post pictures of themselves breastfeeding. Do the creator(s) of Facebook really find breastfeeding pictures pornographic? Its absolutely ridiculous. I don't see anything sexual about an "infant" feeding on her mother's breast. Some parents on the news were saying things like "well these kinds of pictures are not appropriate for Facebook's younger audience." Comments like these make me chuckle. I can understand the whole birds and the bees topic can be a little awkward to discuss with your child at a particular age, but how can they think breastfeeding your infant falls under the umbrella of sex/porn? Can you honestly tell me that some parents are so childish that they can't explain the whole breastfeeding thing at the appropriate time? Makes you wonder which one is the child.

It isn't that breastfeeding falls under sex/pornography, it is that breasts are considered parts that shouldn't be seen bare by the general public. Private parts, if you will. 'Tis the same reason many Americans shy away from topless beaches when they are with their children. It is also the reason why the rating (PG-13, etc) goes upwards to a more adult level when breasts are shown. It isn't the breastfeeding, but the breasts themselves. Same goes for showing the bare posterior. Whilst it can still be seen through the clothing in some cases (because I am certain that someone was thinking about this), it is still inappropriate and termed "indecent exposure". Which is what the showing of bare breasts is also considered. To make Facebook more public-friendly, they are forced to request removal of these pictures. Again, your friends aren't the only ones Facebook allows to see your pictures.

I can understand that not everyone would want to see their friend, cousin, whoever breastfeeding their kid. More often then not, these pictures are thrown in an album entitled "breastfeeding pics" or something on those lines. Also, when you first log on, Facebook provides its users with mini pictures that have been recently uploaded. So I feel there are easy ways to avoid the pictures if one doesn't wish to see them.

Protection of the general public. Again, your friends are not the only ones who can see your pictures.

 

[Miggz]

I disagree, completely. Since when does being forced to share pictures make anything safer? These pictures, whether your profile is private or not can be seen through Google, as previously stated. On top of that, your friends' pictures and names appear on said "private" page, allowing people to link you to them. This puts your friends in possible danger, however, I will leave that to the imagination. For now. That said, Myspace is more vulnerable to hacker attack due to poor security.

Well the pictures sharing apparently IS making things safer because it seems there are far less offenders joining Facebook. Why? Simply because these pictures are leaving less room for anyone to impersonate or make up fake names. Honestly, a Facebook profile with no pictures an a strange name no one knows isn't going to get anywhere. Regarding threats...obviously there will always be online threats. As I said earlier, the internet is anyone's best friend. My overall point is that not a lot of sex offenders are joining Facebook itself. Attacking/stalking people outside Facebook is a separate issue. Again, you are far more likely to have your information exposed on Myspace.

It isn't that breastfeeding falls under sex/pornography, it is that breasts are considered parts that shouldn't be seen bare by the general public. Private parts, if you will. 'Tis the same reason many Americans shy away from topless beaches when they are with their children. It is also the reason why the rating (PG-13, etc) goes upwards to a more adult level when breasts are shown. It isn't the breastfeeding, but the breasts themselves. Same goes for showing the bare posterior. Whilst it can still be seen through the clothing in some cases (because I am certain that someone was thinking about this), it is still inappropriate and termed "indecent exposure". Which is what the showing of bare breasts is also considered. To make Facebook more public-friendly, they are forced to request removal of these pictures. Again, your friends aren't the only ones Facebook allows to see your pictures.

Well to me, that's just society placing a taboo on things like this. What we have to understand is we can't define "abnormal behavior" without considering one crucial fact, "what may be considered abnormal in one culture can be seen as normal in another culture." I'm sure women in Africa tend to walk around with their tops exposed on a regular. But just like you, I was raised in a culture where women who walk around topless would be considered inappropriate. But at the same time, I wouldn't be quick to label or judge her.

 

[|RK|]

Well the pictures sharing apparently IS making things safer because it seems there are far less offenders joining Facebook. Why? Simply because these pictures are leaving less room for anyone to impersonate or make up fake names. Honestly, a Facebook profile with no pictures an a strange name no one knows isn't going to get anywhere. Regarding threats...obviously there will always be online threats. As I said earlier, the internet is anyone's best friend. My overall point is that not a lot of sex offenders are joining Facebook itself. Attacking/stalking people outside Facebook is a separate issue. Again, you are far more likely to have your information exposed on Myspace.

