Showing posts with label FB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FB. Show all posts

December 27, 2019

Finally Facebook Removes Those False Ads That Suggest Negative Health Effects From PREP

Facebook should remove "factually inaccurate" ads that "suggest negative health effects" of the HIV-prevention medication Truvada, more than 50 LGBTQ, HIV, and public health groups say in an open letter to the company.
The ads are from law firms seeking to recruit gay and bisexual men for a class-action lawsuit against Truvada maker Gilead Sciences, NBC News reported Wednesday. The groups say the ads are misleading because they warn against side effects that mainly occur with long-term treatment for people who already have HIV. The class-action lawsuit claims that certain side effects among some patients taking Truvada could have been prevented if Gilead had not delayed the release of a safer version of the original drug, which was shelved in 2004.
"The advertisements are targeting LGBTQ Facebook and Instagram users, and are causing significant harm to ," the letter states. "The ' advertisements are scaring away at-risk HIV-negative people from the leading drug that blocks HIV infections."
In a statement sent to NBC News, a spokesperson for Facebook said the company values its "work with LGBTQ groups" and both welcome and seeks out their input. "While these ads do not violate our ad policies nor have they been rated false by third-party fact-checkers, we're always examining ways to improve and help these key groups better understand how we apply our policies," the spokesperson said.

 Extensive evidence from HIV prevention research studies has firmly established that "Undetectable Equals Untransmittable," or U=U. This means that people living with HIV who achieve and maintain an undetectable viral load—the amount of virus in their blood—by taking antiretroviral therapy (ART) as prescribed do not sexually transmit HIV to others. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates this strategy is 100% effective against the sexual transmission of HIV. 
Now, a new study of nearly 112,000 men who have sex with men in the United States has found increasing acceptance of the U=U message in this population. Overall, 54% of HIV-negative participants and 84% of participants with HIV correctly identified U=U as accurate. The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health. Study results were published online today in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.
"U=U has been validated repeatedly by  as a safe and effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV," said Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., NIAID Director. "The increased understanding and acceptance of U=U is encouraging because HIV treatment as prevention is a foundation of efforts to end the epidemic in the United States and around the world. This public health message has the power to reduce stigma, protect the health of people living with HIV and prevent sexual transmission of HIV to others."
Researchers led by H. Jonathon Rendina, Ph.D., M.P.H., at Hunter College of the City University of New York, collected data from secure online surveys promoted on social media and mobile dating apps from November 2017 through September 2018. By analyzing the responses of self-identified sexual minority men, researchers found that approximately 55% of participants responded "completely accurate" or "somewhat accurate" to the question: "With regard to HIV-positive individuals transmitting HIV through sexual contact, how accurate do you believe the slogan Undetectable = Untransmittable is?"
Acceptance of U=U was far stronger among participants who self-reported to be living with HIV (84%) compared to HIV-negative participants (54%) and those who did not know their HIV status (39%). Researchers found U=U acceptance had increased over time by comparing the data to findings from a similar study by the same group that analyzed data collected in 2016 and early 2017. Among the 12,200 sexual minority men surveyed at that time, only 30% of HIV-negative participants and 64% of participants living with HIV agreed that U=U was completely or somewhat accurate. 
In the current study, HIV-negative participants who reported seeking HIV testing and prevention services, as well as those taking daily pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), were more likely to believe U=U was accurate. These findings suggest that U=U acceptance correlates to more frequent interactions with HIV prevention services. Among respondents with HIV, those who reported excellent adherence to ART were more likely to agree that U=U is accurate compared to those who reported "less than excellent" adherence or not being on ART at all.
The online survey also asked respondents to use a graduated scale from 0% ("no risk") to 100% ("complete risk") to rate the risk of a man whose HIV was undetectable transmitting the virus to his HIV-negative partner through either insertive or receptive anal sex without a condom. While studies confirm that a person whose HIV is suppressed does not transmit the virus through sexual activity, only 10% of all respondents rated the transmission risk as zero when the insertive partner has an undetectable virus. Similarly, only 14% of respondents rated transmission risk as zero when HIV in the receptive partner is undetectable.
Among those who agreed that U=U was "completely accurate," only 31% and 39% believed transmission risk is zero when the insertive or receptive partner, respectively, has an undetectable virus. However, acceptance of U=U was associated with the lower perceived risk of HIV transmission through any form of condom-less anal sex.
"A growing number of sexual minority men believe that U=U is accurate, but our data suggest that most still overestimate the risk of HIV transmission from an undetectable partner, which may be because people have trouble understanding the concept of risk," said Dr. Rendina, the lead author on the study. "All published studies point to undetectable viral load as being the most effective method to date of preventing sexual HIV transmission, but most of our messaging has focused on the level of risk being zero rather than describing it in terms of effectiveness, which is the way we usually talk about condoms and PrEP."
All data collected in the online survey was confidential and self-reported. Study participants represented all U.S. states and were of various races and ethnicities, including 14% Black and 24% Latino. Participants ranged in age from 13 to 88 years old with a median age of 32. About 79% identified as gay, 18% as bisexual, and 3% as queer. Approximately 1% of respondents identified as transgender.
Earlier this year, Dr. Fauci and his colleagues wrote about the strength of scientific validation for the HIV treatment as a prevention strategy and U=U in a JAMA commentary. The efficacy of treatment as prevention was first verified on a large scale by the NIH-funded HPTN 052 clinical trial, which showed that no linked HIV transmissions occurred among zero different heterosexual couples when the partner living with HIV had a durably suppressed viral load. Subsequently, the PARTNER 1 and 2 and Opposites Attract studies confirmed these findings and extended them to male-male couples. As described by authors of the current study, the independent non-profit organization Prevention Access Campaign launched the U=U slogan in 2016 to promote awareness of these scientific findings.
Importantly, U=U refers only to the prevention of sexually transmitted HIV; condoms are still needed to prevent the transmission of other sexually transmitted infections.

