It was only infotainment anyway, not a serious news site.

If you have to go through a subscription service, even a free one, in order to comment, there's something amiss here.

Anyone can set up a free e-mail on the provider of their choice, whether it's Yahoo! or Hotmail or whatever. That's a completely different ball of wax. But now all of the traffic for HP seems to be funneled through a completely different website - and all the advertising that follows.

I'm a Facebook user, and have been for a few years now, but I agree that this was not a smart idea on HuffPo's part.

Some of the most horrific things I've seen posted on the Internet have been posted under anonymous user names.

If anyone wants to say something they don't want attributed to their name, they shouldn't be saying it in the first place.

a logical question, indeed.

Matthew Phillips

...some people just steal anyway!

Unfortunately, for some, it is the only way to exercise their freedom of speech without losing their jobs or having some other aspect of their lives severely affected in a negative way.

does this mean that I can no longer post there?

I did not think it was a question of name. I just don't understand why you have to do Facebook to post there.

Unless I am missing something.

I am still waiting for a reply to my query.

The other day, I read an article about some general statistics from the Facebook phenomenon(of course not the financial ones). Among those statistics, one in particular stood out, and revealed to me for the first time something I didn't know at all! It told me that the majority of Facebook users are kids between the age of 4 to 18 years old. It further elaborated by mentioning the average time this age group spends per day browsing Facebook. Would you believe up to 11 hours in a single day. Wow, I thought those stats were somewhat disturbing to say the least. They instantly answered me the question of why obesity among our kids has become a national epidemic in a manner that was both undeniable and shocking.

Am I surprised? Not at all! All my friend's kids are on it - it's part of the schooling curriculum in some countries. Some teachers will even go on saying that it's a great tool of communication for kids to learn. Others will say that learning Facebook provides the necessary skill needed in today's job market, and who doesn't want that for kids. Who doesn't agree about what is great for our kids is great for everybody. Isn't that right?

So, what is the big deal here? Why should I be concerned about "The CIA Facebook Project"? Shouldn't we all be proud that our kids have a Facebook account. Shouldn't we all feel safe and happy to know that the CIA is looking out for our kids? Beside, what a great way it is to find out who cheats on final exams. What a great way it is for the CIA to catch criminals still wandering around freely.

It all sounds good to me.

However, lately I have been having some serious doubts about Facebook practices. I have become increasingly concerned about public safety and the negative effects Facebook has on the public at large.

Just think about it for a moment! If something, such as Facebook, is good enough for the CIA, just how useful do you think it can be for the criminal element the CIA wants to eradicate from the Internet in the first place.

I became ever more skeptical the day I saw "The CIA Facebook Project" headline in the news for the first time. This skepticism went right through the roof when I realized Huffington Post wasn't reporting the headlines on any of its outlets. Right away, I thought that was a bit odd. Why is the Huffington Post refusing to run this story. I always thought Huffington Post provided me with News stories purely as a harmless form of entertainment.

So, what is wrong with this picture? What is really going on here? What am I missing? Well, I don't know! I just can't quite put my finger on it. Not yet, anyway!

Again, why should I be alarmed about "The CIA Facebook Project? To me the answer is simple. I'll tell you what I think in a moment. But first, if your want to hear about it, be warned it's ugly. Why? Well, it's because I think the truth goes far beyond the population controls, or any other lame excuses the CIA has told us.

To me, it's all about "Dirty Bloody MONEY"! It's about where to hide it, and how to hide it if you have it? Everybody knows that the CIA has plenty of it! That's all old news to me; It is all common knowledge! That's not fiction! That's a fact! It's only called "Money Laundering On A Grand Scale" that's all. If in doubt about this claim, check the following links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking, http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/enron_laundry.html, or http://www.alternet.org/story/20268/the_case_that_kerry_cracked. If you are still not convinced, simply grab your favourite search engine and type the following: Money Laundering On A Grand Scale by the CIA.

Oh, I tell you one thing for sure, those new CIA agents are so smart. They are real Genius! The whole aspect of this union between the CIA and Facebook is so brilliant, when I stop to think about it. Who's gonna find out? Right? How can anybody prove it? It's as impossible to prove as the "One Billion Served" claim McDonald made in the early '70s. In that case, it took one old dude with a Master Degree in Advanced Calculus to shed some doubt on McDonald's claim by saying the numbers didn't add up simply because there was never enough cows around.

Does this sounds familiar? It should! About a few weeks ago, Facebook made a similar claim by saying its population had surpassed the one billion user mark. Perhaps, here, ironically though, it is only going to take an old dude with a modest College Computer Science Diplomat to put a hole in "The CIA Facebook Project" claims. After all, who can possibly go around counting how many computers are being used today in the whole wide world.

