Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Facebook 10th Anniversary: 7 Controversial Uses of User Data - TIME

7 Controversial Ways Facebook Has Used Your Data

Read more: Facebook 10th Anniversary: 7 Controversial Uses of User Data | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2014/02/04/7-controversial-ways-facebook-has-used-your-data/#ixzz2sVaECdhD

By  @VLuckFeb. 04, 20144 Comments
Views of The Facebook Inc.1000 Logo
Getty Images
Facebook just turned 10 years old, capping an extraordinary decade of growth in users and revenue. But along the way, the company has frustrated members more than once with its byzantine privacy policies and unwanted surprises nestled in its terms of service. The company tries to walk a tightrope between offering users a private space to converse with their friends and feeding businesses as much user data as they can in order to serve them effective ads. More than occasionally, the balance tips in the favor of business. The Federal Trade Commission even slapped the company on the wrist with regular privacy audits for 20 years because it “deceived consumers” with its privacy promises.
Here’s a look back at some of the most surprising things Facebook’s policies have allowed it to do with your data in the past. Some of these policies have been scrapped, while others are still in effect.

1. Keeping Your Data Forever, Even If You Leave

In the olden days, when Facebook was still tussling with MySpace, there was no simple way to delete your Facebook account. Sure, you could deactivate it, but the only way to wipe yourself from the social network’s database was to delete all the content you’d ever posted—by hand—and then email Facebook, sometimes several times, requesting an account deletion (Facebook added a straightforward account deletion option in 2010).
The simmering gripes over this policy sparked into a huge controversy in 2009, when Facebook changed its terms of service to remove a clause that promised that the company could not use your content if you deleted it. Facebook initially said people misunderstood the intent of the change, arguing that it was necessary to keep a user’s message to another available even if they left the service. But the company eventually reverted to its old terms and vowed to allow users to vote on future policy changes.
Some forms of interaction on Facebook, like sending another user a message or posting in a group, are still retained by the company indefinitely even if you delete your account.

2. Telling Your Friends What You Buy Online

One of Facebook’s first controversial moves was an ad platform called Beacon, through which companies like Travelocity and Fandango could automatically post items to users’ feeds indicating that they had bought products on their websites. Eventually Facebook added an opt-out option, but users complained that it was difficult to find. The program was eventually scrapped and Facebook paid$9.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by disgruntled users. Mark Zuckerberg himself called Beacon a mistake in 2011. But it was in some ways reborn as Facebook Connect, a more transparent platform through which users can use their Facebook accounts to perform actions on other websites.

3. Tracking Your Movements Across the Web

Facebook keeps a running log of your movements across a vast number of websites for 90 days, whether you are logged into the service or not. The company uses cookies to log data such as the date, time, URL, and your IP address whenever you visit a site that has a Facebook plug-in, such as a “Like” button. In a help section on its website, Facebook says this data is used to “show you a personalized experience on that site, to help maintain and improve our service, and to protect both you and Facebook from malicious activity.”

4. Using Your ‘Likes’ In Ads

Facebook got in legal trouble for its “Sponsored Story” ad format in 2011 because the social network was using members’ names and photos in ads for products they liked but not compensating them. This had some rather hilarious consequences, like a guy accidentally becoming a spokesman for a 55-gallon drum of lubricant. But it also angered some people enough to file a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the millions of users whose names appeared in ads without their consent. Facebook eventually paid $20 million in a settlement and scrapped the Sponsored Story ad unit.

5. Forcing You to Make Your Data Searchable

People have always been able to find other users if they Facebook-stalk hard enough, but the company recently removed a feature that allowed users to remove their profiles from search results.  Over the years Facebook has also slowly increased the amount of user data that is required to be publicly viewable. Currently, a users’ name, profile picture, cover photo, networks, and gender are public information.

6. Using Facial Recognition Software to Spot You in Photos

Back in 2010 Facebook began experimenting with a new feature that combed through tagged photos in the social network’s vast database in order to help users automatically tag their friends in new uploads. The feature was met with backlash, as users worried about having their facial maps logged on Facebook servers. European regulators asked the company to remove the feature in 2012, and Facebook eventually took it offline worldwide to work on some “technical improvements.” But the feature returned in the U.S. in 2013 and was expanded to include users’ profile pictures in addition to photos they are tagged in. Currently Facebook is working with the U.S. Department of Commerce to draft a voluntary code of conduct on how to use facial recognition software.

7. Giving Your Data to the Government

Unlike companies like Google and Twitter, Facebook has historically declined to publish transparency reports outlining how often law enforcement agencies request access to user data. That all changed after disclosures from Edward Snowden revealed that the National Security Agency was compelling a variety of tech companies, including Facebook, to hand over user information under the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. Facebook pushed back against initial reports that the NSA had unfettered access to their trove of user data, and has been lobbying with other tech giants for the freedom to publish more info about FISA court orders for user data. This week the company got its wish and was able to reveal some data about NSA requests, though the government won’t allow precise numbers to be disclosed (the number of users being targeted through disclosed FISA requests is small). Facebook has vowed to push for further transparency regarding government access of data.


Read more: Facebook 10th Anniversary: 7 Controversial Uses of User Data | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2014/02/04/7-controversial-ways-facebook-has-used-your-data/#ixzz2sVaZi6FQ
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

10 Reasons to Stop Working So Hard - TIME

10 Reasons to Stop Working So Hard

http://business.time.com/2014/02/03/10-reasons-to-stop-working-so-hard/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29


It's time to add up all the ways in which working ridiculous hours hurts you and the people around you--and put a stop to the madness.
By Feb. 03, 20144 Comments


working hard
Getty Images


This post is in partnership with Inc., which offers useful advice, resources, and insights to entrepreneurs and business owners. The article below was originally published at Inc.com.
“30 hours of working and still going strooong,” 24-year-old copywriter Mita Dira tweeted from Indonesia on December 14. Only she wasn’t. A few hours later she collapsed in a coma and died the following day, a victim of exhaustion, overwork, and an energy drink called Krating Daeng, also known as “Thai Red Bull.”
Sadly, young people dying of overwork is not unheard-of in some parts of Asia, but this particular death quickly went viral. Partly it was because she worked for the American ad agency Young & Rubicam. Mostly it was that tweet, one of a series in which she recounted her ridiculously work-laden life. In one tweet earlier that year she contemplated moving her bed to the office.  In another she was delighted to arrive home before midnight.
Reading about her felt like a wake-up call. In addition to being a full-time freelance writer and president of the American Society of Journalists and Authors, I’ve completed and am now selling a memoir, and I curate a popular reading series here in Woodstock, New York. Add many weeks of travel over the past few months and the pressures of Christmas shopping and family visits and somewhere along the way I had tipped over the edge. I was constantly at my desk, or else rushing, late for an appointment. I was nearly always short of sleep.
It was no good–not for me, or my family, or the publications I write for, or the organizations I serve. So I’ve taken Diran’s story as an opportunity to stop, think about what’s really important, and create a more rational work schedule. Yes, there are still long hours, but I’m making sure to have time for rest too, and even a whole day off every week or two. And yes, there have been some missed deadlines but not so many as I feared. I discovered that a well-rested person works much more efficiently than an exhausted one.
That’s one good reason to stop working ridiculous hours. Here are 10 more:

1. Quantity kills quality.

You want to be excellent at what you do. But the more tasks you take on, the smaller your chance of doing an excellent job at any of them. Cutting as many items off your task list as you can ups the odds that you’ll do a killer job on the things that matter most.

2. Sleep matters.

“The way to a more productive, more inspired, more joyful life is getting enough sleep,” Arianna Huffington said in a 2011 TED talk. She would know. She fainted from exhaustion and broke her cheekbone and is now something of a sleep evangelist. “I was recently having dinner with a guy who bragged that he’d gotten only four hours’ sleep the night before,” she continued. She considered retorting: “If you had gotten five, this dinner would have been a lot more interesting.”

3. You suck when it counts.

I can tell you from experience that going into a meeting tired and distracted means you will suck in that meeting. You’ll be bad at generating new ideas, finding creative solutions to problems, and worst of all you’ll suck at listening attentively to the people around you. That disrespects them and wastes their time as well as yours.

4. Your mood is a buzzkill.

The kind of irritability and impatience that goes with being overworked and behind schedule will cast a black cloud over the people around you both at work and at home. If you’re an employee, it will damage your career. If you’re a small business owner, it will harm your business.

5. Your judgment is impaired.

The research is conclusive: sleep deprivation impairs decision-making. As a leader, poor judgment is something you can’t afford. Crossing some tasks off your to-do list, handing them to someone else, or finishing some things late is well worth it if it means you bring your full concentration and intelligence to the tough decisions your job requires.

6. You’re setting a bad example.

The work schedule and tone you set for yourself will likely be mirrored by the smartest and most ambitious of your employees. What kind of leaders and bosses do you want them to be? Do you want the benefit of their brightest ideas and best judgment? Then don’t create an environment where everyone vies to see how many hours they can work without falling over.

7. There will always be more work.

If you run your own business, there’s always a new project to start, a new customer to pursue, or a new technology to try out. You’ll never be out of new work to do. And if you work for someone else, getting a lot done will lead to being given more tasks. That can be a good thing, but only if you have the time and energy to do them with excellence.

8. You’re hurting your relationships.

Somewhere along the way my husband sat me down and insisted that I make some time to talk with him every day. I’m blessed not only with a strong marriage but an unusually outspoken spouse. There may be people in your life feeling as shut out as he was who haven’t come out and said so. Don’t wait until it’s too late.

9. You’re screwing up your health.

Did Mita Diran know she was risking her life by working so hard? It seems clear from her tweets that she didn’t, and if she had, she’d have made a different choice. I’m sure you’re smart enough not to work 30 hours straight, but do you let your work schedule interfere with things like healthy eating and regular exercise, not to mention sleep? If so, then it’s possible you’re shortening your life by overwork. Is it worth it?

10. Most of the work is less important than you think.

A few years ago, hospice worker Bronnie Ware famously published the top five regrets she heard from her dying patients. Those who’d had careers all regretted the number of hours they spent at work. But many of her patients also spoke of dreams they wished they’d fulfilled.
Put those two items together and there’s a lesson: If something will help you fulfill a lifelong dream, it’s worth spending long hours. If not, then it isn’t. So ask yourself: In 10 years, will I care about this? If the answer is no, then it’s probably time to quit and go get some rest.


Read more: 10 Reasons to Stop Working So Hard | TIME.com http://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/10-reasons-you-have-to-stop-working-so-hard.html#ixzz2sPGT1g8Y
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

10 Monumentally Important Twists in Facebook History - TIME

10 Monumentally Important Twists in Facebook History

http://business.time.com/2014/02/04/facebook-10-year-anniversary-history/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29


By  @VLuckFeb. 04, 20143 Comments
Ten years ago Tuesday, Mark Zuckerberg launched a social website called thefacebook.com from his Harvard dorm room. In the ensuing decade, the social media network now known simply as Facebook has gained 1.23 billion monthly active users and a $150 billion market capitalization. Along the way the site has added features and interfaces that define much of the way we interact online, both on Facebook and on other sites. It’s regularly courted controversy in its attempts to better serve its true customers (advertisers) by compelling users to offer up more public data. Here, we look back at ten of the most important moments in the company’s history.

Feb. 4, 2004 – Thefacebook.com Goes Live

As a sophomore at Harvard, Zuckerberg initially created a website called Facemash, which allowed students to vote on the attractiveness of their classmates. Zuckerberg was accused of hacking into school servers to access students’ photos and quickly shut the site down due to pressure Harvard administrators. Just three months later he would launch thefacebook.com, a social network that allowed Harvard students to create personal profiles that outlined their interests, along with co-founders Dustin Moskovitz, Chris Hughes and Eduardo Saveri.  The direct inspiration for Facebook has been a subject of much debate for years, with a trio of Zuckerberg’s classmates claiming in a lawsuit that he stole the idea from them. Facebook eventually reached a settlement with the classmates in 2008.

October 2005 – Photo Albums Arrive

Believe it or not, the original version of Facebook didn’t allow users to create photo albums or tag friends in pictures, features that now drive much of the activity on the site. When Facebook added albums, it also included the option for users to upload an unlimited number of photos, which was unheard of among popular social networks at the time. Today Facebook users upload more than 350 million photos each day.