April 19, 2017

Facebook Lied About Its Clean Up Pledge (Murder Going Live Worldwide?)


 A grisly murder video has muddied Facebook’s pledge to clean up the social network. Mark Zuckerberg’s firm bungled its response to the posting of a man's killing. The incident jars with the company's promise to police fake news and other objectionable posts. Silicon Valley’s content problem will need to be addressed by more than algorithms. 

It took Facebook hours before it finally pulled a brutal video showcasing the killing of an elderly man on Sunday and then issued a tone-deaf statement referring to the post as “this kind of content.”  

Somewhat surprisingly, Facebook’s share price rose 1 percent on Monday, adding $3 billion of market value. But investors may reconsider, as they did when a paying passenger was dragged off a United Airlines flight. United's stock rose at first, then declined when the scope of the incident – captured on a video that went viral - and the company's bungled apology took its toll.

Advertisers, however, have been quick to mete out punishment for shoddy content. The $400 billion social network’s value is ascribed to its dominance in digital advertising. Nomura analysts estimate that over the past three years, nearly 70 cents of every dollar of growth in the global ad market was captured by Google and Facebook. 

But as evidenced by Google in recent weeks, brands will punch back. AT&T, Pepsi and a host of others boycotted the search giant’s YouTube on the grounds their ads could run next to questionable videos. Even traditional broadcast can get caught in the crosshairs. Fox News star Bill O’Reilly’s highly rated prime-time program lost more than 60 advertisers after sexual-harassment allegations involving the anchor came to light.

In an earnings call in February, Zuckerberg highlighted the ability of artificial intelligence to weed out “problematic” and “violent content” because his company is grappling with its power to disseminate information to its some two billion users. Google and Twitter lean too heavily on machines, too. This weekend's tragedy is another sign that makes clear Silicon Valley's content stewards need more costly humans in the mix.


January 19, 2014

FaceBook Picture of Black Fathers Goes Viral

The photo has more than 14,000 likes on Instagram, but has reportedly sparked a social media debate with people asking where children's mother was and making unseemly remarks about gay couples and African American gay couples. Many of those comments were later removed, according to Mused Magazine.

In response to the negative, and positive, feedback on their photo, Kordale, who’s from Chicago, and Kaleb, from Atlanta, sent this statement to the Huffington Post.
“As far as the positive; yes we are two gay men with three kids who have no problem with preparing them for their education every morning; that comes with anything and everything they may need for school,” they said. “Our kids are blessed to have three parents (Kordale, Kaleb and their Mother) who love, care and support them in every decision they have made and will continue to make as they get older. We are blessed to have the ability to provide for them in ways that a lot of people cannot for their family, which ultimately makes us happy knowing that they don't want for much! Our main objective as parents is to provide, love, educate, support, encourage, and love some more.

“In regard to the negative, people fail to realize that we are people too with kids who love us,” the statement continued. “We do what is necessary for them to succeed in this ever-changing world but it's sad that we're discriminated against because of our sexuality and/or what we do behind closed doors -- which is no one's business. In the same breath, we take all of what's been said in stride. The picture was put out on social media for an opinion so we can't be mad when people give just that: an opinion. People tend to think that gay people cannot raise their children to be heterosexuals. Instead, they have derogatory thoughts of us "tainting" our children or "confusing them" with what society sees deems as wrong an unmanly because we're gay. But this is all comical because people forget where a lot of gays come from: a heterosexual household.”

This isn’t the first time a photo of this nature has taken the Internet by storm.

"Don't get me wrong here -- it's a very cute picture, and it's cool when people say so," Doyin Richards wrote in a blog post about the social media flurry. "However, I start to get a little uncomfortable when people want to start planning parade routes for me because of it."
Richards set up a camera and took a photo of himself combing one daughter's hair, with another infant daughter strapped to his chest, to show off to his wife his multitasking abilities. The couple got a good laugh from the picture, Richards said in the blog post. But he did not think it would go viral once he posted it to Facebook and Twitter, he wrote 

June 28, 2013

Face Book Removes Questionable, Offensive Pages to Avoid Boycotts

Shopper walks past M&S
Facebook has announced a major revamp of its advertising systems in an attempt to deal with concerns about offensive content.
There will now be new restrictions on where adverts appear on the site.
Marks and Spencer and BSkyB were among companies to suspend advertising after complaints that adverts had been placed on pages with offensive material.
The social network is now planning to remove any advertising from many of its pages.
Facebook's move follows complaints about a Sky advert promoting an M&S voucher.
The advert was placed on a Facebook page called "cute and gay boys". The page featured photographs of teenage boys.
In a blogpost on Friday, Facebook said: "We recognize we need to do more to prevent situations where ads are displayed alongside controversial Pages and Groups. So we are taking action."
'Gold standard'
The company said that from Monday it will implement a new process to determine which pages or groups should feature adverts alongside the content.
There will be no adverts on pages that feature any violent, graphic or sexual content, even if such content is not in violation of the company's rules.
According to one source, Facebook will create a "gold standard" of around 10,000 pages that are deemed suitable for adverts, and then inspect other pages to see if they can be added to the list. All adverts will be removed from other pages.
A spokesman said this would be a labour-intensive process but we take this" very seriously."
BskyB said it looked forward to discussing the new measures and would keep the situation under review.
M&S had asked BSkyB to remove the advert, and it suspended some of its own advertising campaigns on Facebook.
BSkyB suspended all of its advertising on the social network, where it has been a major customer.
Misogynist content
Both companies had said they were keen to use Facebook again, but needed to be sure that their advertising would not appear next to offensive content, or material that might reflect poorly on their brands.
Speaking before Facebook announced its policy change, a spokesman for BSkyB told the BBC: "We have asked Facebook to devise safeguards to ensure our content does not appear alongside inappropriate material in the future.
"We will review the situation in due course."
Sources at Marks and Spencer said Facebook had been taking the issue very seriously at the highest level.
In an additional statement, an M&S spokeswoman said the company did not "tolerate any inappropriate use or positioning of its brand and has very clear policies that govern where and how our brand is used".
She added: "We take any suggestion that these policies are not being adhered to very seriously and always investigate them thoroughly."
Earlier this month, Facebook was forced to act against misogynist content on its site after protests from women's groups led some advertisers to suspend campaigns.
Rory Cellan-Jones

April 30, 2013

Facebook on the Way of ‘My Space’

4 Social Media Content Management Tools That Wont Make You Sweat image socialmediamanagementThe problems with FaceBook are problems of human nature. What do humans want? To have the most and the most-of-it. Wether is a single person, single nation, company or single kid playing in pre kindergarden. When Facebook started 60 friends was not enough. I remember when I finally hit 50 I said, “Gosh so Many” Until I started seeing people with over 5000. I wanted to cultivate my 60 or so, like send them birthday cards and interact with messages. There the wish I always had to write and had people read what I write could be possible without going to the trouble and the time (which I did not have) of writing a book.

When I saw 5000 I knew there was trouble somehow. A part of me said “ more so you can have more.” That should be good! Common sense said no way Jose! Life is taught me that things don’t work that way that easily.

Now one day I find out that only small percentages of my friends were receiving what I wrote and then they had to be a in regular conversation cycle with the small percentage allotment., Then there was this get friend wars. Some started by companies and people trying to make money of a big pool of people. People being hire to have friends, people want to have the highest number of friends, competitions of who could get more friends.
The key work here is “ friends.” Facebook was supposed to be your own black book but with pictures of 'friends' and readily available not to the phone like it was before but instantly on your computer.

That dream is no longer what drives Facebook. Now is to make money. Yes people still connect but even though the word friend is used,  the meaning there is far from it. Unless you met the person or the person is related to you, there is no such a thing as a Facebook. Just names. The name of a big public corporation, name of people who’s name is not that. Pictures of 70 yr old men with their 12th grade picture as profile.  Nothing is the way it looks. Yes you can still make a friend, but is easier to make an enemy because with people comes the bias. The ones that don’t like blacks or gays or people from Quebec, Mexico or The Bronx NY. You can also have a date and get to have sex, but you have to be more careful than someone you meet at a bar or club. At least there you see their faces, their clothes and why type of drink they like. Femme, butch man or women. You can see if they are oozing from somewhere before you commit to travel and meet one to one. I could tell you stories, but anyone on Facebook could so I don’t need to. But got to tell you the one with no teeth exjunkie or may be still a junkie with a killer pic and no teeth enough (lol)

Well that is the problem with FaceBook. The challenge of the administrators was to overcome that. I mean they went into this as an accident without a well thought out plan. That’s ok.. It took off. But then you have to address the problems. Whatever  team they got addressing the problem happens to be from day 365 on is a problem them selves. “Restrictions” with restrictions, rules there most be enforcement with rules. With a strict rule on everything and an enforcement which is not left to the same nanos that check websites for cookies, etc. Another (Lol and jeje and a stupid too)With enforcement there most be punishment. With punishment there is no fun, without fun people wont do anything voluntarily and that’s where FaceBook is.
The Farcebook IPO Was A Bad Dream, But Is It Really A Nightmare For Twitter? image Facebook fuckup1 300x300

It will stay afloat but only as a corporation for corporations. Something that makes money by having other things make money. Like The Commercials. Look at GM, they got pissed because they did not make what their p&l told them it was going to make so it picked up it’s marbles and went home? Made a quick U turn, change the numbers on their expectations put another plan in place and came back. Ford and VW of Germany never left. Wait..on that is time for another LOL. and a happy smile  :)

Talking about the technical aspects Robert Miles writes on Digital Journal the following:

"The latest stats show the numbers of Facebook users having declined sharply in the United States and Canada. According to research assembled by Socialmediatoday, over a six month period, those logging on to Facebook declined 7.37% over six months in the United States and 5.3% in Canada.
Teenagers are reported to be gravitating towards other social media apps like Kik MessengerWhatsApp and SnapChat while the most commonly cited reason for their switching off from Facebook was teenagers' embarrassment by the presence of their parents ‘dropping by’ or monitoring what their kids are up to socialmediawise.
Facebook’s move up the age demographic is borne out by data gauging that the average age of Facebook members increased from 38 to 41 years over the two years between 2010 and 2012. Whereas in 2010, 61% of Facebook users were over 35, in 2012, that figure had edged up to 65%.
Parents seem to be increasingly opening Facebook accounts to check what their children are up to. The survey reports that one in two parents’ reason for joining Facebook was to keep tabs on their kids! Not only that, a sky-high 74% of parents said they checked their child’s Facebook several times a week.
As a check on children behaving badly, monitoring via Facebook may be counter-productive, however. In the days before social media networks, parents might have made do with an occasional enquiries such as ‘What time will you be back?’ or ‘Who did you see last night?’ in the latter case making a judgement call on the shiftiness or otherwise of the interrogee. These days a parent’s stealth tactics on their kid’s Facebook page might result in children squirreling away their secrets buried far from parental prying eyes in the likes of Tumblr or other less prominent social media.
For parents, the survey indicates that if they want to keep checking up on their children in cyberspace, they are going to have to become more socially adept on social media networks other than Facebook. Nearly one third of teenagers say they are embarrassed by their parents’ Facebook comments and 30% say they would adopt the Facebook equivalent of sending to Coventry and ‘unfriend’ their parents.

Although Facebook overall has a user-base of an estimated 1 billion plus members, since Facebook's Initial Private Offering (IPO) on the stock market in 2012, the decline amongst the teenage movers and shakers of the social media world may be a problem in the longer term. Once customers gravitate away to other social media, it can be nigh impossible to win them back to any significant degree as Myspace has demonstrated.”

My opinion of FaceBook is sharper than Miles but I think that it all depend on how the most obvious problems are fixed (no chance of that) and who can replace it without being like it, which is been G+ problem. Trying to be FaceBook with another name. Advanced technology and nice pics wont do it because technology will keep advancing. It’s the people stupid.

Adam Gonzalez, Publisher 

February 5, 2013

FB Developing New App to Be Roll Out Next Month

Privacy is for private companies.
(Photo: Facebook)This company that everyone trusts reportedly developing an app that will further engender great faith and confidence from the public.
Just kidding, it’s Facebook. Facebook is doing another creepy thing because it is a day that ends in “y.”
Bloomberg reports that a number of sources close to the company revealed that Facebook is planning to roll out a location-tracking app in mid-March. The app would use GPS data to help users find nearby friends–hold back the tears, Foursquare!–but really it would allow the company to serve more specific ads.
If it stopped there, the app wouldn’t be much different from what’s already in the market. But Bloomberg’s sources also said that the app would collect location-data even when it wasn’t open, effectively tracing your location forever and ever and ever regardless of whether you’re actually using the app. God, the future sucks.
Bloomberg also points out that Facebook would most likely have to prompt users to agree to letting it track their location, but that “Facebook may have already gotten consent from its users to run such a feature.” Cue ominous music.
Facebook declined to confirm the report, but perhaps it’s time to rejigger your privacy settings. Yes, again.
Jessica Roy is a reporter for Betabeat and the New York Observer. Follow Jessica on Twitter or via

February 2, 2013

FaceBook Has Maxed Out for Computer Users (May be they could get Newspaper readers)

How Do I Get Out of Credit Card Debt All Maxed Out

Facebook just disclosed that the number of people logging into its website on personal computers declined “modestly” in the last three months of 2012, compared to the previous quarter. That’s a huge deal because, despite Facebook’s strong efforts to focus on mobile phone usage last year, it still makes much more money from its users on PCs.
It was already known that Facebook was growing more rapidly on phones. But the new disclosure, in its lengthy annual report, is significant because it wasn’t previously clear that the company’s PC user base was shrinking. Now, it’s clear that Facebook hit “peak PC” in the third quarter of last year.
Here’s what Facebook says in its annual report: “During the fourth quarter of 2012, the number of daily active users (DAUs) using personal computers declined modestly compared to the third quarter of 2012, including declines in key markets such as the United States, while mobile DAUs continued to increase.”
The decline in PC usage among Americans is doubly significant because Facebook makes more money selling advertising targeted at that audience than any other. Last year, it made $13.58 in revenue per user in the US and Canada, compared to $5.32 per average user worldwide.
Facebook only began including advertising in its mobile products last year, and by the fourth quarter, mobile advertising had grown to 23% of the company’s advertising revenue. It also saw a large increase in the number of people accessing Facebook exclusively from mobile phones and at least once a month: 157 million people did so in the fourth quarter of 2012. Another 523 million monthly users accessed Facebook on both phones and PCs.
That leaves 376 million monthly users who only used their PCs to log onto Facebook, down 6.7% from 403 million in the previous quarter. (Facebook doesn’t make that figure explicit, but you can do the math from the data it does release. You can see my math here.) Overall, Facebook grew to 1.056 billion monthly users last quarter.
In one sense, Facebook’s ability to transition into “a mobile company,” as CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on a conference call yesterday, is encouraging news. And Facebook can’t really do anything to stop the rapid shift of internet users to their mobile phones. But if that shift happens too rapidly, and Facebook isn’t quickly able to figure out a way to make significant revenue from its mobile products, then expect to see that hit the company’s bottom line in the next few quarters.
Or as Facebook explains in the “risk factors” section of its new annual report:
While we began showing ads in users’ mobile News Feeds in early 2012, we have generated only a small portion of our revenue from the use of Facebook mobile products to date. In addition, we do not currently offer our Payments infrastructure to applications on mobile devices. If users increasingly access Facebook mobile products as a substitute for access through personal computers, and if we are unable to continue to grow mobile revenues, or if we incur excessive expenses in this effort, our financial performance and ability to grow revenue would be negatively affected.

January 22, 2013

You Have to Know That All Your Messages are Being Read. Right?

I don’t know about Google, I would think they do.  But The other network as In Francis Brooks, I should not have to tell you. Catching pedophiles is important, but companies set on profits tend  to take the way of least resistance and more profits.  That is the nature of the beast (human nature). Is there another way to get to the results above mentioned? Yes, Don’t open a regular account to kids. Don’t have them talk to adults unless they are their parents. Someone might say that is taking the right to privacy away to the underaged! The way it stands now there are no way to expect privacy. Just understand that. 
Just recently, Francis Brooks employees were alerted by the system that an inappropriate conversation of a sexual nature was taking place between a 13-year-old young woman and a 30-year-old male. The conversation concluded with both parties agreeing meet one another after the girl got out of middle school the following day. Alarmed, Facebook officials contacted police, who then arrested the man and confiscated the teenage girl’s computer.
This is not the first time Francis Brooks has come through in a pinch and prevented a sexual attract, but for every 1  arrested predator, the company says approximately 10 slip through the patrolling cracks.  While that might seem appalling to some people, Facebook has kept monitoring technology at a minimum to prevent outcry about privacy. Any more security boosts would mean that, instead of computers, real people would be needed to heavily scrutinize the enormous volume of conversations on the social site.
At the moment, Facebook’s set up attempts to eliminate conversations where an “established relationship” exists. So, if you’re having inappropriate conversations with your friends, the company won’t report you because you’ve likely been involved in just as many non-sexual conversations.
And even though Facebook and other companies are catching sexual deviants, most of the public seems uncomfortable with the thought someone is in tuned to private conversations. The skeptics of the system feel the issues does not lie with the number  of sexual predators on social sites, but with the poor parental instruction which leads to young children feeling it is acceptable to meet up with strangers they’ve met online.
Instead of monitoring conversations, those who feel it’s not Facebook’s responsibility to police the Internet say arresting potential sexual offenders doesn’t do anything to solve the real issue at hand. Maybe Facebook should monitor minor’s conversations and alert parents if undesirable activity is going on—or is that too much of a breach of privacy?
Facebook security supporters say it can’t go both ways; you can’t have conversations monitored and ignore criminals when they surface.  If you do, you end up in situations like popular Internet social gathering site Habbo Hotel, which shut down chat conversations after two teenagers were sexually assaulted by people they met on the website.
One journalist posing as an 11-year-old girl said she was immediately inundated with sexual requests and solicitation for her to strip on her webcam.
While the Internet is a scary domain, statistics still indicate more sexual assaults against children happen from people they know—family or friends of the family. And the Internet isn’t really the main region of concern when it comes to child safety. Experts say smart phones are far more dangerous, especially those with apps like “Skout,” which allow users to search for strangers near their GPS location with similar interests.

December 12, 2012

Lately The Dead Have Been Returning to FaceBook

messycupcakes (CC-BY-ND)

Bernard Meisler was surprised to find that his recently deceased friend, who “hated corporate bullshit,” had returned from the afterlife to express his fondness for the Discover card on Facebook.
Facebook told Meisler that the social network continues to recycle likes unless they are informed that a member is no longer with us. But that doesn’t explain why a corporate-bullshit-hating friend would ever forget himself and like a credit card company.
Similar stories abound on Facebook. I once asked a friend whether Target paid him after I saw an ad claiming “Anthony likes Target!” He had no idea what I was talking about. Nor did many of the people Meisler contacted trying to get to the bottom of this mystery.
Why does a self-described anarchist, for instance, like Shell oil?
Facebook’s only explanation to Meisler is that people must be accidentally liking things, but that doesn’t pass the smell test and it seems to happen far too often. Then again, when more than a billion people actively use your service, anything can happen often.
Read more about some of the stranger examples of erroneous likes discovered by Meisler on ReadWriteSocial.
—Posted by Peter Z. Scheer. Follow him on Twitter: @peesch.

