How can you draw a conclusion like this if you don't even use them (per your own admission)?

Wasn't the internet designed originally so that if one node goes down, the other nodes still keep functioning? It was originally a military experiment to create a network that can withstand the disruption of a nuclear attack. So there is not central control at all. Right now there is no internet kill switch, and it doesn't sound like a technologically possible entity.

Now, stuff like Facebook and Twitter aren't designed that way, since there is a degree of central organization. But email will continue to work.

Da Bing

There is a reason why 50% of all UK businesses who have Internet Access ban Facebook access (and most of the other social network sites) because from an overall point of view, allowing access is a amazingly poor use of company time (man hours) and markedly affects productivity and can lead to some severe consequences for the economy. (Although in this case the issue was online Porn)

Gossip and efficient communications are not really the same thing.



That is correct but taking out one node (the analogy would be the LA highway system) and attempting to send all the LA traffic down a another node (the B955) is going to lead to some traffic jams.



This is easy. Session kill everyone and don't allow them back on to connect to the RAS or authentication server.

It can even be done remotely in the UK by having super user access to this website (will take out about 90% of end users in the UK)

www.btwholesale.com

You're right. Actually, the content (e.g., gossip, emergency info, news updates, or whatever) that is being communicated is irrelevant. The topic here is about systems for which to contact people. Facebook and Twitter are two such systems.

The problem again is that in an emergency situation (even without limited bandwidth and no Spetznas folks with their choppers) you have no control over the other 600 Million people who may want to access Farcebook to have a wee gossip about an impeding TEOTWAWKI event which they have just heard about.

The ability to post a message on a twitter page from an SMS is rather useful though if you are within cell service reach. A few postage stamps kept in the wallet along with some postcards isn't too much of a issue though. I should have thought about using them during Hurricane Irene when I was in Cuba though as the rest of the family back in the UK were racked with worry apparently due to the news media, after announcing that the Hurricane had shut down the 'happiest place on earth'.

Who was talking about "business use"? I don't think that had been mentioned until you brought it up.

Facebook is a multibillion dollar corporation yet the communications aspect of the website for the so called 'end users' is apparently free. From the business aspect of the Facebook, i.e. the business model, Facebook is a data mining and personal profiling operation which sells on your implied personal information to others. That is the basis for its income stream, although I'm still at a loss at the size of the market capitalisation for the company considering the limited value of the information it generates for purely 3rd party marketeers, which is why there is a suspicion that the News Onion Youtube video is nearer the mark than you would ever suspect.

Facebook et al are also treated by other businesses as a major security threat to their operations, such gathering insider information and industrial espionage.

As you may have guessed already I'm not a fan. What is quite shocking is also finding out about Mickey Mouse's operations also collecting biometric information from its customers. The All seeing eye it appears is almost everywhere.

There is an ongoing telephone and computer hacking scandal which has polluted the political process and even corrupted the police force at the highest levels in the UK. News international once owned Myspace. It would be interesting to know publicly if any Myspace account passwords were passed to the phone and computer hackers working for another subsidiary within the News Corporation media empire. It might have been a good idea to ensure that personal email and Myspace accounts had separate passwords when this criminality was taking place.

As there is no personal data protection legislation in the US this would be a moot point though as incorporated businesses it would appear don't have any morals when it comes to infringing on personal data protection of individuals.

In an emergency situation (e.g., stuck on a snowy mountain), I would prefer for my communications to have zero privacy. The needs of business are on the opposite end of the spectrum.

But are you really going to access your Facebook account and or start Twittering with your smart phone and hope that someone knows and or cares about your predicament or are you going to call the Emergency Services such as the Police, Mountain Rescue or Coast Guard? If battery power or cell service range is spotty then an SMS to your Twitter page might be worthwhile, but would you attempt to call the emergency services first and risk the last of the battery power on the phone?

Opening a browser page to login into the Facebook account on the phone will probably draw more power on the smartphone than making a voice call or sending an SMS.

The general rule stands: I'd prefer zero privacy in most emergency situations. You brought up business, but their needs run opposite to my needs in an emergency. Let's assume battery power is not an issue, that I've already contacted Mountain Rescue, and that I feel like I'm dying. So then, I have the opportunity to use email, text, Facebook, etc. Ideally, I'd prefer to have a live broadcast to the entire world if I could. Facebook and Twitter would be about the closest thing at that moment with my humble little smart phone. If you could present another system that comes closer, then I'm all ears, but I haven't heard anything that's much better.