So, perhaps, there is a simple way to look at that claim. It starts the moment you hypothetically accept the fact that Facebook is more or less a North America phenomenon. After that, you need to find out what is the North America population using at least one computer to browse Facebook? What do you get? Well, I don't really know that for sure! This is the point I am trying to make here. But it is well worth looking into a little closer.

Again, to me, the numbers just simply don't add up! That's all folks! The facts are there! We only need to make a small leap forward and start thinking outside the box. I hope I have done my part by providing here a direction and a place to look at. Go on! Don't be afraid! If you have doubts, then you owe it to yourself to question the authority! Don't be afraid to ask question like why would AOL buy Huffington Post for some three hundred million dollars? Don't you find it strange that Huffington Post began to deviate from its old format soon after the transfer of ownership? Don't you want to know why Hoffington Post and AOL started to deny its very own user base access to free-speech by forcing anybody to sign up with a Facebook account?

Go ahead! Ask yourself why! What can possibly happen if anyone dares to do so? Aren't we all living in a Democracy? Right? So, it's OK to challenge those at the top? It's our God giving right to do so. Then, please, just don't be among those who have lost their rights simply because they were afraid to defend them!

Personally, I will stand up to this cyber-bullying from AOL, Huffington Post, or Facebook. I will defend my rights to the end.

To this effect, I want to thank DU for giving me the opportunity to carry out my duty as a free living human being.

So, now you have it! You have my own personal reason for writing this article here under the "Zorra" user.

That's it for me now!

Be well! Be save! And God bless!

Yours truly
thecytron

I agree that there are some horrendous things posted on the internet under assumed names. However, I believe that the value of being able to speak one's mind without fear of retribution outweighs the alternative. For instance, I am a Liberal and a supporter of most of President Obama's policies (TPP notwithstanding). However, my employer is a proud Republican who makes no bones about his contributions to conservative groups and causes, and who frequently makes disparaging remarks about anyone who shows support for the President. If I post a long, well documented and factually correct blog about President Obama's accomplishments, he could go straight to Facebook, look up my (and every other employee's) posts, and fire those who are too strongly in support of the President. That's why I don't post much of anything that's political on any site where I am identified by my real name. I feel as though I cannot speak my mind fully and honestly because it could cause some sort of retribution.

If someone posts something truly inappropriate - like death threats, for instance - every website knows the address of every user, and the authorities can in most cases trace back a post to its owner if necessary. Not to mention that most discussion sites, like this one, are pretty good at policing their own posts and deactivating users who abuse the site.

A lot of newspaper forums have done the same thing. As someone who categorically refuses to use Facebook, I've been saddened to lose the comment sections.

At least one paper, our own Seattle PI, recently reversed this decision a few days ago after several years.

Facebook's marketing director Randi Zuckerberg, wants to put an end to online anonymity. She believes that Internet users would act much more responsibly on the Internet if they were forced to use their real names at all times.

Zuckerberg, who also happens to be the sister of Facebook's co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, said during a presentation at a roundtable hosted Tuesday by Marie Claire magazine on cyberbullying and social media that the use of real names online could help curb bullying and harassment on the web.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-anonymity-on-the-internet-has-to-go-away/


This could obviously be a problem for people who work for right-wingers. I have right-wing higher ups where I work and they do not need to know about my politics. I can easily see access to that kind of information being used in hiring and promoting decisions.

It is not so much a question of ending anonymity as much as it's about increasing FB's presence and influence on the net.

I do have a FB account and I am careful about who I let on and even then what I post, but I do not comment on open sites with FB.

I hope their membership takes a huge dive - as it should

Whose lame ass idea was that and what was their explanation for it?

I just HATE that you have to use your FB name (yur real name by ToS) - and thanks to CORPS more than the NSA.

All my relatives and friends are on FB, but they do not see me there often. I refuse to post my phone number on any website.

and made it unreadable.

. . .for anything.

They can kiss my ass goodbye as well.

Pissed me off. Noticed a big move to Dailykos and other sites. I wonder if DU has seen any increase in new members?

But between the way the site has turned into a checkout counter rag and now demanding a FB account, no more.