April 2006 – Going Mobile

Facebook now boasts that it is a mobile-first company, but that transformation began all the way back in 2006, when the company launched its first cell phone applications through deals with Verizon, Sprint and Cingular. While mobile functionality was initially focused around posting status updates, the introduction of the iPhone in 2007 and an accompanying Facebook app in 2008 quickly transformed the way users interacted on the network. Now the majority of Facebook usage happens on mobile devices.

Sept. 5, 2006 – The News Feed Changes the Way We Share

Once upon a time, Facebook was more about updating your own profile than following what other people were doing. That changed when the company rolled out the first version of its News Feed in 2006, which pulled in info on friends’ status updates, new connections, birthdays and other data. The new feature was initially met with anger because (wait for it…) people thought it was an invasion of their privacy, but Zuckerbergdefended the News Feed. Now, seeing a constant stream of your friends’ postings forms the basis of every social media site from Twitter to Instagram to Pinterest.

Sept. 26, 2006 – Open to Everyone

Just after Facebook launched the News Feed, it opened its doors to a much a a wider audience. Initially the site had only been for students, but in September 2006 the company decided to allow anyone above the age of 13 to join. Today it’s standard for everyone from teenagers to grandmas to have a Facebook profile. This has helped the social network reach an unprecedented scale, but it’s also driving some of its youngest users to search for online networks where they won’t be hounded by their parents.

February 2009 – A Privacy Controversy Spurs Change

Facebook is perpetually embroiled in controversy over its privacy options (or lack thereof in some cases). Perhaps no situation got as heated as the one in February 2009, when a change to the social network’s terms of service implied that the company could hold onto users’ posts and photos forever, even after they terminated their Facebook accounts. Users were quickly up in arms, forming Facebook groups protesting the change and threatening to leave the network. Facebook called the outrage a “misunderstanding” but quickly reverted to the original terms of service. After the incident the company allowed users to vote on future changes to its terms of service and privacy policy, but that initiative ended in 2012.

October 1,  2010 – To the Silver Screen

You know you’ve become a pop culture icon when Hollywood wants to make a movie about your life. So it was with The Social Network, a retelling of Facebook’s origin starring Jessie Eisenberg as the company’s hoodie-toting CEO. The film was criticized for several glaring inaccuracies, including its overall misportrayal of Zuckerberg, (he is apparently not as much of a hothead in real life). But the movie did win several Academy Awards and grossed more than $220 million globally. The film’s success helped transform Zuckerberg into a household name.

April 9, 2012 – The Instagram Buy

In one of most high-profile tech buyouts in recent memory, Facebook agreed to scoop up the photo-sharing social network Instagram for a cool $1 billion in cash and stock in the spring of 2012. At the time, Instagram was just a year and half old and had only 13 employees. But Facebook likely saw a potential competitor in its infancy, as well as an opportunity to expand its mobile business. Since the buyout, Instagram has grown to more than 150 million users and is beginning to generate revenue for Facebook through ads. Photo messaging app Snapchat was recently offered an even more outrageous $3 billion to join the Facebook fold, but the startup declined the offer.

May 18, 2012 – Botched IPO

Hype was at a fever pitch when Facebook arrived on Wall Street in the biggest tech IPO ever in May 2012. But a series of poor decisions soured investors on Facebook for more than a year. The Nasdaq was unable to keep up with huge demand for shares, so some investors couldn’t complete transactions or were forced to buy at incorrect prices (Nasdaq was eventually fined $10 million for these blunders). Facebook also overpriced its own stock at an initial price of $38. The shares got virtually no first-day pop and tumbled to half that price in the months following the IPO on fears that Facebook would not be able to effectively monetize its mobile services.

Jan. 31, 2014 – Facebook stock reaches all-time high

After more than a year of poor performance on Wall Street, Facebook finally saw its stock rebound last summer when it reported a strong surge in mobile revenue. More strong quarterly earnings reports in October and January have put the company’s stock on a steady rise for months. It closed above $62 per share on Friday, an all-time high. With big growth opportunities expected to come from Instagram and video ads this year, it’s likely that Facebook’s revenues will continue to rise.


Read more: Facebook 10 Year Anniversary: 10 Historic Moments | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2014/02/04/facebook-10-year-anniversary-history/#ixzz2sPFPMoed
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, February 3, 2014

With Engagement Rings, Love Meets Budget - New York Times

With Engagement Rings, Love Meets Budget

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/your-money/with-engagement-rings-love-meets-budget.html?ref=your-money-email&nl=your-money&emc=edit_my_20140203&_r=0

JAN. 31, 2014
     Tina Fineberg for The New York Times
    Your Money

    Ilona Kaprovsky, a 24-year-old New Yorker who works in finance, said she didn’t initially think she wanted a diamond as the centerpiece of her engagement ring — a lab-grown stone like a white sapphire, or even cubic zirconia, would be just fine. Besides, who would know the difference?
    But she eventually warmed to the idea when she and her boyfriend, Justin Veach, 28, started to talk about it more seriously. “During the process of buying the ring, we both were weighing what the value of the ring is,” said Mr. Veach, who is studying at Carnegie Mellon for his master’s in business administration and will probably finish with about $80,000 in loan debt. “Is it real? Does the diamond matter?”
    In the end, it mattered, as it does for the many American couples who collectively spend billions on diamond engagement rings each year. In 2012 alone, they spent nearly $11 billion on diamond engagement and wedding jewelry, according to Olya Linde, lead author of Bain & Company’s 2013 Global Diamond Industry Report. At a time when many young people are facing big student debts, a weak job market and rising housing costs, this luxury purchase still appears to be firmly planted on many ring fingers across the country.

    Diamonds’ Steady Rise

    After a spike in 1979 and a plunge in the early 1980s, the value of diamonds has been slowly climbing ever since.
    $20,000
    Rapaport
    Diamond
    Index
    16,000
    12,000
    8,000
    4,000
    ’80
    ’90
    ’00
    ’10
    ’14
    Source: Rapaport
    Average U.S. price per carat of the top 25 quality round diamonds, plotted monthly through January.
    The amount spent does tend to rise and fall with the broader economy, however, as it did in the latest boom and bust.
    Couples paid an average of $4,000 on engagement rings in 2012 (and another $1,000 for her wedding band, and $500 for his), according to a 2013 report from Jewelers of America, a trade group, using data from a variety of jewelers. That is about 25 percent less than the average spent on engagement rings in 2006, or $5,317, before the economy collapsed, according to another report by the group. In 2011, couples spent $3,538 on average.
    But arriving at the right amount to budget is something that many young people continue to struggle with, and retail analysts say that more people are beginning to use the credit programs offered by the largest national jewelry chains. Thinking about how that money might work harder for you invested elsewhere clearly saps all the romance out of the process. And as someone who grew up spending summers working in her family’s small jewelry store, I am not opposed to celebrating the occasion, within reason, with something sparkly.
    But let’s just pretend for a moment that you invested $12,700, or the current benchmark price for a high-quality one-carat diamond, according to the Rapaport Diamond Index, an industry benchmark for diamond prices. In a portfolio of 60 percent stock funds and 40 percent bonds with a real return of 4 percent, that $12,700 would rise to about $27,830 after 20 years, and nearly $41,200 after 30 years (that’s after inflation), according to calculations by Vanguard.
    If you invested an amount equal to the average ring price, or $4,000, the money would be worth nearly $8,800 after 20 years and almost $13,000 after 30 years.
    It is hard to compare those values with sentimental ones, as well as traditions that are deeply embedded in the American psyche. Diamond prices are generally less volatile than those of other commodities, and the average annual appreciation of a high-quality one-carat stone is about 3 to 4 percent annually, according to Edahn Golan, an analyst specializing in the diamond industry. “Supply is limited,” he said. “It’s a millions of years process, and they are mined faster than they are being generated by mother earth.”
    Of course, euphoric couples in love aren’t thinking about supply and demand (or that the growing middle classes in China and India are driving growth in the latter), nor do they view the ring as an investment. Even if they did, it’s not a terribly efficient value proposition, at least when you generally buy at retail and must sell at wholesale (and nobody initially plans to sell anyway).
    A ring with a 0.7 carat diamond that cost $4,895 on Blue Nile, an online jewelry retailer, might sell for 20 to 25 percent more at an average brick and mortar retailer, while the same size and quality ring could command at least 40 to 50 percent more at Tiffany or Cartier, said David Wu, a luxury goods and beauty analyst at the Telsey Advisory Group in New York.
    But what is interesting is that given how much has changed over the decades — men now snoop on their girlfriends’ Pinterest boards for clues about what they really like, and couples often shop together — the fact that it’s a purchase loaded with expectations persists.
    I spoke with about a dozen 20- and 30-somethings in the market for a ring, with budgets ranging from $1,500 to $25,000, and many of them, mostly men, admitted that they were concerned about appearances, which factored into their budget: I feel like I should keep up with people in our circle, said one. Her family is wealthier than mine, wrote another. The perception is that I earn a lot of money and should be able to spend in the same way, added another, who is earning a healthy salary now but has been in debt in the past.
    Launch media viewer
    Robert Neubecker
    And the most popular refrain: She is going to wear it for the rest of her life.
    It is a purchase that is “heavily driven by the heart and expectations,” said Holly Wesche, owner of Wesche Jewelers in Melbourne, Fla., and whose family has been in the jewelry business for three generations. “They are not thinking about their college debt or the house. They are trying to make it happen.”
    Many of the young and men and women I spoke with sounded relatively levelheaded about their spending plans — and the jewelers said that people tended to come into their stores highly educated on the topic and with a budget.

