Kent State's Facebook Ban for Athletes

Most commenting readers scoffed at Kent State University's new policy (noted on Slashdot yesterday) forbidding athletes from using profiles on Facebook. The arguments offered (legal, moral, and practical) mostly berated the school for limiting their students to no good end, but some thought-provoking comments exposed at least some complexities which make the issue less clear-cut than a straightforward case either of censorship or contractual freedom. Read on for a sampling of the comments which typified the conversation.

Like many readers, NMerriam was critical of the Kent State policy, but skeptical of the argument that KSU's action violated the First Amendment right to free speech, writing "Not true. U.S. courts have repeatedly ruled that, as participation in extracurricular activities is not a required part of the educational mission, it can be subject to restrictions that would otherwise be unconstitutional. That's why drug tests for Algebra II are not allowed, but drug tests for Basketball are. ...The major advantage they have at the university level is that athletic scholarships are tied to eligibility (and sometimes even performance), so getting kicked off the team also takes away the money you're using to pay for school."

Along the same lines, one reader notes that "plenty of religiously-affiliated, image-conscious schools require their athletes sign a code of conduct, like no drinking in public, etc, as a condition of receiving the scholarship. Apparently Kent State believes these sorts of ties between conduct and finance aren't enough to prevent it from being known that their athletes aren't infallible supermen who excel in athletic, academic and moral standing, and wishes to add what is essentially an NDA to their contract," and argues that "Something here is broken. Maybe it's that Universities, institutes of higher education, are resorting to sporting events as a recruiting campaign. Maybe it's the number of schools pitting athletes against each other such that success requires dedication to the exclusion of personal growth. Maybe it's students, for being so vain as to photograph themselves in compromising situations, and think that the public Internet is a suitable place to distribute these to close friends and strangers alike. Maybe it's you and me for watching the whole thing. But let's face it — there's no Rose Bowl for the most wholesome two teams in the nation. The Final Four aren't the four people left at the party who refused to hook up with drunken coeds."

Along similar lines, one reader argued "Adults can also choose to enter into contracts. Since these are students receiving athletic scholarships, my guess is that it's legal to say 'If you want this free money, you can't use facebook.' It's the same way that NFL teams can write contracts that forbid things like skydiving or riding motorcycles."

In answer to these and similar arguments that the student athletes are only facing obligations in their scholarship agreements that they might in any other contract, though, another reader bites back:

"[T]here are a lot of protected rights you can't sign away, no matter how hard you try. The majority of contract signed in this country probably have at least some unenforceable terms as a result. Second, this is a public university, is it not? That means it gets a lot of federal funding and has to follow all sorts of rules that apply to government entities, but not to private businesses. Third, retroactively changing the terms of a contract is always one of those unenforceable terms."

"... [I]f the terms of this policy are really what the article would have us believe then they are begging for a lawsuit. Banning students from participating in some type of social networking site is one thing, but banning only a specific site is something else entirely."

Only a few readers seemed to chalk up KSU's limitation on athletes to motives other than the University's own self interest, including one who described the change as a move "away from the internet as a network for data exchange, and towards the internet as a one-way pipe by which to push content your way."

TexasDex voiced a more common-sense argument for the University's desire to patrol the social-networking world, however justified or misguided that patrolling might be, writing "I can attest to the fact that lots of students post drinking photos, even joining groups like 'I was drunk when my facebook profile photo was taken.' Kent state is worried about this. While I'm guessing they're wringing their hands at such open bragging about underage drinking,that sort of thing is a fact of life, from long before facebook existed."

A touch more cynically, reader revery calls it "fairly obvious" that "the school is less concerned with preventing students from engaging in illegal activity and undesirable behavior than it is with preventing it from becoming public knowledge that students are engaging in illegal activity and undesirable behavior."

At least a handful of readers suggested that the University was better off with such a policy, and that no fundamental rights were compromised by such a rider, one of them writing "College athletes on scholarship are entertainers, and getting well paid for it. Part of their value as employees of the college is their public image. If they don't like the rules they are free to leave for greener pastures.

Another comment, from a Kent State student, was similarly blunt, calling the restriction "Good, if not good enough," and continuing "No, I don't have sympathy. Stop showing off your drinking skills and go to class. I'd be happier if they'd prevent them from drinking and tell them to stop using the team as an excuse to ditch classwork when they apparently have plenty of time for parties. Considering very few of them are going to be able to rely on sports as a career, I'd be happier if the University was less concerned with image and more concerned with the fact that the images are often of underaged students drinking alcohol."