December 9, 2012

The Other Men on MY Husbands Secret Gay Life

My husband's secret gay life(Credit: Catalin Petolea via Shutterstock)
This is the second installment in a new personal essay series, "Searched and Destroyed," about the unexpected lessons of the Internet.
“I’ll be the jailer and you be the naughty prisoner.”
When I read those words, a chat conversation between my then-husband and another man, it felt for just a moment like all the oxygen had been sucked from the room. I remember putting my hand on my chest, gasping for air, as the world I thought I knew shattered around me.
He was surprisingly conciliatory and accommodating in the divorce negotiations. In the Deep South state we lived in at the time, within 30 days it was final. Our eight-year marriage was over before the indentation from my wedding ring had even faded from my finger.
Because I couldn’t bear the thought of enduring other people’s pity — or ridicule — and because I had two very small children to raise, I made the decision to pack up and move two states away. We’d get a brand-new start, my children and me, away from anyone who knew that we’d once been a different, complete family.
While unpacking my desk in our new home, I came across the transcript of the chat that had brought down my marriage. As I quickly scanned the now-familiar words, something new jumped out at me. The “jailer” made reference to my ex-husband’s website. Website? I googled his screen name.
Bingo. Within a few clicks, I was staring at photographs of my ex-husband’s dick. Though he never showed his face, it wasn’t necessary. The images were taken in our former home, sitting on my furniture. He had been maintaining a blog for years about his sexual exploits, writing of his cleverness at maintaining the façade of dedicated husband and father while prowling for men on the side. There were many, many posts spanning nearly our entire marriage, dating back to early in my pregnancy with our first child.
Everything I thought my life had been was false. I noticed that one of his posts corresponded with a page I’d written in my pregnancy journal on the same date. My entry was full of sunshine and roses about our baby-to-be, our wonderful life, my loving husband. His post talked of getting blown by a contractor in the server room at work.
For so many years, he’d lied to me while I naively believed his stories of late nights and required weekends at the office. He wrote of meeting strangers in motels, convenient hookups just around the corner from the preschool (don’t want to be late for afternoon pickup!), encounters in parking lots. One of the most recent posts even described a threesome at our house the night the kids and I moved out.
I now understood why the divorce negotiations had proceeded so rapidly. He was terrified he’d be exposed as the calculating bastard he is —  not simply a closeted gay man caught after a careless indiscretion. In one blog entry, he’d even boasted about his refusal to use condoms. (Thankfully, I was fortunate enough to escape the many dangers that could have caused.)
Before this, I’d actually felt pity for this man, believing he’d tried to honor his marriage vows. But at that moment, all of the memories I held of our life together were stripped away. How could I trust any memory, when it had all been built on a lie?
I was utterly disgusted, humiliated and completely and utterly alone — hours away from any friends and family who could have supported me. I wanted to crawl in bed and die. But I was the mommy. I was solely responsible for two scared, disoriented little people who needed me to fill sippy cups and change diapers, find Dora the Explorer on TV and sing “Bushel and a Peck” as I tucked them in at night.
While I wish I could say I picked myself up and immediately rose to the challenge, it is not the truth. I stumbled —badly — before the children and I found our new normal. But eventually we did. And today we have a life so much better than anything I could have imagined back then.
He is still part of his children’s lives, and therefore, by proxy, part of mine as well. And he’s still a manipulative asshole. But beyond knowing he is gay, the children know nothing of the rest of the story. I hope they never will.
The website is still out there. After I confronted my ex, he deleted all the content from his blog posts, though the site’s framework is still in place. We’ve been divorced now for longer than we were married, but I still google him on occasion, just to see if he’s started any new Web ventures.
I only hope our children never do the same.
Have a story about a shocking Google discovery for “Searched and Destroyed”? Send your completed essay to Sarah Hepola,

Featured Posts

The Food Delivery/Ride Companies Wont Allow Drivers to be Employees But California is Changing That

                               Hamilton Nolan Senior Writer. After a monumental...