This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Websites: Computing High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

This article has become way too long and major sections (such as the "Privacy issues" section) should be spun off or broken out into separate articles.--Alex Rosenberg (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments below, I think it is better to keep one major article than break-up. I do think that this article could be condensed a lot and reduced in size however.Britishfinance (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose splitting parts of this article into Privacy issues of Facebook and Litigation of Facebook in order to improve the reading experience and to meet the proposed readable prose size.QuickWhitt7 (Talk/Contribs) 09:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QuickWhitt7, which sections or what prose do you think should be pulled into those? Is it within the criticisms section? If so, this discussion should be coordinated with the discussion on the Criticism of Facebook talk page here: Talk:Criticism_of_Facebook#Article_should_be_split_up. Edit: Brain dead (low blood sugar, so I thought I was on the facebook article talk page). You should coordinate a discussion on the main Facebook article page, since there is a proposed split of of the criticisms sub section there: Facebook#Criticisms_and_controversies. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having read this article I don't see the immediate rationale of splitting this up (or the tag on the front regarding length). Yes, it is long, but it is not hard to navigate (as the sections/sub-sections are reasonably well laid out). Some of the text could be condensed and edited down (a lot in places), but I think we have a better chance of keeping a good (albeit long) article on issues with Facebook, then breaking it up and having sub-sections fall into neglect.Britishfinance (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the subsections are well laid out, the reading experience suffers from the article's sheer length. Try navigating this article on a mobile device. Important points of this article should be consolidated and major sections need to be condensed or spun off into separate pages. -- Alex Rosenberg (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This article is too long. WP:SIZESPLIT states that articles over 100kB "Almost certainly should be divided". This article is currently at 320kB, and suffers from accessibility issues due to its length, especially on mobile devices. The two proposed splits are a good starting point. — Newslinger talk 20:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Too unwieldy. Splitting off the largest sections, Privacy and Litigation would be a good start. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Way too long, goes into various issues, some inter-joined, others mostly unrelated. This article is long overdue a split. Will read over and propose some sections later. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I'd also support splitting other primary subsections into separate articles. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just scrolling past the 31 subsections in the privacy issues section gives me headache. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. They're two major sections, that would benefit from their own separate articles for the sake of reability. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entry needs to be updated with the UK Competition and Markets Commission report Dec 2019 into the monopoly concerns. Could we add Governmental Criticisms too to include legislation being formed. We could then include Tax havens, Democratic process concerns and climate change concerns being debated across countries? AnabelC (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've split Litigation to List of lawsuits involving Facebook, given the proposal was made in this section almost two years ago and has consensus. Litigation seemed like the least controversial of the various splits that should be done to this article, so a fair start. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the privacy material into the existing Privacy concerns of Facebook article. The material will need to be summarized though. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 09:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have identical 'Facebook Privacy' content on two pages. To remedy this, I propose the following.

1. I have added a lead section on Privacy here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Privacy_issues and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_concerns_of_Facebook

2. I subsequently propose to delete the content from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Privacy_issues since it is a duplicate. I'm aiming to do that on 6th February 2021. I will try to ensure that all recent edits at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Privacy_issues are included in 'Privacy_concerns_of_Facebook'.

3. I propose to rename the 'Privacy_concerns_of_Facebook' page as 'Facebook_privacy_issues', being neater.

Please let me know if this is wrong. Sadgrove (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As stated previously, this article is waaaaaaay too long and sections like Psychological/sociological effects should be given their own article. Perhaps we kick if off with a bunch of drafts to start? edit: I could take a crack at one if other editors care to be involved. QRep2020 (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can we mention in the controversies section about the claims that social media companies were pressured by the Israeli government to censor any content highlighting the atrocities by Israel? And complicit by preventing pro-Palestine content?

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210517-digital-rights-group-slams-israeli-attempt-to-censor-palestinians-on-social-media/ https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/26/pro-palestine-censorship-facebook-instagram

How about a new topic on the simple realization, that facebook was originally an idea for virtualising for kids at home, schools' facewalls,.. basically photos of everyone so that kids new to the school, can learn who everyone else is / learn someone's name,.. but-virtual.

That's it guys,.. massive deflation / come-down needed. That is what facebook WAS, and that is all that facebook SHOULD BE.

The base idea basically got ripped off, back in the 90s. I know, it was a visiting Canadian? i think? teacher at our school, who introduced us to the old fashioned paper-version, and after a few of us agreed on a virtual one, that the idea took off.

Obviously some git got to register it as their own idea,.. but it was never meant to become the monster it has. 120.21.95.194 (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this article protected? It's about criticism of a large corporation that has a lobbying arm. It should be protected, right? 73.250.255.143 (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a borderline violation of NOTNEWS, would work much better in the parent article, since the subject's alma mater only has a single source. ToThAc (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Facebook is already a very long article. Williams' book has just been released today, and many comments about the book have already been published. There will be much more. Either have a wikipedia will need an article about Williams or about her book. Comfr (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree I think Wynn-Williams will develop a significant public profile going forward. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To note that Careless People, the whistleblower book Wynn‑Williams wrote, now has its own page. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I support merging it and some details should be removed because they are largely unencyclopedic. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball nor is merging deletion, if the need does arise it can easily be unmerged/recreated. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree As noted in the New York Times, "There have been previous Facebook defectors, but none as high-ranking as Wynn-Williams." She is already developing a significant profile. Partly because Facebook is trying so hard to silence her, as described in the NYT. A reviewer for the Washington Post, Ron Charles, said he had received repeated inquiries from Meta about the paper's plans for a review. "In my 27 years of reviewing and editing newspaper books sections, no company has ever done this with me". There will unquestionably be efforts on Wikipedia to bury this person, book, her career and her story. -- GreenC 02:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Williams should have a separate article. I also think other editors are making their best contributions to improve Wikipedia. I do not think editors want to bury Williams. Perhaps the Streisand effect will take over. Comfr (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. writing the book is her only notoriety. Other career details come from a profile, not independent significant coverage. Should she develop a significant profile moving forward, page can be recreated.Chopcha (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Profiles and features are significant independent coverage. An author who was only notable for writing a single book would in general be merged/moved to that book's stand alone page, not to some random third page. Why the unique treatment here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree topic passes GNG and I don't see a NOTNEWS violation... Borderline or otherwise (further analysis isn't possible as no explanation was given of how NOTNEWS is violated). She also appears to have been notable before the book, she just didn't have an article. I would say more but as far as I can tell no policy or guideline based argument to merge has actually been put forward so there isn't anything to argue against. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose since no reason was given why NOTNEWS applies here. Cortador (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToThAc: what does "since the subject's alma mater only has a single source." mean? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose they mean that where Wynn studied is only confirmed by one source. However, I don't see how this is an issue, since it is a mundane claim, and Wynn isn't, say, George Santos, a serial fraudster who lies about even the most inane things. Cortador (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its that because where Wynn studied is covered by a half dozen sources and it says alma mater not alma maters. It also needs to work with "would work much better in the parent article" and alma mater in terms of educational institutions doesn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. As of writing, a supermajority of the coverage relates to the publication of a single book. I think it is telling her name shows only two results at RNZ both of them about the book. The World Economic Forum biography is not independent of the subject. At the moment, I consider her notable for only one event.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree Careless People article might be merged here I suppose, but author evidently notable. Roy Bateman (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]