A couple of high profile criminals haven't had Facebook accounts. From this some people have inferred that people without Facebook accounts are up to no good. This is incorrect reasoning.
It would be an interesting study that compared a random sample of people with Facebook accounts to a random sample of people without Facebook accounts. But no such study appears to have contributed to these claims.
I use twitter, so wouldn't that substitute the social network need (that we didn't need 20 years ago but now determines our mental health...)?
I was curious about what their rationale was. I wasn't expecting it to be particularly justified.
It is quite an interesting example of that.
"lack of Facebook", is that some kind of newspeak, as in "not enough Facebook", or "take 200 grams of Facebook every four hours"? DailyMail, you go lower and lower.
