News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Facebook adds Samaritans suicide risk alert system by ebiester on Monday March 07, 2011 @07:47PM (#2299363)
Please don't be abused....

Please don't be abused....

Please oh please oh please don't be abused.

Please, ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend with a facebook password, avoid the temptation to post a fake suicide note and then report using someone else's account.

Or middle schoolers who think this would be a funny practical joke.

Ever had a sinking feeling?

Re:Facebook adds Samaritans suicide risk alert system by ozziegooen on Monday March 07, 2011 @08:00PM (#2299390)
So far it hasn't been at all, that was the point of the test:

"The system had been operating in a trial mode, without publicity for three months, during which it received several genuine reports and no hoaxes, according to Samaritans."

Doesn't sound too bad.

Re:Facebook adds Samaritans suicide risk alert system by hkr on Monday March 07, 2011 @07:58PM (#2299389)
It will be abused anyways, this is the Internet. Facebook could simply log IP (as if they don't already) and report the trolls.
Re:Facebook adds Samaritans suicide risk alert system by jarin on Monday March 07, 2011 @09:00PM (#2299528)
It should be fairly difficult to abuse, since you need to link to the suicidal post in the contact form. I assume a human at Facebook will look at it before sending in the SWAT team.
Re:Facebook adds Samaritans suicide risk alert system by ozziegooen on Monday March 07, 2011 @08:03PM (#2299401)
This makes Facebook seem more creepy. To me and anyone already concerned they have to much user information.

One alternative would be to have Facebook sponsor a new independent local charity to do exactly this. People can relate to a local charity, they can't relate to Facebook.

Re:Facebook adds Samaritans suicide risk alert system by mkjones on Monday March 07, 2011 @09:51PM (#2299617)
The first thing you see on the help page is a list of places to contact that are external / not related to Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=15538.
Re:Facebook adds Samaritans suicide risk alert system by nandemo on Monday March 07, 2011 @10:09PM (#2299667)
I find it funny that they never bother to explain what or who are the Samaritans. It's probably a charity but I like to imagine they're talking about the real Samaritans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan

Re:Facebook adds Samaritans suicide risk alert system by chris_j on Monday March 07, 2011 @11:01PM (#2299764)
Very funny. It's referring to a charity, of course, which is extremely well known in the UK (and in Ireland, if Wikipedia is to be believed). Here is the correct Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans_(charity)

The charity is most well known for the phone line that it runs, staffed by volunteers, that anyone can call if they are feeling suicidal or just desperate and need someone to talk to. An ex girlfriend of mine worked as a Samaritans volunteer for a short while. She said that it was very hard work (manning the phones all night and dealing with a fair few prank/abusive callers) and also extremely worthwhile and rewarding.

Re:Facebook adds Samaritans suicide risk alert system by maeon3 on Monday March 07, 2011 @10:09PM (#2299665)
I would rather see an alert system to alarm the police when facebook is caught selling my information to 3rd parties.
Re:Facebook adds Samaritans suicide risk alert system by wyclif on Monday March 07, 2011 @08:16PM (#2299432)
Three Facebook stories on the front page of HN at the moment. The rot is in for sure. For a second, I thought I was reading TechCrunch.
Re:Facebook adds Samaritans suicide risk alert system by wyclif on Monday March 07, 2011 @10:24PM (#2299696)
No, really. There were three FB stories on the front page when I wrote that.
Re:Facebook adds Samaritans suicide risk alert system by lazugod on Monday March 07, 2011 @10:32PM (#2299713)
You haven't made an argument why such would be considered "rot".
Re:Facebook adds Samaritans suicide risk alert system by burgerbrain on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:08AM (#2299910)
"I thought I was reading TechCrunch."

Not saying I agree with him, but he did defend his assertion.