Facebook has come under fire recently for a variety of changes to the site including the recent launch of Facebook Platform (which was not initially well-received by all users), a recent code leak and "that whole News Feed debacle"â„¢. I for one have had nothing against the firm and generally defend it against would-be nay-sayers.

However, this week I have been given cause for concern because Zuckerberg and co. seem to have begun some sort of campaign to remove dissent from the ranks of its members: a group campaigning for the removal of the mandatory "is" from Facebook status messages disappeared overnight on Wednesday without any warning to its creator, London-based Nick Shaw. Nick immediately got in touch, but has yet to receive any sort of a response.

We contacted Facebook's spinners in the US to ask why the group had been deleted. The best response the public relations SWAT team could muster was links to the site's code of conduct and terms of use. We trawled through both (they're a hoot), and the only relevant passage was this, in the latter: "The Company may terminate your membership, delete your profile and any content or information that you have posted on the Site… for any reason, or no reason, at any time in its sole discretion, with or without notice."

So there you go, Nick. Facebook's baby corporate consciousness can throw its toys out of the pram at even the most benign dissent on its pages. And members can just shut up.

I owe a debt of gratitude to a friend of mine for bringing to my attention a very disturbing piece of evidence which clearly shows the trend towards reverse discrimination in Britain.

The backstory

Companies looking to recruit new employees, demonstrate an opportunity for learning or, well, just about anything, are all but obligated to include in photos at least:

• one black male
• one black female
• one individual of Arabic or otherwise Muslim-esque descent
• one homosexual male

These unwritten (or perhaps they are written somewhere) guidelines (or maybe laws already, if not I bet they will be soon) do not include any provision for the necessity of including your general British person: John Smith with fair skin and blonde hair. Heterosexual.

Essentially, firms are so threatened by the pressure of potential discrimination claims that they now have to pretend that the entire country is made up of blacks, Muslims and gays.

This also applies to school textbooks, in which every example of, say, a hypothetical mathematical situation must include at least half female names, and must consist primarily of a variety of ethnic minority names. "Reema is walking at five metres an hour and Muhammed is walking at six metres an hour but starts 20 minutes later than Reema. Who reaches the finish line at ten metres first?"

Latest case

Take, for example, the "Jobs" page of the up-and-coming East Midlands Trains service. It shows one huge picture of a black man and a black woman in train service costume. Now, some readers are going to immediately assume that I believe black people can't work on a train. This isn't the case.

My issue is that EMT now seem to be implying that white people can't work on a train.

Microsoft are once again in the midst of a scandal involving their self-awarded right to access their customers' PCs without permission.

El Reg reports that "Windows Update pushed patches on machines – even though the automatic update feature had been disabled." The updates in question were supposedly updates to Windows Update itself, which Microsoft considers to be a higher-level operation than the more routine updates which users can block in the software's settings.

The issue has touched off concern among some that allowing Microsoft or any other company to install files without their prior knowledge and consent sets a dangerous precedent.

Various comments on the El Reg predictably whinge on about rights and user control.

One explains that it's a misdemeanour in most States to access and modify a computer without express permission from the owner. At least for now, this legal fact overrides the contradictory proclamation in Windows's EULA article in which Microsoft attempt reserve the right to do just that.

Kent Rebman points out that "MS is too stupid to correctly apply principles of backward compatibility in their development and maintenance processes so, so sorry, they'll have to muck around in the innards of your machine without your knowledge."

Another comment in particular is interesting as it sums up quite nicely the variety of abuses which Microsoft has engaged in over the years:

I do not see why people are acting all surprised by this latest violation of personal privacy rights by Microsoft. Just off the top of my head, historically they have:

1) Shipped software to end users that is so poorly designed that over 10 years of constant patching is still unable to render it *secure* (cases in point, Windows 95, 98, 2000, Windows XP, MS Office, Internet Explorer…).

2) Instead of actually fixing the problems, they turned the insecurity of their software products into another *cash-cow* revenue stream with their $50USD/year *Windows OneCare* subscription service (the customers of which, being the cow)…

3) Knowingly hid their *Windows Genuine Advantage* datamining spyware in windows updates, which collected and sent your HD serial number, MAC address, BIOS checksum, computer make and model, MS product keys, locale, your language, and more back to Microsoft's servers without your permission. Then it passed automated judgment on all users (resulting in a 20% *false positive* rate, i.e., 20% of MS users who had legitimately purchased their products were treated as criminals via this fully-automated, rights-removing trial). The nice WGA tool then inserted a time-bomb, causing nag screens to pop up and disabling open access to all updates (which are constantly and urgently needed as discussed in the first 2 points). Many of those contacting MS by phone concerning validation problems were similarly treated as criminals, and many paid even more money using their credit cards to *re-validate* their legitimately purchased software, instead of continuing to be subjected to harassment.