On a pragmatic level, as several readers pointed out, colleges are using information on social networking sites to find campus rule-breakers anyhow; one reader commented "At my own college, security uses facebook to find out about parties and underage drinking on campus. Chances are, someone put stupid info up and has ruined it for everyone. Do I feel bad for them? Not at all."

Responding to the idea that a third party might create a fake identity for a Kent State player, a handful of readers elaborated on Facebook's focus on users at educational institutions. Reader Gothic_Walrus provided a useful capsule description:

Simple. There's no possible way to hide the e-mail address that you signed up for the account with. Regardless of any other privacy settings, if someone can see your profile on Facebook, they can see the address that the account is linked to.

Now, this isn't entirely foolproof from fake profiles. At my college, anyone with an account can log into the directory and create groups of e-mail addresses. If you can come up with a group e-mail address that's both believable and not already taken and add yourself as the group's only member, you're set to create that fake profile.

But on the other side of the coin, it's incredibly easy to log into the directory to see who an e-mail address is registered to. And if that's not good enough, there are printed directories that, if memory serves, list the person's e-mail in their contact information.

The point I'm trying to make, I guess, is that it's easy to make a fake profile, but it's usually just as easy to figure out who it belongs to.

The school has an even easier time of it. Since there's only one e-mail address per person and since the school has that e-mail address in their records, it simply boils down to looking at the profile and seeing if they match.

A comment from reader finkployd (who describes himself as "a Fight The Power, Go EFF, Die MPAA kinda guy") wryly suggests that Facebook isn't really the greatest subject for an argument about Internet freedom in academia. Finkployd supplies the rhetorical question raised in the original story ("Makes you wonder why they even bother providing internet connections on college campuses.") with a possibly unpopular answer:

"Oh you know, research, email, that sort of thing. This may surprise you but the original intent of providing internet access was not to pass around mp3's, pictures of yourself drunk, and porn (well, that last one is debatable).

You would think students over the years would have gotten better about using the internet but it seems it has regressed quite a bit. I am reminded of reports of students at the university where I work getting busted selling drugs on facebook and posting pictures of themselves doing illegal things. In the papers they always seem quoted as indignantly saying "I didn't know the police could monitor that stuff, that is really scary" as though cops looking at facebook was on par with warrant-less wiretapping.

... [Y]ou can look at it as preparing these student athletes for the future. If they make it to the pros and become the typical corporate whore, they will have to get used to being told how to act, what to say, and what to do. College is actually preparing them for the real world ;)"

Thanks to the readers whose comments helped inform this discussion, especially those quoted above:

• 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF
• Control Group
• couchslug
• Corvaith
• finkployd
• ggKimmieGal
• Gothic_Walrus
• NMerriam
• revery
• Skyshadow
• TexasDex
• xenocide2

Comments

so...

[Anonymous Coward]

so it was already on slashdot and here are some highlights so we can rehash the other non-highlighted comments as well?

Re:so...

[mortonda]

Wow, by rehashing the best comments, I almost see... can it be... a good article? A real editor? I don't know, this is too much of a change...

Re:so...

[Chris Burke]

Think of it as a way of helping to maintain Slashdot's signal:noise ratio. They've given us a signal, now all we need to do is supply the noise!

Re:so...

[Nos.]

rats, I was hoping to copy some of the +5 comments from the first story and post them here, but the editors have already done that.

Re:so...

[LiquidCoooled]

Not too much of a change, more like making use of the resources slashdot has to offer.
Auto moderation and overviews using the threshholds might follow the thread but they lack the important part.
it does require editing to make it work.

Well done timothy.

Re:so...

[theStorminMormon]

I agree. I was surprised to see this type of an article on slashdot, but I'm excited by it as well. It depends on the talent of the editor, but timothy did a great job on this one.

I hope to see more of these types of articles in the future.

Re:so...

[nacturation]

Nah... now, not only do we have articles duped by the editors, but now we also have our comments duped as well.

As an aside, it looks like they're making use of this part of the TOS:

In each such case, the submitting user grants OSTG the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

So OSTG can make a "Dumbest Quotes on Slashdot" book and you've already given permission.

Re:so...

[Qzukk]

I also agree. It's a good job at putting together the best parts of pro and con views to create an informative (if entirely copy-pasted) article.

Hopefully we'll see more of this for other subjects, but I think before this gets too out of hand we need a special "-1, Wrong" mod that works differently - rather than only getting to use it if you don't post in the story, you only get to use it if you also post a correction in response to the comment. If your response is itself modded or metamodded incorrect you lose extra karma (to help convince people not to do this if they're not sure what they're talking about) and are banned from making Wrong mods (to keep it from happening again). A -1, Wrong to a correction undoes the -1, Wrong on the originally corrected post. Correction posts should be checked for at least one link pointing anywhere else so that the person has to at least pretend to the software that they've got a citation.

So anyways, if we have M1 moderation and M2 metamoderation, should backslash be M0, or M3?

Re:so...

[Anonymous Coward]

But he missed all our funny and insightful discussion about the Kent State shootings! How can we discuss Kent State without mentioning the massacre? Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

Re:so...

[theStorminMormon]

I think your specific suggestion has some issues, but I definitely think that the intent is good. There should be a way to downmod factually incorrect posts. The problem is that the definition of "factual" is sometimes itself the object of dispute (e.g. evolution, global warming, etc.) How to distinguish between one and the other?

I've always thought that it would be cool to have a way to allow people to vote whether or not they agreed with an article. It would hopefully get people to vote against a point they dislike it rather than downmodding it. Plus it would be interestinig to gauge the popularity of various posts along the line. Basically just a poll attached to every post.

-stormin

Re:so...

[wiredlogic]

If it'll make you feel better. I'll plagiarize your post on the next dupe.

Re:so...

[nahdude812]

Seems this may be a new section on Slashdot called Backlash:
http://backslash.slashdot.org/

Re:so...

[Qzukk]

Factual has a pretty good definition, that being "provably correct or incorrect".

With this system, there is a risk that opinions and factually correct (but unpopular) comments would be modded Wrong, but they're currently just modded flamebait or troll when people don't like them, so I don't think this system will make it that much worse. With the ability to cancel the Wrong mod by flagging the response as Wrong, the worst case is a coordinated group of trolls (remember, you can't claim someone else is Wrong if you're currently Wrong) working together to cancel attempts to flag their responses as Wrong, and the length of the flamewar would be limited by number of members and their 5 mod points.

Other things I thought of, to prevent people from simply modding a Wrong post back up (and since the -1 is temporary), the post should cap at +4 until the Wrong mod is cancelled. Likewise, to keep a group of different people from "locking down" a post, there can only be one Wrong mod on a post, even after it's cancelled. This forces any such attack into a single thread.

In practice use (and abuse) would look like this:
- Lies, damn lies, and statistics (2, Informative) by foo

then someone posts a -1, Wrong and a correction:
- Lies, damn lies, and statistics (1, Wrong) by foo (the Wrong tag overrides any other tag for funny, troll, insightful, whatever)
|- Correction: You're wrong! (1) by bar

Now, foo can't cancel this himself, since he's currently Wrong, but someone else who thinks they can prove that foo is right and bar is wrong can come along:
- Lies, damn lies, and statistics (2, Informative) by foo (the Wrong mod is cancelled)
|- Correction: You're wrong! (0, Wrong) by bar
||- Correction: No, he's right and I can prove it (2) by baz

Finally, nobody can now mod the original post Wrong again, they would have to mod baz's post Wrong if they want to make a statement.
- Lies, damn lies, and statistics (-1, Troll) by foo (modded down by trolls)
|- Correction: You're wrong! (5, Insightful) by bar (modded up by trolls)
||- Correction: No, he's right and I can prove it (-1, Wrong) by baz (modded down by trolls)
|||- Correction: Yuo suck, poopyface! First TrollKrew ftw! (5, Insightful) by trollkrew214 (modded up by trolls)

Then:
- Lies, damn lies, and statistics (-1, Troll) by foo
|- Correction: You're wrong! (5, Insightful) by bar
||- Correction: No, he's right and I can prove it (-1, Wrong) by baz
|||- Correction: Yuo suck, poopyface! First TrollKrew ftw! (4, Wrong) by trollkrew214 (this can't be modded to 5 for now)
||||- Correction: TrollKrew sux! Flamelordz forevah! (5, Insightful) by flamah13 ... until "trollkrew" or "flamelordz" ran out of users with modpoints.

Further, use of the Wrong mod could be restricted to a subset of all of the users getting mod points, to help limit even coordinated abuse.

Re:so...

[theStorminMormon]

I'm liking the idea better as you explain it more. I'll need more time to think through some of the consequences before I really have a confident opinion.

The one nagging concern is the concern (which is not unique to your suggestion) that if we start to make the mod process more complicated by adding a new type of mod or a new mod rule - where do you stop? One could imagine the system getting fairly complex really quickly.