Okay, I agree with you. Mostly because of this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/25/usa.news

Well to me, that's just society placing a taboo on things like this. What we have to understand is we can't define "abnormal behavior" without considering one crucial fact, "what may be considered abnormal in one culture can be seen as normal in another culture." I'm sure women in Africa tend to walk around with their tops exposed on a regular. But just like you, I was raised in a culture where women who walk around topless would be considered inappropriate. But at the same time, I wouldn't be quick to label or judge her.

Of course not. However, it is still generally considered appropriate and Facebook was created in America. It is only natural that typical American beliefs should be present.

 

[HawaiianJigglyPuff]

Does anyone know the algorithm for how Facebook search works?

I think the search engine of facebook is a lot safer. With Facebook, it's difficult to find people who aren't friends of your friends. I can't find a lot of old friends on facebook because it gives me results of people who are friends of friends, or near my networks rather than looking for the actual name that was typed.
(eg. I type "randall dull" it will first show me "randy dell" 51 mutual friends and randall dark in my same networks and THEN show me "randall dull")

Myspace is easy to find exactly who you want and it's easier to specify a location. Facebook tries too hard to find your friends.

 

[Lythium]

My second debate topic is about the whole mothers being asked to remove their pictures of them breastfeeding their children. In your eyes is this right or wrong? I feel that mothers should have the right to post pictures of themselves breastfeeding. Do the creator(s) of Facebook really find breastfeeding pictures pornographic? Its absolutely ridiculous. I don't see anything sexual about an "infant" feeding on her mother's breast. Some parents on the news were saying things like "well these kinds of pictures are not appropriate for Facebook's younger audience." Comments like these make me chuckle. I can understand the whole birds and the bees topic can be a little awkward to discuss with your child at a particular age, but how can they think breastfeeding your infant falls under the umbrella of sex/porn? Can you honestly tell me that some parents are so childish that they can't explain the whole breastfeeding thing at the appropriate time? Makes you wonder which one is the child.

I can understand that not everyone would want to see their friend, cousin, whoever breastfeeding their kid. More often then not, these pictures are thrown in an album entitled "breastfeeding pics" or something on those lines. Also, when you first log on, Facebook provides its users with mini pictures that have been recently uploaded. So I feel there are easy ways to avoid the pictures if one doesn't wish to see them.

Mothers should have the right to post pictures of breastfeeding. It's not considered pornographic, or even indecent exposure. There are more racy advertisements for dating services on Facebook than breastfeeding mothers. As for parents being concerned about Facebook's "younger audience," applicants are technically supposed to be 18 years old. Obviously, it's ridiculously easy to get around, but that's not the point. And breastfeeding shouldn't be that awkward or difficult to discuss with a child. Even young children can understand the simplistic nature of breastfeeding.

Moreover, attitudes towards breastfeeding in public (or on Facebook) differ in parts of the world. In Canada, it is against the law to ask a woman to cover up or stop breastfeeding in public. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding_in_public

 

[|RK|]

Mothers should have the right to post pictures of breastfeeding. It's not considered pornographic, or even indecent exposure. There are more racy advertisements for dating services on Facebook than breastfeeding mothers. As for parents being concerned about Facebook's "younger audience," applicants are technically supposed to be 18 years old. Obviously, it's ridiculously easy to get around, but that's not the point. And breastfeeding shouldn't be that awkward or difficult to discuss with a child. Even young children can understand the simplistic nature of breastfeeding.

Moreover, attitudes towards breastfeeding in public (or on Facebook) differ in parts of the world. In Canada, it is against the law to ask a woman to cover up or stop breastfeeding in public. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding_in_public

I already explained this.

Let's get to some points here:

1) Yes the age requirement is there and easy to get around, and that's the point.

