does facebook facilitate the spread of syphilis, does craigslist facilitate all sort of crimes?

STILL MORE:

@roncallari thanks for the link, Ron! same issue: only thing correct is that the guy did not prove it but it is definitely a possibility ~D. 2 minutes ago via web in reply to roncallari

EVEN MORE:

http://gigaom.com/2010/03/24/facebook-causes-syphilis-and-craigslist-kills-people/#comment-1016443

sorry about the delay...

re: "no one is saying that Facebook actually causes syphilis, but they are saying that it is to blame for people getting syphilis, in the same way that people blame Craigslist for other people’s homes being broken into or whatever the case may be."

Matthew, as I said in my 1st comment:

"Quite possibly, Facebook may facilitate the spread of syphilis (and thus cause the observed “rise in syphilis” like the actual Telegraph title says) and Craigslist may well facilitate killings, as well as all sort of other crimes."

this is the issue that needs to be addressed ... but you *can't* even get to it if you fall in the trap of Craig Newmark and similar and believe that regardless of what the facts show, facebook/craigslist/etc. just can't have anything to do with the fourfold rise in syphilis, for instance... so all that's left is to blame it all on "human nature" and watch all sort of ills go through the roof without even attempting to do anything about it!

compare that with actually acknowledging what's going on and taking measures to keep things under control -- and it's no trivial matter (peoples' lives are often at stake!)

Delia

P.S. already said everything I had to say on this -- take are! D.

MORE:

you are welcome!

Again, as far as I can see, you are only correct on the fact that based on the info presented *we don't know*... not that there is no evidence (they listed plenty of it! it's just not conclusive) or it *couldn't* be the case that say, if Facebook went down for a significant length of time, the rates of syphilis would go down to a quarter of what they are while Facebook is operational, all other things being equal.

And of course, you can never prove 100% that all other things were equal but the Telegraph article would have been much stronger if they would have shown that they checked for the other major things that could have caused the number to go up fourfold and none were found.

Delia

P.S. I'm not buying the argument that it's like the phone or the automobile is somehow directly (physically) causing syphilis -- how silly, that's not what the argument is about at all... Although plenty of people have fallen for that and other of Craig Newmark's ridiculous PR, that's just a means of causing confusion and evading the problem: it's distracting from the fact that the use of particular phones and/or automobiles (like the use of Facebook or craigslist) can easily cause an increase in serious crimes. And there are things that could and should be done about it.

To stay with this analogy, most people don't really doubt the fact that forbidding the use of the phone for texting while driving an automobile reduces vehicular manslaughter and putting this into law makes sense. It has nothing to do with the ridiculous argument that the phone and/or automobile are killing people... D.

let's give Mathew Ingram another try:

Matthew,
(http://gigaom.com/2010/03/24/facebook-causes-syphilis-and-craigslist-kills-people/#comment-1015285)

I'm not sure if you misrepresented the article on purpose or simply misread it but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt. It talks about "rising" and "resurgence" not direct causation (so your title is either a mistake or intentionally misleading). And no, it does not prove it but the problem with the sort of argument you are making is that it implies NO correlation just because none was properly found -- that simply means we don't know! Not that it's not true, that it *couldn't* be true... Quite possibly, Facebook may facilitate the spread of syphilis (and thus cause the observed "rise in syphilis" like the actual Telegraph title says) and Craigslist may well facilitate killings, as well as all sort of other crimes. Any casual peruser of craigslist would have to be seriously dimwitted not to realize there are plenty of illegal things listed and it is at best unclear that craigslist is doing what it should to prevent serious crimes.

Delia

(comic) According to Mathew Ingram, Craig Newmark is a trust expert!

EVEN MORE: So Mathew Ingram "forgot" to post my comment -- is he hoping his readers would just eat up his dubious interview? the sad part is that *plenty* of them will; for the rest, he is embarrassing himself and he must know it...D.

MORE: Twitter: (comic) According to Mathew Ingram, Craig Newmark is a trust expert! http://bit.ly/91D5Y1 4 minutes ago via web

Good God, Mathew! (counted but not published at this point, will check later)
(http://gigaom.com/2010/03/18/craig-newmark-on-the-webs-next-big-problem/#)

after the ebay v. craigslist suit (see the AuctionBytes coverage if you haven't already) you use Craig Newmark as a *trust* expert? *lol* Sorry but I can only laugh ~Delia

(craigslistblog.org) Does craigslist have any claim to the *dot org* domain?

STILL MORE:

this is nuts! somebody should stop them from continuing to make it very difficult for people to realize they are for profit! if you enter the address where the official blog was started: http://blog.craigslist.com/ you get a very odd message:" You've reached craigslist's nonprofit webserver." what??? on the dot com domain? and they moved the official blog to the dot org domain: http://blog.craigslist.org/ -- how much more pathetic can they get? D.

EVEN MORE:

Hi Tim! (1st comment)

I just thought you might want to keep in mind that craigslist has turned for profit *way back* and shouldn’t really have a claim to any dot org domain, including yours.

Delia

P.S. Unfortunately, the dot org domain is still unregulated (but this shouldn’t stop you from acquiring it before them as you did) so they get away with redirecting traffic from craigslist.com to craigslist.org continuing to give the appearance that they are still a non-profit — a whole lot of people appear to be fooled by this (just don’t know craigslist is not a non-profit and hasn’t been that for a very long time). Craigslist should have lost all claims to the dot org domain when it turned for profit.

P.P.S. Good luck with everything and take care!D.

MORE:

Matthew, (1st comment)

Craigslist shouldn't have any claim to the craigslistblog.org domain and should have lost all claims to the craigslist.org domain when they turned for profit, *way back*, (unfortunately the dot org domain remains unregulated so craigslist still gets away with redirecting traffic from craigslist.com to craigslist.org continuing to give the appearance that craigslist is still a non-profit).

Delia
(http://mathewingram.disqus.com/craiglist_vs_craigslist_blogger_round_three_46/#)
....
Why would they? They are NOT a dot org -- they are for profit, so they are a dot com; unfortunately the dot org designation is still not regulated so craigslist is still getting away with using the craigslist.org domain (it actually redirects the traffic from craigslist.com to craigslist.org giving the appearance that it is still a non-profit) ... but that shouldn't give any rights to the craigslistblog.org... craigslist should have lost its right to the craigslist.org domain once it turned for profit.

Delia

P.S. Wondering if this was a consideration when EFF considered offering help to Tim White (2nd paragraph from bottom)

P.P.S. Did EFF's position caused Jim's backpedaling ?-- wouldn't be surprised... D.

(Mozilla help: (craigslistblog.org) Does craigslist have any claim to the *dot org* domain? )

Jim is vague and ambiguous again...

Mathew,

that's vague and ambiguous: what's "generally" doing in that statement? re: "we *generally* don’t view information submitted by our users as data to be used for other purposes" (my emphasis); as usual, I think you are taken for a ride...

Delia

P.S. take care, anyways! D.

let them eat cake!

at this rate, the profits will be in the billions in no time, while expenses are kept ridiculously low: who says the community that built craigslist should have basic things like customer service and improvements... -- "let them eat cake!"

Delia

P.S. low billions (which is the highest valuation for craigslist) is nothing... Craig&Co can milk much more without selling (it's just that you'd think it would blow up at some point -- the number of users left to talk to themselves will be just too high for the scheme to still work... so, yeah, Craig is gambling) D.

(when it comes to image) every little bit helps...

Mathew, I think Craig is an *investor* in Daylife (saying that he "has helped financially" gives the wrong idea that he is a *donor* of some sort...) D.