At best: not proven. At worst: "no smoke without fire"--style prejudice.
A couple of high profile criminals haven't had Facebook accounts. From this some people have inferred that people without Facebook accounts are up to no good. This is incorrect reasoning.
It would be an interesting study that compared a random sample of people with Facebook accounts to a random sample of people without Facebook accounts. But no such study appears to have contributed to these claims.
Well it's the Daily Mail, innit? What else did you expect when you clicked the link? Sex offenders aren't allowed on facebook, so expect a headline very soon that anybody without a facebook account is probably a rapist or a paedophile - if not both.
Yes, it's the Daily Mail, and yes, it's a headline ending in a question mark. But I'm not the person who trawls the Daily Mail for links to post to HN.
I was curious about what their rationale was. I wasn't expecting it to be particularly justified.
"The common concern among bosses is that a lack of Facebook could mean the applicant's account could be so full of red flags that it had to be deleted."
"lack of Facebook", is that some kind of newspeak, as in "not enough Facebook", or "take 200 grams of Facebook every four hours"? DailyMail, you go lower and lower.
Since I can't believe that someone linked a Daily Mail article on HN for the content, I assume this was posted as an example of how incompetent reporting can lead to the spread of ignorance?
7 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 26.7 ms ] threadA couple of high profile criminals haven't had Facebook accounts. From this some people have inferred that people without Facebook accounts are up to no good. This is incorrect reasoning.
It would be an interesting study that compared a random sample of people with Facebook accounts to a random sample of people without Facebook accounts. But no such study appears to have contributed to these claims.
I was curious about what their rationale was. I wasn't expecting it to be particularly justified.
I use twitter, so wouldn't that substitute the social network need (that we didn't need 20 years ago but now determines our mental health...)?
"lack of Facebook", is that some kind of newspeak, as in "not enough Facebook", or "take 200 grams of Facebook every four hours"? DailyMail, you go lower and lower.
It is quite an interesting example of that.