2) Again, breasts. Nude breasts. Why do you think beaches are separated? It doesn't matter why your breasts are showing, they're showing and therein lies the problem. If women are allowed to show their breasts for breastfeeding, then what happens? They are still exposing a part of their body that society generally agrees shouldn't be seen by children. Or the general public. It falls under indecent exposure one way or the other.

 

[rhan]

When you're posting information about yourself and/or pictures of youself on ANY website it's highly dangerous.

To contribute to the thread. I'd say Facebook is much safer. Myspace allows fraud to a dangerous extreame. People get thier accounts hacked all the time. This allows pedophiles information about whoever they want. Also it's not difficult for pedo's to con kids into meeting them. Especially when the intellegence of the average myspace'ers are lower than a monkey on seroids. The age requirement is simple to dodge because you just change the year you was born. Elementary school students can make an account (Even though it's easy to dodge facebook's age requirement too).

On the breastfeeding pictures. I think they shouldn't be allowed unless it's for possible education purposes (But on a serious note who would go to Myspace or Facebook for an educational purpose?). My main reason for why they shouldn't be allowed. Possible nudity. The age range of people using these sites are between 13 - 19. Parents/Adults don't want children exposed to such images.

 

[|RK|]

You can stalk people effectively on Facebook too, since you can simply Google them. You can look at their friends, etc. All without having to go through the trouble of hacking.

 

[Miggz]

You can stalk people effectively on Facebook too, since you can simply Google them. You can look at their friends, etc. All without having to go through the trouble of hacking.

Yes, you can do this. But what a lot of posters in this thread realize is that stalking is much harder to do on Facebook, then on myspace.

 

[ANTi_]

I would indeed say Myspace, Facebook you can search up one's name and all their information is revealed. Facebook is mostly for adults and Myspace is for adolescents imo.

 

[Purple]

If you have information on yourself, it can be googled. Period. It doesn't matter whether or not it's facebook or myspace, to be honest i've seen more instances of myspace pages than i have facebook pages on google.

Also cherry64 you noted that if someone puts your name in google it'll show up info. Why wouldn't said psycho just put up information through facebook?

I feel facebook is safer due to the option of showing your wall posts via news feed. On top of this, facebook is much cleaner since there's no real way to have layouts, so when a person sees your page, seeing a potential pedophile messaging is right in your face.

However i do know there's some sort of alert on myspace that prevents pedophiles from messaging you i think it was called the amber alert? Plus having to know a person's email before adding them in myspace is kind of safe :/.

They both have their high points, but facebook is still safer, just because another person can easily see your conversation with another person. It's not private, but it's helpful.



-------------------


breastfeeding situation, not sure what to really say about it. Putting a picture of yourself yet not showing nipple wouldn't be considered porngraphy, so i guess a baby suckling on his/her mother shouldn't be considered a problem either.

there really isn't all too much to say about it XD

 

[ANTi_]

Myspace most people mess around with their names. For example this girl i have added has her name as "MisZ WiFeY" if she was on Facebook then she would be put in the situation where she has to put her real first name. I'm not speaking about googling names im talking about going on facebook and searching someone's name.

 

[Purple]

Myspace most people mess around with their names. For example this girl i have added has her name as "MisZ WiFeY" if she was on Facebook then she would be put in the situation where she has to put her real first name. I'm not speaking about googling names im talking about going on facebook and searching someone's name.

actually, people change their names on facebook too. usually changing their middle name to something silly.

also, even if someone's name isn't their real name int he title, their real name is still in their profile so people can search them up.

 

[ANTi_]

Well it must just be my town because they only mention their first name which is VERY hard to track.

Their probably is a million different Michael's on Myspace.

 

[pacmansays]

I'm not sure but you can get people stalking on facebook quite easily and they can have access to any information you put up and all your images.

you have to be careful on who you add, no strangers but real friends

 

[Purple]

I'm not sure but you can get people stalking on facebook quite easily and they can have access to any information you put up and all your images.

you have to be careful on who you add, no strangers but real friends

and since they have to put their full (or at least their first and last) names, you don't have to worry about who you add, even if they don't have a picture!

but he is right, it does show your facebook as your very first search if you put in your full name. However you can prevent this by changing your middle name into something odd.

*sidenote* - a few of your friends come up as related content on google.