Facebook doesn't want you to deactivate your account.
collison.ie
collison.ie
Another thing that's interesting is that the deactivate option is exactly where it should be, rather than buried many levels deep in menus. I tried to remove my classmates.com account the other day, and it was a mess.
I don't really know what their business plan will be, but I'm sure it won't involve normal users paying any money. So they have to make money off of me somehow, whether it is through targeted advertising or selling information to marketers. The current privacy policy allows them to give information from your profile to third parties as long as you cannot be personally identified.
So while I'm not saying they will do anything unethical, an inactive account is probably worth a lot more than a deactivated account.
No question about it: THEY KEEP YOUR DATA.
They're reminding you that you have friends on Facebook. Tacky would be them telling your friends to convince you not to abandon your account.
Note: Even after you deactivate, your friends can still invite you to events, tag you in photos, or ask you to join groups. If you opt out, you will NOT receive these email invitations and notifications from your friends.
It's a bit unclear in what sense your account is actually deactivated.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=16929680703&...
It works. They deactivate your account for 2 weeks and then permanently delete it. Worked for me.
I've got friends who've mailed to support@facebook.com and gotten their accounts removed following. I'd be interested to hear if other people have had similar encounters.
Given that Facebook might be doing this, it is likely that the top few friends would be of the opposite gender, in a heteronormative context. This intuitive expectation has been confirmed in research studies of social networks. e.g., http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jure/pubs/msn-www08.pdf ("people tend to converse more frequently and with longer durations with the opposite gender").
Perhaps pc can confirm/refute whether this is true in his case?
The 5 that show up for me are people I recently friended (unfortunately all dudes)
edit: they've tagged me in their photo, or i've tagged them in mine. age of picture is all over the place, so not just recent ones.
So, its definitely giving high priority if you both are tagged in the same picture irrespective of the fact if you are really good friends with them or not. One of the friend tagged in a pic with me was added about 4-5 months ago, whereas my other friend I have know her since 2001, but on facebook since 2004/2005. 70% of my friends added are from the 2004 - 2007 time period.
No warning, nothing. But I could no longer sign into the first account.
When I realized what had happened, I went looking for signs of the that first account. I had been the sole admin of a group; now, that group listed no admin at all; I seized admin rights with my new account.
So perhaps that's the best way to deactivate: exploit bad code.
"If you deactivate your account, we'll kill this kitten."
Same essential principle.
If you want a detailed ethical analysis, it would have something to do with saying that your friends will miss you, as though they're asking you to stay, when they said no such thing.
Actively threatening a life.
"Your friends will no longer be able to keep in touch with you."
Suggesting there might be passive harm caused directly by a user's action.
Yeah, those two are ethically correlated.