
How should Ranger Rick exist on Facebook?
Total Votes: 26
Ranger Rick
Ranger Rick, the persona of the National Wildlife Federation, has been banished from Facebook. NWF is asking people to help bring him back by joining the "Set Ranger Rick Free" Facebook group and by sending emails to appeals-comment@facebook.com to return Ranger Rick's profile to Facebook.
Ranger Rick's expulsion has sparked much debate on how Facebook handles profiles that are welcomed by the public, useful and informative but are not considered "real" or "human". While Facebook is known for their lack of lenience when it comes to any kind of mascot or organization that braves to have a profile, it seems that by closing their doors they are severely limiting their options. Especially for Non-profits where a group doesn't have the same beneficial news-feed options that a profile has. We aren't talking about commercial use or spamming. With Ranger Rick, we are talking about allowing positive forces to exist within Facebook's structure without causing their community any harm.
It seems that by the number of fake profiles Facebook can't possibly control (there are 6 other Ranger Ricks alone, plus countless celebrities), it would behoove them to come up with a solution that doesn't leave Non-profits or other informative mascots forced to scramble and cope with their lame group option. They have made space for the political agenda and it seems hypocritical for them to exclude organizations with a positive message.
It also seems silly that they would feel the need to take action when no one had complained about Ranger Rick or reported him. Ranger Rick was simply existing on Facebook and they happened to notice him, which made him a target. That's not very consistent with their networking message, or their web 2.0 platform where we have partial control. If they were truly interested in keeping the community safe they would only go after the profiles that were truly abusing the system.
As the voice behind Ranger Rick, I found that most people responded to him positively and got a good laugh at seeing their childhood nature friend join the ranks of Facebook. That's really what this is about. Is it worth taking Ranger Rick, a harmless cartoon with an educational message, off Facebook? I understand if we are talking corporations, but the thought of locking up Ranger Rick or deleting his profile based on the fact that he isn't "real" seems comical and also rather insulting. Don't you think the public can make up their own mind about who they friend on Facebook? And don't you think that deleting a funny but useful figure seems a tad too controlling? I'd like hear what everyone thinks.
It's about time Facebook had a Ranger.
Not the first time a coon has been made a target
Huh. Care to explain?
As long as Facebook applies the policy to all mascots of this type, I see no problem with it.
I respect your point of view, but I don't think it's that simple. Ranger Rick represents a collect group which have concerns and issues and pay for NWF to represent their voices much like a candidate elected to represent their voters. I think Ranger Rick should be allowed to be a platform for those serious discussions.
Also, why is it wrong for people to decide who they want as friends as 500 did on Facebook? Why should Facebook make that decision for you? Now if NWF were to pay Facebook they could have their message sent to your personal profile without your consent. I think they asking for friends and letting them choose is appropriate option.
Full Disclosure: I work for NWF
Dave, I'm sorry but it is that simple. Facebook was designed to allow people (key word) to create profiles and network with their friends. Those designers chose to only allow real human beings to create profiles. However, they did give an option for interaction between supporters of a cause-- groups. Further, with the development of the Facebook API came Causes, an application dedicated to showing your support for a particular cause, of which the NWF certainly could be.
Also, why is it wrong for people to decide who they want as friends as 500 did on Facebook? Why should Facebook make that decision for you?
Because Facebook has the right to decide what content they wish to show their viewers. They are a voluntary service-- if you don't like what they've done, don't support the service.
What Facebook did was not wrong. It was an adequate response to an abuse of their Terms of Service, which clearly state that only persons are eligible to have a Facebook account.
I have to agree with Facebook on this one. Think about it this way...if they allowed this, people would begin to upload profiles for every famous fictional character known. Then people would begin creating profiles for their pets.
People only. No characters.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |