Glad Tidings to Mr. Math-Photographer...
Because it is your good self, I shall Post some things here, and see how they are received.

Positive Aspects to Feeling Lonely (Some of my own):

- I am on my own, and do not have to worry about malicious people taking pictures or throwing things at me.
- I can listen to cheery and rousing Music (on Headphones), and maybe dance around to it, & No-one gets in my way.
- I can sing out-of-tune, or practise my Foreign Languages out loud... & No-one can tell me off for making mistakes, thus I can improve my skills in peace.
- I sit upon the front-right of the Upper Deck of a Bus when travelling, and when another Bus with the same number passes in the opposite direction, I can wave and pretend that that other Driver is waving at me.
- I can watch endless repeats of Top Gear, The A-Team, Pokemon, and My Little Pony... without worrying that someone else is coming in to tell me off for this or for changing channels during the advert-breaks.
- I can splash into puddles (clean, of course) and take pictures of Rainbows or of Sunsets, without worrying over other people thinking that I am splashing them or taking pictures of them instead.

...Hopefully anyone reading gets what I am saying, here? ...<> I do not "live in my own world", yet it is grand to consider oneself outwards, every now and then. I could put more, but this is long enough already. Fair Play to Anyone reading...

This guy had a great view on solitude.

“Ordinary men hate solitude. But the Master makes use of it, embracing his aloneness, realizing he is one with the whole universe.”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

Yes - great quote. Bukowski had a few, too. I love my 'aloneness'.  There's a difference, though, between being alone and being lonely. 

I watched most of the hearing on C-SPAN. The thing that astonished me was how afraid the senate seemed to really lay into him and get to the meat of the questioning. They tip-toed around him like he was some high ranked diplomat. I've seen Bernake and Greenspan treated with far less caution than Zuckerberg, they were the head of the fed at the time.

The only real relevant and aggressive line of questioning that I saw took was from the Kentucky senator. He pressed him on the user agreement and that is where the problem lies. The only problem was he asked him "The user agreement should be written in English and not Swahili", this has been spun into some nonsense about racism. The questions being asked were the real meaty ones. The press have spun this into deflection using racism as a strawman. If the senator would have said "The user agreement should be written in English and Hokkien" I wouldn't have been offended. The press however found a way to blind the truth with "newspeak".

I can't see him running for president. He seems more suited to a shadowy presence. I read Facebooks user agreement a fair few years ago and it said that things posted and uploaded were then considered as Facebook's "intellectual property". A very ambiguous and malleable term legally. I never considered signing up for Facebook after that day. That was the first and last time I considered it.

I think the whole issue of what is posted there also indicates how nefarious things can be. I think some users are "allowed" to post these things for the explicit purpose of having "dirt" on people, or information, data or media that can be used against them. Also public outrage, anger and a difference of view can be used against certain groups. How many terrorist videos have been uploaded and left for everyone to see? I saw videos of vicious attacks against LGBT people in Russia, they were linked to whole anti-LGBT groups pages. Facebook seems to like hatred and groups that go with the agenda they want people to follow. It actually differs from country to country. Sometimes right-wing, sometimes left-wing, sometimes racist, sometimes homophobic. They seem to silence according to the dynamic of the country or community, or according to what they want to see happen with those things. For instance Facebook literally have an office inside the Filipino state surveillance building, I wouldn't he surprised if it's more of a problem than we think. Corporations and governments shouldn't share buildings. There's a name for that Corporatocracy, but that's just a new word for Mussolinis version of Facism.

I know people who have reported things to Facebook and nothing has been done at all. Things that are illegal. Animal cruelty being on that list.

I just wouldn't use it. It's literally like opting into being watched by a surveillance shadow organisation. Even if your data isn't being used directly against you, it's being used for all kinds of things that you would flat out refuse to give information for if it was directly being asked by the ultimate users of that information.

I watched most of the hearing on C-SPAN. The thing that astonished me was how afraid the senate seemed to really lay into him and get to the meat of the questioning. They tip-toed around him like he was some high ranked diplomat. I've seen Bernake and Greenspan treated with far less caution than Zuckerberg, they were the head of the fed at the time.

The only real relevant and aggressive line of questioning that I saw took was from the Kentucky senator. He pressed him on the user agreement and that is where the problem lies. The only problem was he asked him "The user agreement should be written in English and not Swahili", this has been spun into some nonsense about racism. The questions being asked were the real meaty ones. The press have spun this into deflection using racism as a strawman. If the senator would have said "The user agreement should be written in English and Hokkien" I wouldn't have been offended. The press however found a way to blind the truth with "newspeak".

I can't see him running for president. He seems more suited to a shadowy presence. I read Facebooks user agreement a fair few years ago and it said that things posted and uploaded were then considered as Facebook's "intellectual property". A very ambiguous and malleable term legally. I never considered signing up for Facebook after that day. That was the first and last time I considered it.

I think the whole issue of what is posted there also indicates how nefarious things can be. I think some users are "allowed" to post these things for the explicit purpose of having "dirt" on people, or information, data or media that can be used against them. Also public outrage, anger and a difference of view can be used against certain groups. How many terrorist videos have been uploaded and left for everyone to see? I saw videos of vicious attacks against LGBT people in Russia, they were linked to whole anti-LGBT groups pages. Facebook seems to like hatred and groups that go with the agenda they want people to follow. It actually differs from country to country. Sometimes right-wing, sometimes left-wing, sometimes racist, sometimes homophobic. They seem to silence according to the dynamic of the country or community, or according to what they want to see happen with those things. For instance Facebook literally have an office inside the Filipino state surveillance building, I wouldn't he surprised if it's more of a problem than we think. Corporations and governments shouldn't share buildings. There's a name for that Corporatocracy, but that's just a new word for Mussolinis version of Facism.

I know people who have reported things to Facebook and nothing has been done at all. Things that are illegal. Animal cruelty being on that list.

I just wouldn't use it. It's literally like opting into being watched by a surveillance shadow organisation. Even if your data isn't being used directly against you, it's being used for all kinds of things that you would flat out refuse to give information for if it was directly being asked by the ultimate users of that information.