4) Delayed distribution of many patches for glaring security holes which had been identified and published by security researchers, and which were known to be causing harm to their customers via viruses etc. designed to take advantages of said security holes. Instead, they rushed out patches to shore up comparatively harmless breaches of their "windows media format" DRM to satisfy their moneyed friends in the recording industry (proving that, at Micro$oft, it's *all about money*).

The easiest (and only) way to protect yourself is to JUST STOP USING MICROSOFT PRODUCTS. PERIOD. Dell is doing it, HP, Lenovo are selling great Linux-powered PC's fully loaded with secure open-source software like OpenOffice, etc. Lots of people are starting by giving MS Office the boot off of their windows PC's and installing OpenOffice instead.

Reading this gave me a notion.

Inspiration

Continuing my long-term migration from Microsoft products to open-source alternatives (which began with the installation of Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird two years ago) I am downloading OpenOffice today and giving it a go. I don't actually tend to write very many documents but I suppose it's the principle.

And this way, when I next irritatingly get sent a poster or some other "important information" from my own School of Computer Science in Microsoft's DOC format, I can write back requesting re-send in a non-proprietary format such as PDF without just being facetious. Now I'll have an actual reason.

I'm not cool enough to migrate entirely to a Unix-based system — not yet, anyway — but for now I'm continuing in the right direction.

And when I do get to that point of hard-lined geekdom, I shall be looking for a way to continue Remote Desktop -ing from the Windows machines at Uni to Linux at home, without installing any third party software such as VNC on those lab PCs. Bring on xrdp.

Bootnote

I keep the Automatic Updates service disabled and don't run a virus checker. It's all about not going to dodgy crack sites, following links in suspicious emails or installing miscellaneous toolbars for Internet Explorer… or, in fact, using Internet Explorer at all.

If you hadn't figured it out by now, the title of this post is satire.

Ah, npower. Conniving corporate capitalist bastards.

It's been two months since the initial agreement for gas account credit reimbursement. After one month it transpired that they'd sent a cheque to my address in Lenton (long since vacated) contrary to my written instructions, but they agreed to cancel that first cheque and try again to my parents' house where I'm currently staying.

Now the second month has passed and I was getting peeved, so I called them again last night. After waiting on hold, a friendly man explained that another department had been attempting to phone me for three weeks (er, no they hadn't?) because they later decided that they can't just send a cheque to an address unrelated to the account details.

Still, all it took was a re-read of my forwarding address and a brief explanation that I'm a student and want this money now. Now. The Geordie immediately became apologetic something chronic and promised that the typical three to four week turnaround time would not apply in this case. So I'll be getting my £150 cheque within seven days, if all goes well.

That's something, at least.

Itemisation is good

Moving on to T-Mobile I changed my price plan last night so I get more bang for my buck … and in doing so, discovered that the "My T-Mobile" interactive website now features an up-to-date run-down of tariff usage.

And the best bit? It's itemised! I could see my earlier call to npower just ten minutes afterwards, right there at the top of the list.

Amazing.

A man named Kevin Whitrick has been in the news today for having hanged himself in front of a webcam, whilst users of an 'insult chatroom' urged him on and tried to discourage him varyingly. The live suicide actually occured back in March but has hit headlines again because a coroner has decided that such chatrooms should all be banned.

The coroner was told Mr Whitrick had been using a "friendly insult" forum at the time of his death.

He hanged himself while some internet users urging him on and others tried to stop him, coroner Michael Gwynne heard.

A tragic story, yes, but jumping to the conclusion that the ability to engage in meaningless banter with other human beings directly caused a death seems a little sensational.

Poor Mr Whitrick had long-running problems with depression whilst alive. With the greatest of respect due to the man, I'd recommend banning depression before speech.

Next, people will be electrocuting themselves whilst swearing with their mates and then having friends will be banned.