I will not link my Facebook account to anything that offers political commentary. I use FB strictly for fun, friends and family and stay away from the politics unless someone close to me posts something that's unequivocal bullshit; that, I will respond to with facts and logic (not that logic will ever work with a RWNJ, but I suppose it's in my nature to at least make the attempt). I have been known to get pretty darn snarky at some of the drivel that's posted on Huffington; I have found it to be quite entertaining to rile people up now and again. I'm done with Huffington and have removed it from my bookmarks, specifically because of this new policy. I've also heard from many others who are taking the same position. Buh bye, HuffPo!

this last August, after a daily habit of posting there for over six years. It was hard to do. But I was so fed up with the over-the-top, partisan moderation of what posts hit or didn't. When posts that only said F&F wouldn't hit, plus those that I spent a lot of time carefully writing w/links were running about 50-50, I'd had it. It was so annoying to spend time writing, avoiding any reason for HP to flag it, about something I was passionate about, but would never see the light of day. I'd try to rewrite it, hoping for it to hit, but more often than not, it wouldn't.


There was no rhyme or reason to their policies. On top that, I grew to dislike Arianna. Some of her editorials were full of untrue facts, which of course one never got the chance to disprove them or be the least bit critical of.

Coming here was the best move to be able to freely write what I felt. It helped greatly with the withdrawal pains....

So now joining in w/ FB, is so out of line! I guess you could do what I did, which is use a false handle/name, known by who I want to know it's me. Before, using my real name, I got some unpleasant blasts from the past, so I unsubscribed for safety sake.

I'm a semi-invalid, so these social sites mean a great deal to me. I'd go bonkers without them, being a very social type person.

I finally got onto facebook a few months ago..and all I have are Political graphics. Everyone knows I'm a flaming democratic liberal who respects President Obama and I don't care who sees it. I was that way in NY where I worked and it's my still my way since I'm retired living on the Island.

But, I can certainly understand where you're coming from, Brainstormy. Why mix the two?!

was posted. It represents a horrendous lie from last summer when they pledged that current registrants would be grandfathered in.

I don't tolerate hypocrisy (Arianna has spent much of HuffPo space bemoaning NSA surveillance and Pres. Obama--then turns around to do essentially the same).

I don't tolerate being lied to.

I don't intend to allow commercial interests to profit highly off the theft of my data.

and which relatives are tolerant. I don't post much about politics but I don't hide it either. I feel happier that way. But I also don't like the connect Facebook to every other media source thing ... I turn off all of that.

who put up a pic bitching about flying flags at half staff for a communist terrorist (Mandela) but not for a sniper who died. I was one rw talking point too far

too much FAUX news ...

as an alternative to HP. Same article layout but without the gossip crap.

The handwriting was on the wall even then. Just another Pittman arm for the PTB, but with lame infotainment.

When AO-Hell bought it out I knew it was doomed. Dumped my account there right after.

Keep FB for closer friends and family and for a few blogs. Took HP off my desktop the day they did the reconfirm thing. Gone. I am happy with all the DU folk. DU people tend to be ahead of the curve on most things.

I have been using HuffPo as a resource, albeit not a very good one lately, because of the tabloid manner in which they produce articles, but, now, giving them access to my Facebook page to be able to comment, well F U Huffpo, I'm gone. DU is still the best and most honest of all the blogs I read, and will continue to do so. Great sale Arianna....

Adrianne is laughing all the way to her bank, where she should be locked in the vault.

I don't think it is cowardly to limit the audience with whom one speaks frankly. Just because one holds an opinion on a subject is not a reason (or license, if it comes to that) to express it at all times and in all places.

-- Mal

using a new gmail account. I've made one for my band and could easily do it with any name I want. HuffPo just makes it easier on them to maintain a comments section.

STOP with this fucking facebook nonsense

...that your Huffpo activity won't show up on facebook right? The connection requirement is part of their attempt to cut down on anonymous commenting, not an move to get all your huffpo activity to start showing up on your faceboook wall.

I connected days ago, comment all the time on Huffpo, nothing of it shows up on my facebook feed.

are you saying that no one on FB can see your user name or user comments on HP and know that it's you?

...short of stumbling across the post on Huffpo on their own and seeing my name next to it of course.


If you go into your facebook settings there's a function under "Account Settings" --> "Timeline and Tagging" --> "Review what other people see on your timeline"... that lets you view your own feed as another person would see it. Either the general public or you can select how a specific person on your friends list would see it.

I've checked both. Zero Huffpo activity shows up. And I've been chewing out quite a few people on Huffpo over the last couple days.


Looking around my settings I think i found a way I could make the activity show up... if you go to your account settings and list your app settings one of them (if you connect) will be Huffington Post. But mine was automatically defaulted to "Only me" when it was created. I think if I changed that then other people could see stuff. So if you did decide to connect maybe make sure to check that setting right after just to be sure.

Did you use a completely different Internet Connection? Do you realize "FB" has total TRACKING...including "PICTURE ID?"