I definitely think there's some merit to this strategy, however. Nice idea. Hope the slashdot gods are paying attention.

-stormin

Re:so...

[Qzukk]

You are right, the added complexity is itself a weakness both in terms of policy and actually implementing the thing. It could easily be done just like all the other mods are now, though I think for the entire change to be worthwhile, at a minimum it should not be cancelled by a reply so that the user can both flag a post as incorrect and explain why it is incorrect. (I still like my full, complex idea though)

As far as "where do we stop", the answer is really "we go as far as we need to". With the addition of backslash, the tag would assist the editor in selecting posts that are at least not wrong enough that a moderator could tell. Of course, perhaps in pratice it will be abused too much (what does the editor do if everyone's Wrong?), or the people who know the post is wrong are not the ones who have mod points, but the only way to know what happens in practice would be to try and see. As for mod categories in the future, maybe if they start standup.slashdot.org, we can add a "-1, Not Laughing" mod to be used there ;)

Re:so...

[Qzukk]

||- Correction: No, he's right and I can prove it (-1, Wrong) by baz

Whoops that last example there I screwed up. This particular post would have gone to (-1, Flamebait) after the Wrong was cancelled.

Moderation system...

[BMonger]

Don't we have a moderation system in place to highlight the best comments? Why the "mega"-moderation?

Re:Moderation system...

[TubeSteak]

Why the "mega"-moderation?

For the same alleged reason that /. used to dupe stories: because the editors think that there's more to discuss and/or they want to take the discussion in a different direction.

Re:Moderation system...

[mrchaotica]

Hey, I'm just happy that now at least they've got a category for dupes, so that nobody has to complain about it in the comments anymore!

(But I know they're going to anyway, because they're too stupid or lazy to just turn off the category.)

Re:Moderation system...

[dourk]

Tim was bored, and wanted to play blogger.

Re:Moderation system...

[utopianfiat]

I can see it now, Unreal Slashdot 2006
"Double Moderation!!"
"Mega Moderation!!"
"M-M-M-M-MONSTER MODERATION!!"

Re:Moderation system...

[sootman]

That's a very good question. I'm happy to see that it was quickly modded up to +5, Insightful. I hope to see it included in tomorrow's "More about 'More about Ken State's Facebook Ban for Athletes.' "

Re:Moderation system...

[sootman]

Sad to see this modded 'Offtopic.' Hey, Tim: Slashdot has this cool system where you can set yur threshold to '+5' and see just the good comments. You should check it out, instead of creating an entire new subdomain.

Re:Moderation system...

[inphinity]

Because moderators don't look past the first, say, 150-200 points.

I'll admit it, I'm guilty of it too. I actually rather like this idea of condensing a day's discussion into one article. It gives those who may have new insight into the topic a chance to join the discussion.

Thumbs up!

Re:Moderation system...

[Red Flayer]

I think slashbacks are good in general, but this topic was discussed... yesterday. A few days (at least) to ruminate might be more useful in terms of generating new useful discussion. I think there will be lots of articles relevant to this topic submitted in the next few weeks, why not refer back to the KSU/Facebook discussion then? Is this just a way to keep the topic on the main page (for people using the default view)?

Also, Offtopic (ironically): Comments discussing the nature of this type of article are not really off-topic IMO; given that the article itself is meta-commentary on comments, how are comments that are meta-commentary on the article offtopic?

Re:Moderation system...

[Z0mb1eman]

Remember all the threads with arguments about whether Slashdot is outdated and will be replaced by Digg (latest example being the story on The Top 10 Tech People Who Don't Matter?

Notice how the common defense of Slashdot for complaints about the quantity, quality or timeliness of news is "I come here for the comments, not for the articles"?

Well, there you have it.

That's my theory, anyway.

Re:Moderation system...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Why the "mega"-moderation?

To show that the editors actually read the discussions.

Re:Moderation system...

[daniil]

Don't we have a moderation system in place to highlight the best comments? Why the "mega"-moderation?

Because the way Slashdot discussion system works, many +5 comments have little to do with the story itself -- they can quite often be comments on comments on comments (just like this one). The "mega"-moderation would point out the best topical comments to a story that generated good comments.

On the other hand, it could just as well be that they're running low on *real* story submissions and had to make something up :7

Re:Moderation system...

[probityrules]

Now for a quick recap:

Like many readers, BMonger was critical of the almost dupe: "Don't we have a moderation system in place to highlight the best comments? Why the "mega"-moderation?"

