how to annoy facebook


Recommended Posts

haha, it looks like the joke has worked and there's now an archive request function.

I've just tried it. You get an email with a link to .zip file containing .html files with facebook layout and all your data locally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what will they put on CD ? Just my profile information or will it included any pictures i have uploaded as well ?

EDIT : didnt see +zhiVago post :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha, it looks like the joke has worked and there's now an archive request function.

I've just tried it. You get an email with a link to .zip file containing .html files with facebook layout and all your data locally.

uh that's been there for a long while now

who ever made the original image is an idiot, as its a british only law, and the population of England is what? nothing to equate to "burning billions of cd's" heck even if every facebook user requested this still wouldn't even be a billion....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should get everybody to phone McDonald's and hangup because they annoy me as the amount of onion in their burgers.

They put onions in their burgers? you mean whole or diced up? sorry haven't eaten at McD's in YEARS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have to physically mail you the media though. Even if the whole burning process is automated someone will still have to sit there all day and assemble the envelope and take it to the post office. Then there's also the issue of the postman handling the insane amount of mail.

The whole point is that this is a dick thing to do and it will only hurt the little guy trying to earn a paycheck. It's not going to hurt the company or the CEO. It's just a dick move just for a 'lolz'

Help me understand how this "hurts the little guy"? I'm at a loss here...

Since the person is employed by Facebook to perform the task, how is he being harmed? If the task didn't need to be performed wouldn't he be unemployed? Isn't that "hurting" the little guy? Unless you see him having a job as hurting... If so, that's odd and interesting.

How does this "hurt" the postman? Again, he is hired to deliver mail. If the mail volume is up he has a job.

You're basically saying that having people perform the jobs they are paid for is somehow harmful. I think it would hurt the "top" more as they have to pay someone to perform a task they might not otherwise have to pay someone to do. It definitely doesn't hurt the employee doing this stuff though.

They aren't sex slaves or something...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Help me understand how this "hurts the little guy"? I'm at a loss here...

Since the person is employed by Facebook to perform the task, how is he being harmed? If the task didn't need to be performed wouldn't he be unemployed? Isn't that "hurting" the little guy? Unless you see him having a job as hurting... If so, that's odd and interesting.

How does this "hurt" the postman? Again, he is hired to deliver mail. If the mail volume is up he has a job.

You're basically saying that having people perform the jobs they are paid for is somehow harmful. I think it would hurt the "top" more as they have to pay someone to perform a task they might not otherwise have to pay someone to do. It definitely doesn't hurt the employee doing this stuff though.

They aren't sex slaves or something...

I'm just saying that it would only hurt the lower part of the totem pole. It's not "sticking it to the Zuck," it's just giving more work to those who are probably already overworked. If it's a job at a place like Facebook then they would be on salary so no extra pay for the extra hours.

Banks have janitors on staff to clean their floors but that doesn't make it okay to walk into one and drop a duece on it because you're ticked about some extra fees on your account. It's not going to phase the hire ups that made the decision to put those fees in place but it's sure going to have an impact on the janitor.

It's adding unnecesary work onto someone undeserved for no other reason than a lawl on the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just saying that it would only hurt the lower part of the totem pole. It's not "sticking it to the Zuck," it's just giving more work to those who are probably already overworked. If it's a job at a place like Facebook then they would be on salary so no extra pay for the extra hours.

Banks have janitors on staff to clean their floors but that doesn't make it okay to walk into one and drop a duece on it because you're ticked about some extra fees on your account. It's not going to phase the hire ups that made the decision to put those fees in place but it's sure going to have an impact on the janitor.

It's adding unnecesary work onto someone undeserved for no other reason than a lawl on the internet.

There in lies the flaw in your reasoning. A person can only do one task at a time. So if Facebook has to dedicate people to responding to these requests then they have to spend money to do so. By forcing the business to "waste" money you are in fact "sticking it to them" in the best way possible (as they have higher operating costs and thus lower profits as a result).

You don't do any harm to the person hired to do their job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not wasting money if the employee is on salary.

Yes, it is.

A person can only do one task at a time. So even if they worked the salaried employee on overtime (which would increase their turnover as overworked employees do quit) they would still be neglecting some other task that needs to be done (forcing them to hire another person).

It pushes costs up. How much depends on the number of requests and the level of automation, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could get this because I'm just curious to see what information they have about me. I think I know, but I would just like to look and see. Unfortunately, I live in the USA which means it will be a cold day in hell before our government actually sticks it to a corporation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is.

A person can only do one task at a time. So even if they worked the salaried employee on overtime (which would increase their turnover as overworked employees do quit) they would still be neglecting some other task that needs to be done (forcing them to hire another person).

It pushes costs up. How much depends on the number of requests and the level of automation, of course.

Depends on if they get paid overtime or not. When on salary you can work 40 hours or 60 hours, you get paid the same. The people doing the extra work are most likely entry level employees or interns which are highly disposable employees.

So, you're saying that it's okay to make someone's life hell for a day or week just for a laugh on the internet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on if they get paid overtime or not. When on salary you can work 40 hours or 60 hours, you get paid the same. The people doing the extra work are most likely entry level employees or interns which are highly disposable employees.

So, you're saying that it's okay to make someone's life hell for a day or week just for a laugh on the internet?

Seriously, mailing a CD is hell? I don't think Facebook has any jobs that can realistically be classified as "hell".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, does it really matter? It's a dick move, no arguments there right?

However, if you really do want to call DPA on Facebook and have seemingly less dick reasons for it then have fun I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, mailing a CD is hell? I don't think Facebook has any jobs that can realistically be classified as "hell".

When you have to do a couple hundred thousand because someone thought it would be funny I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone has to rub Mark Zuckerberg's ginger feet.

OK I will concede that is a job I could agree is hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.