Back in March, I remarked to some friends on social networking site Facebook that the site itself had begun displaying epilectically-violent, flashing "YOU ARE THE 999,999th VISITOR!" banner adverts. This was not long after the infamous "talking Valentine smileys" debacle that infuriated users by throwing irritating chat-up lines at them every time they opened a new page on the site.

At the time, I vocally wondered if perhaps Facebook should have some sort of policy on quality control for the adverts displayed through whatever exchange programme it uses.

Then someone suggested using the now-popular combination of Firefox with "AdBlock Plus", an extension which allows end-users to selectively block the display of advertisements. Despite my issues with the specific adverts being displayed on Facebook, I disagreed in principle with the use of a blocker.

The background

Advertisements on free websites generally fund the website either entirely or majoritively, and I predicted that as advertisement blockers become more popular, advertisers will become anxious about spending money on material that may well be hidden from an increasing segment of the online population. Consequently, fewer advertising deals would be struck (or, at least, less lucrative ones) and sites like Facebook would have to begin charging for services.

The typical argument for ad blockers is that the user of a computer should be able to choose entirely what they see on it, and this is a concept to which I wholeheartedly subscribe. Generally.

The story
In this case, however, my fears about the realistic consequences of such control are already starting to be realised.

Jason S. reveals that websites are beginning to block Firefox so that the number of visitors to their site will once again exactly equal the number of people who see the embedded advertising:

A website designer called Danny Carlton started it all to block Firefox on his website in order to boycott the Ad Block Plus extension of the browser. Now it seems that many other website owners have joined forces with him.

This puts advertisers' minds at ease and the website owner can rake in the monetary rewards which keep their website running.

I feel that this effect will only become more pronounced as consumer awareness spreads of such conceptually innocent tools at AdBlock Plus.

From the New York Times:

Nationally… more than one third of mortgage holders — 37 percent, up from 35 percent in 2005, or a rise of more than 1.5 million households — spent at least 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs, the level many government agencies consider the limit of affordability.

"Maybe it all means that housing is not as smart an investment for as many people as we thought,” said Matt Fellowes, a scholar in metropolitan policy at the Brookings Institution. "Stocks perform better than houses over time. Maybe the American dream should be building wealth in general, not building a certain type of wealth, which we see is narrow and dangerous."

And as pmarca says, "hey, someone finally said it!" The American Dream is all about building wealth… financial wealth. How sad.

It's not even as if I'm horrendously anti-capitalist; I just find it unfortunate that the people who generally tend to think that they're the best and most powerful nation in the world have the sole goal of getting very rich. By definition. Because everybody in the US shares the American Dream, right?

In Switzerland, a country with the toughest naturalisation laws in Europe, an official report says that the current system is "discriminatory" and "racist".

At the moment, to become a natural citizen one must live for 12 years in a Swiss community before they can even apply, then go before a committee to demonstrate "their desire to be Swiss".

Now Switzerland's "Federal Commission on Racial Discrimination" is recommending massive changes to the country's policies.

Community choice

I think it's perfectly reasonable that the citizens of a community should be able to decide who they want joining them. You wouldn't expect to allow randomers into your family without control and I don't see how this is any different.

In terms of potential racist bias, for example if the prevailing view of a community leans towards not desiring a new disabled community member, although this would be an undesirably unfair view would that disabled person ever really be accepted there anyway?

The right-wing Swiss People's Party, currently leading in the opinion polls, claims Swiss communities have a democratic right to decide who can or cannot be Swiss.

And why not? A democratic country such as Switzerland is, by definition, owned and controlled (albeit indirectly) by its natural inhabitants … or, at least, it should be. Natural citizenship of a country isn't a club that you can just join at will regardless of whether or not you're wanted.

If the Swiss people are racist and don't vote any Muslims into natural citizenship, then by all means make efforts to educate this view out of the general conscience but in the meantime it should still be their choice.

Immersion required

The Swiss system displays parallels to Australia's immigration laws and the new "mateship" tests which aim to ensure that potential immigrants have a desire and a willingness to mould into the society they are trying to join.

Why should the society have to change for them (which is effectively the opposite possibility)? Societal diversity is a good thing: if every country was the same glib mix of the every possible view and culture then those countries would have lost their independant identity for ever, much like Britain already seems to have done for the most part because it's bordering on illegal to require people to immerse in the British culture for fear of offending anyone who came from a different culture.

In return for membership of any society, applicants are expected to make an effort to respect and enjoy the prevailing culture. Why should citizenship be any different?