To the editors:

I am appalled by the story in the Sept. 10 edition of The Maine Campus about University of Maine President Robert Kennedy’s position on the board for FairPoint Communications.

The University of Maine community is facing more staff cuts, a faculty hiring freeze and low enrollments. Some students cannot continue with school due to lack of funding, and those who have been lucky enough to return are struggling to simply pay for books. In addition, a committee has recently been convened to determine which programs should be cut, which will put more educational opportunities out of reach for our students and cut more jobs.

Yes, other university presidents hold similar positions on corporate boards, but this does not make it right or appropriate. Some actually give their earnings back to their community. Yes, we also need to remain attractive to industry, but why are we allying ourselves with a communications company that is so poorly regarded? Not to mention being under investigation by regulators in several states? With the amount of money Kennedy is currently receiving for his participation on FairPoint’s board, he could fund several staff salaries, endow a faculty chair, make a significant contribution to the library for much needed books and electronic resources, sponsor the arts or establish a scholarship fund.

As an alumna of UMaine and a current graduate student, I am seriously disappointed in what I perceive as Kennedy’s lack of commitment, vision and support of what we are here for: education. The students, faculty who teach them and the staff who make our university function are the future we need to focus on in these tough times, not catering to the promises of corporations.

- Lisa Nielson
Doctoral student

Facebook has right to delete “I hate The Maine Edge”

To the editors:

In Thursday’s edition, Eryk Salvaggio wrote an editorial about Facebook reprimanding him for something as simple as creating a group devoted to hating The Maine Edge. The act was relatively innocuous, and let’s be honest, I think most people hate the Maine Edge. Eryk was standing up for the most-quoted part of the most-referenced amendment in the U.S. Constitution. While I agree with Eryk’s position that free speech means being able to express like and dislike equally, that really has no place in the argument.

The fact is that Facebook is a private enterprise, and can do as it pleases. If we don’t like the way it does business, we are totally free to go back to MySpace or even start our own online network. The idea that Facebook should somehow be legally obligated to allow whatever we want to post would be a violation of Facebook’s own rights as a private group. If Facebook wanted to disable every account of brown-eyed people, they’d be completely within their rights, because it’s a private networking Web site. If we don’t like it, we have plenty of other options.
Furthermore, Eryk goes on to say that Facebook has grown too powerful: “If you mess with Facebook, you don’t just lose access to a Web Site, but to pieces of your personal history and connections to your friends and family. It is too much power for a site to have.”

Does Facebook have the power to separate you from your friends and family? The short answer is “no.” The long answer is, “No, that’s stupid.” Facebook can’t control you phone, your car, your mail, your e-mail or what you do with the rest of the Internet. Facebook is not our only connection to our families or our personal histories. Facebook makes it easier to communicate with our friends and family.

Eryk’s final words concern me the most. “It is too much power for a site to have.” Facebook has grown, but what power does it have that we haven’t given it? Granted, it’s creepy that Facebook knows where my long-lost high school buds are before I do, but Facebook is only able to make that connection because I gave it the information to make the connections.

In the end, the editorial sounded less like a trumpet for free speech and more like a kid upset about being slapped on the wrist.

- Joey Pelletier
Senior English student

The paper faced the backlash publications tend to face when they use sexually suggestive images of child-like, albeit legal-aged, women to sell their stories. And, as I mentioned, it apologized. So what’s the big deal?

I’m no prude. But I am concerned about the use of women who look like children being used in a sexual manner, because I hold the uncontroversial position that pedophilia is a bad thing. Children should never be ‘hot.’

So I did what any college-aged guy with a chip on his shoulder might do: I created a Facebook group, “I Hate The Maine Edge,” and invited some sympathetic friends. It got up to about 46 members when I received the following message from Facebook:

“The group ‘I Hate The Maine Edge’ has been removed because it violated our Terms of Use. Among other things, groups that are hateful, threatening, or obscene are not allowed. We also take down groups that attack an individual or group, or advertise a product or service. Continued misuse of Facebook’s features could result in your account being disabled.”

This is where I got annoyed.

Facebook is not merely a site for posting pics of drunken escapades. It is quickly becoming a powerful collection of personal information: It has access to your spending habits, personal interests, work and educational histories, who you are friends with, who you date and what kind of products you buy.

Stupidly, we give this information away based on the assumption that Facebook has made an unspoken promise to its usersT The idea is that we give up that data in exchange for our ability to communicate with friends, to share experiences and information. Facebook gets that data too; but for most of us it’s worth it because, who cares? We don’t have any information to hide.

The problem emerges when Facebook begins to censor our information about negative experiences. Complaining about a local newspaper that contributed to the sexualization of children in our culture is not ‘hateful.’ It’s a way to question the logic and values of our media landscape.

The World Wide Web is a place where people finally get to talk back to the media and to each other: to ask questions, criticize, probe and improve. When one of the largest, most powerful sites on the Web blocks our ability to ask questions and share grievances, it is taking away one of the inherent promises of the Web: Freedom of Speech.

Now, Freedom of Speech is only a legal right when it comes to what the government can and cannot do. But we have a choice over whether or not to make use of corporations and entities that embrace freedom of speech. It is more important when it concerns a corporation actively archiving our entire personal history. I want some assurances that they’re going to act in a straightforward, trustworthy manner and not bend to someone’s complaint about my opinions when I complain about the corporate environment.

I’ll give Facebook all of my personal data, but I want it to preserve my right to complain about stuff. Take that away, and I’m left with a site that only allows me to speak positively about corporate products while it takes careful notes about all of my daily actions and threatens to separate me from my friends and family if I question any larger, more powerful forms of media.

If it seems like Big Brother, you’re as crazy as I am. But there’s a great big box on top of my news feed, warning me that I messed with the wrong guys. So be careful: If you mess with Facebook, you don’t just lose access to a Web site, but to pieces of your personal history and connections to your friends and family. It is too much power for a site to have.

—

Eryk Salvaggio left the group “Facbook fans.”