You think they don't know you are the same person?

...didn't realize I was talking to someone concerned that Facebook was monitoring their every move and spying on their every activity because they're just so important and interesting.

I was addressing the far more mundane and sane concern that someone didn't want their facebook circle of acquaintances reading their commentary in the Huffpo comments section.

Yeah, not gonna go there anymore, either.

I maintain a government and a private organization FB pages and using it for comment well it would be right.

From a simply cyber-security point of view linking accounts is insane.
I was never a fan of FB and avoid them like the plague they are, but HuffPo is apparently now also a non-starter.

I hate that so many discount opportunities need FB or twitter accounts. No-way.

on HP comments. Their moderators are suck asses who don't allow any negative comments about the site. I signed up anyway just so I can fuck with them.

Just quit HP half an hour ago, after one year and 43,000 posts, I posted my first comment here and felt much better.
HP is going to lose a lot of people I am sure and DU is going to get a lot of new members, the linking to Faceplant will be intolerable to many, many commentators there, and I have noticed a drastic drop off in the number of comments to threads since.

Can not agree more that the infotainment part of HP filtered imperceptibly but steadily towards untruths in the political news.

Having said that it was a great site, turned into a crappy site by the usual suspects, greenbacks.

All things happen for a reason.

I left yesterday, but I've been here for a while. Much prefer it here.

I was a HuffPo refugee during the dark days of Greg Gutfield, Arianna Huffington's ass kissing of Republicans, and the comment nuts that posted on every article without any moderation. The site has somehow gotten even worse.

And use it for that stuff

Never had a FB account, never wanted one. And will not be forced to join it now. There is something motivating this that they will not admit, I am sure- perhaps some marketing scheme or something. HP already had much of our information on file.

that I was having withdrawal symptoms all day. Things happen for a good reason...to get me the hell off of HuffPo and start to speak English again. Man, the unique ways that I found to course out people (sorry).

the right-wing AOL is the shit hole outfit that now runs Huffpost. Same org that sent out those internet CDs that were famous for crashing Win 95/Win 98 PCs into blue screen of death mode when dial-up dominated our landscape.

I remember those days very well!

At the time, I worked in a IT department at a College catering to adult education. Most of my time was spent finding ways to get people to the newly accessible Internet experience with Win 95/Win 98. Then came along AOL - a Free Public Internet Email Service.

Wow! There is a God looking after all!

Well, not quite exactly!

For one, I never understood how AOL captured Netscape.net, my favourite Public Internet Email Service.

Like many other users, I went along with the change since it was still FREE!

Then, over the years, AOL evolved to what it is today! On a day to day activity, using my AOL account was a modest experience at best. It is still very limited in what it can do, but what the heck, it's FREE!

Then, one day, Huffington Post entered the picture by offering a broad range of News services. I just loved the ability to comment on stories of interest to me.

Generally speaking, it was fun! But that was to change in a way I had never anticipating.

A few weeks ago, I participated in opened discussion on a story making the News. After going through comments made by other users, I thought I had to respond immediately - it was really ugly. To my surprise, the next day, I could no longer login with my AOL account. I was force to use my FB account.

Well, guess what? I don't have a FB account, and I will never want one. The whole concept of willingly revealing my personal life on the Internet is nothing but pure pornography to me.

After talking to friends and co-workers about it, I was vividly reminded of the FREE idea! In other words, if it is FREE, then it is open to all kind of abuses.

Just thinks what FB is capable of doing to you!

Yours truly,
thecytron

Lots of folks migrating to Epoch Times, it appears.

. . . after having one too many comments -- comments that in no way whatsoever violated the site's stated standards or terms, but purely because it was a viewpoint that a moderator apparently didn't want to see expressed. I read articles now and then, but rarely bother commenting anymore.

For the last year, at least, they have had a real troll problem. When someone writes something outrageous, and won't engage in a dialogue, I figure they are trolling. I just can't let the shit they spew go unanswered, so it was frustrating.

I don't have a Facebook page. So, that's quits for me, I guess.

I wouldn't have mind creating a fake Facebook account just to post comments, but Huff-Po wanted "verified" accounts only. There is no way i'm giving Facebook my phone number just to have a fake profile become verified.

Thank you for the welcome

After which I go somewhere else to get the details.

Look at how many people have fucked themselves by doing so!

UGH

It's not a matter of having my posts show up where I don't want them... as someone else said, it doesn't sound like your Huff posts automatically show up on your FB page. I just don't want to aid FB in their data mining operation. I don't want FB, who already knows too much about everyone, now knowing which Huff articles I chose to post on. Somehow I just worry that information is somehow being used not to my benefit, that facebook is going to find a way to profit from it. I'm not interested in helping FB's business model. I'm on FB because there are some things I kind of have to be there for, but I hardly use it, and would not mind at all if they crashed and burned. I am not looking to contribute any more to their bottom line than I have to.

and i do find that to be a shame, but it's just going to be a common trend. stay off the internet if you want anonymity... basically.

How in hell does a first name/last name initial force people to be "more civil" instead of a screen name? WTF? You're STILL anonymous. I think it's all about gaining access to our Facebookk accounts & everything that goes with them. What's next--requiring our Social Security number?

users-information industrial complex. I'm totally opposed to anyone forcing you to link to Facebook. It also forces Facebook popularity. I don't know what the back room deal with Facebook is, but i'm sure it's pro-business and anti-user. Mark Zuckerberg is a millineal-con, or the youngest Koch brother. I'm just as worried about the Google/Facebook/Yahoo info gathering as I am about the NSA. The NSA can purchase all the info they want about us, so what's the point of having privacy laws that protect us from them without the same laws extending to companies like Google and Facebook? Maybe that's why Google joined ALEC recently? I also think that's why there's so much pushback from Internet companies regarding NSA requests. I don't think for a second Google is worried about our privacy, it's that they're worried privacy laws will affect them and they're trying to get out in front of it. The old....see, we care about your privacy. Be mad at the NSA and not us....trick. I'm not buying. Being forced to link accounts to Facebook or Google is about nothing more than info consolidation and profit.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

A crappy web site design and functionality too on fb, IMO. Just shows you how gullible most of us are. Sad really.

pretty soon the ONLY people commenting on news sites will be the people gullible enough to fall for facebook - JEEZ

It dates back to at least 2009 from my research.

I do.

Not everyone's on social media. Yes, I know many millions of people derive pleasure out of these sorts of things, but many millions of us have absolutely NO INTEREST in social media and never will. I was on FB for about a year due to a family reunion thing I was getting together. I'm sorry, but I just found the whole thing inane. "Today, I had lunch at Applebees. yum!" WHO CARES? Honest to goddess!

When they first started letting right wing trolls on and moderating free speech. Now this is a move that will possibly drive them out of business, as they bleed users left and right. They were already making big budget cuts. facebook is becoming a real problem for internet freedom. Anyone who trusts them is foolish, I'm just sad that no one seems to understand how freedom and democracy are in danger from all these data collecting technologies, unless we have the collective wisdom to put privacy regulations and standards into law.

Still I'm torn. I think some people hide behind anonymity to say the vilest crap and get away with it, but some people need anonymity to keep from being harassed or targeted.

Still, I don't understand why these sites need to link themselves to Facebook or Twitter. Why not have their own boards?

is totally wrong and being pressurized to join something you loathe is not going to work.

Employers - present and future - can troll FB to see what their employees are saying. Would they take action if someone said something they didn't like? Who knows, but who wants to take that risk.

I don't like FB - the only reason I have an account is so my niece who is educationally slow can write to me and send me pictures. I ignore any and all other requests to "join" them on FB.

I know for a fact that employers check the Facebook page of prospective employees. I don't think it's safe to have one's RL name all over the internet (identity theft, stalkers, etc.).

I rarely go on Facebook anyway. The place annoys me and I have no interest in finding every detail in the life of everyone I know.

I just refuse. Call me a Luddite, I don't care. I go several times a week to Huffpost - just for news stories, don't read the blog anyway.

I joined in 2006 when it was still only for college students, and I've hated it ever since they've allowed every pedophile, racist, and creep to join. I still have an account, but never go on anymore. Part of the problem I was having with the non-edu Facebook was creepy people messaging me and weirding me out. I still use my account sometimes, or otherwise I would just delete it.

So, my question is, why would I want to subject myself to this on the internet, where trolls are lurking in every corner? Who in their right mind, especially on a site like HuffPo, would want anonymous creepers knowing their real names so that they can stalk them, or have their picture out there for weirdos to find? That would make me nervous, especially given the wackos that frequent sites like that.

I stopped going to HuffPo anyways, though, due to their crappy journalism and poor site moderation.

I've never had a Facebook account, have no interest in having a Facebook account and believe this is 99% for advertising revenue and 1% for doing away with anonymous posting. I can't imagine why a business would make such a stupid decision. Reminds me of Sears closing stores and then carping about sales being down.

In the first place, they're very deceitful wrt their headlines.. just to hook viewers in to click for $$$. they traffic in a lot of garbage. I try to avoid going there as a rule.