Facebook ban 1.5 million accounts from SL and virtual worlds?

Facebook ban 1.5 million accounts from SL and virtual worlds?

Facebook DAUsHere we go again: on the web keep going the rumors about Facebook‘s ban by June regarding approximately 1.5 million accounts not in accordance with Terms of Service (TOS) agreement of the social network, which by the end of March registered 1.09 billion daily active users and 1.654 billion monthly active users.

The news, logically, makes to animately discuss Second Life, Imvu, Word of Warcraft and other virtual worlds and videogames users, used to record themselves to the social network with the nickname of their avatar rather than with their own real name and last name.

Mass ban, believable risk?

Apart from the fact that there is no trace of the presumed announcement in the site of the American corporation, which being listed at Wall Street has to spread news via official statements and not through “word of mouth” (thing that leads to the view that is just another hoax), if from a side the dimensions reached by Facebook could make to think that a similar move is reasonable, from the other sioe it comes to wonder what real benefit could have the social network from banning the 0.1% of its accounts.

No real benefit for Facebook

In terms of quality of the service nothing would improve, just because of the smallness of the number of involved accounts: it has happened to me because of my job to use Facebook advertising on behalf of some clients and I can assure that the tool is powerful and highly profilabile, so if I weren’t interested to the users of videogames or virtual worlds I could simply exclude them from my targets (or select them if I would prefer), without the need for Facebook to ban their accounts.

The measure would also be then useless under the profile of the data “accuracy”: there really is not way to know if “Mario Rossi” is really him insted of “Giovanni Bianchi“ or “Anna Verdi”, except requiring to every affiliate to insert his own fiscal code or number of cellphone or other personal data. But to that point it would be the user to made himself in an unpleasant situation, i.e. to have provided data for which he usually invokes the guardianship of the privacy in exchange for what, to be able to chat on the web with people that partly he sees every morning to the cafe and partly he doesn’t know?

Social network e privacy, rapporto complicato

Facebook servers roomBasically: for Facebook there would be no particular benefits, for its advertisers neither, the possible “locking down” of the social network would risk to create more than a problem under the profile of the privacy.

What we should learn all to do (especially young people) it is not to take for granted that our personal data will be sure in the hands of the managers of a service on the web and to pretend that who treats our data guarantee us that the same won’t be used for purposes that are not tightly tied to the service to which we want to enter or, worst, sold to third parties.

About this point Facebook and not only Facebook would have a lot to say, perhaps for this despite recurrent rumors of “mass banning” nothing has ever happened. If you want to know how it will end, continue to follow Mondivirtuali.it, even through our account on Twitter and our fanpage on Facebook (but remember: Mondivirtuali is also on Flickr, on Pinterest, on Scoop.it e su Paper.li and also on Youtube).

Related Articles