    RECENT COMMENTS

    Heather

     7 hours ago
    I've read almost all the comments and wanted to add my engagement ring story. I had a beautiful and expensive ring picked out at Tiffany's...

    NE

     7 hours ago
    A few people have mentioned the not-so-great mining practices of mining. A friend of mine is on a trip to Africa looking at artisinal...

    Denise

     7 hours ago
    Suckers for a brilliant marketing scheme by the diamond industry. What sheep people are.

    But others seemed to set budgets arbitrarily. One 27-year-old graduate student based his number — $1,500 to $3,000 — on what he could afford to pay off on credit. A 31-year-old lawyer decided to spend half his monthly income, or $5,000.
    “I found that coming up with a budget is difficult,” said a 28-year-old consultant in Los Angeles, who wanted to remain anonymous because he had not yet proposed and did not want to make his concerns public. “It’s not easy to discuss.”
    For Ms. Kaprovsky and Mr. Veach, it was an open discussion. The couple thoroughly educated themselves on the “four C’s” — cut, clarity, color and carat weight — that factor into a diamond’s value. They visited retailers in Pittsburgh, ranging from Zales to Tiffany, but ultimately bought a ring through Blue Nile: an elegant, hand-engraved platinum setting, which will showcase a round diamond, slightly shy of one carat.
    They knew that buying just below the landmark sizes, say 0.91 carat instead of one carat, would save them money, and the budget-minded couple also managed to save elsewhere: The total price came to $6,250, but since Mr. Veach bought the ring on his Upromise credit card, he received 10 percent cash back, or $625, which will go toward his Sallie Mae student loans.
    “We found our money values are pretty aligned,” Ms. Kaprovsky said. “We are both relatively thrifty and do our research when making large purchases.”
    88COMMENTS
    Engagement rings date back to Roman times, or further. But what many people probably do not realize is that the notion of a diamond ring was initially marketed to the masses in anadvertising campaign in the late 1930s by De Beers, which controlled the diamond industry at the time. The same firm’s copywriters also decided, in the 1980s, that the purchase should be worth two months’ salary.
    It is a powerful symbol. Even Mr. Veach joked about what wearing a cubic zirconia would say about their union. “A diamond is a 10 on the Mohs scale,” he told Ms. Kaprovksy, referring to the scale of mineral hardness, when making his case for buying the real thing. “C.Z. is an eight. What am I saying — our relationship is only strong as about an eight out of 10?”

    That underscores the notion that the industry really isn’t in the business of selling diamonds, as Martin Rapaport, publisher of the Rapaport Diamond Index, recently said. “We sell the idea behind diamonds.”
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)