Along the same lines, one reader notes that "For the same alleged reason that /. used to dupe stories: because the editors think that there's more to discuss and/or they want to take the discussion in a different direction."

Along similar lines, one reader argued "Tim was bored, and wanted to play blogger."

Thanks to the readers whose comments helped inform this discussion, especially those quoted above:

• BMonger
• TubeSteak
• dourk

Re:Moderation system...

[larry bagina]

in this case, the comments are the article.

And the comments are (so far) complaints about the /. moderation system.

Consistent?

[RunFatBoy.net]

I just don't understand why the concern would start and end with Facebook. If you're going to ban such online actvities, why not go to the extreme, and ban any sort of social networking site.

Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ -- Exercise for the rest of us.

Re:Consistent?

[Chris Burke]

If you're going to ban such online actvities, why not go to the extreme, and ban any sort of social networking site.

Yeah, it's almost as if the ones making the decision have no understanding of the internet at all.

Re:Consistent?

[TubeSteak]

Because, as the summary quotes from Gothic_Walrus, Facebook is the only social networking site where your profile = your e-mail address

The University's problem isn't that drunk pictures of their players are showing up on the web, it's that the players are putting them there in a way that cannot be denied.

I can go on MySpace and pretend to be someone who I know well.
Not so on Facebook.

Re:Consistent?

[AviLazar]

Because Facebook is specifically geared towards college students/alumni and has a closer tie to schools. Not to mention it is hard to police a athlete student for every possible website out there. They will probably, eventually, say "for all sites". But it is a place to start as facebook is growing as one of the bigger and more reputable sites out there.

Personally I do not have a great problem with this. Those sites do represent the school, and do you really want some college kid responsible for the image your school presents? Especially when he/she is placing pics of them doing drugs, drinking, having sex, etc? Also, some of the information can be really personal. I have a g/f who was division 1 all-star. She had stalkers who would use, amongst other things, Myspace to find personal info about her and contact her. She had to tone down the amount of information she placed on these sites due to this.

Also, this school is saying "do this and we will not pay your tuition"....it is their right to do so.

Re:Consistent?

[mark-t]

Pfah!

Anyone can set up a hotmail account easily.

Re:Consistent?

[Sage Gaspar]

They only accept e-mail addys from schools, and only schools that they've pre-approved at that. So unless your hotmail account comes with an @accepted_university.edu, you're SoL :P

Re:Consistent?

[fermion]

Which of course means that the school can no longer protect the students. Anyone with an axe to grind can prosecute the kids for underage drinking, and force the school to crack down on the student body.

In the end, this just ruins it for everyone that is not abusing the alcohol, all so that some guy can say to his friends 'look at me, I'm a badass, I breakin' the law, and no one can do anything to me!"

I am not saying that 18-20 year olds drinking and carousing is a good thing. But when these pictures are so in the public, and the half of public that never graduated college feel like the kids are just playing around, often at taxpayer expense, that just leads to letters to congress urging for the crackdown of underage drinking. Perhaps it will even lead to the wide perception that college is just party time, and grants might be cut and interest rates for student loans might be raised, because why should some hard working person subsidize drunk kids, especailly when the average person was never able to have that subsidized experience.

There was a time when kids were more free, but it only takes one greedy/lazy/whiny/selffish kid to ruin it for everyone. For the most part, this is what I see some of the posters at facebook doing. Taking a creative outlet,, which should be avaiable to everyone, and can provide a same place for expression, and ruining it. The sad thing is instead of blaming th students whose behavior has forfieted the privilege, they blame the school. This might have flown in high school, but, as so many people have pointed out, adults can be held responsible for thier actions. Perhpas this is a an argument against the commoditization of th college education.

Re:Consistent?

[Half-pint HAL]

The bruhaha over this is a tad unwarranted.

Schools, Colleges and Universities the world over have always had guidelines on social conduct.

For example, a university may ban its students from going to a particular pub (bar) as a result of violent incidents. For a year or two, this is rigourously enforced, then the rule gets ignored when it isn't really a problem any more. If the problems kick off again, the rule gets hauled out and enforced.

The same thing goes with internal computing policies. At my uni, access was for "educational use" and instant messaging was not allowed, except where requested for students by course administrators. However, the staff were perfectly happy to let us MSN and surf to our hearts' content -- until something went wrong, at which point warnings would come out and scare us back onto the straight-and-narrow.

The same thing will happen here -- a harsh, strict rule required to put a quick stop to unacceptable behaviour that will be forgotten in a year or two.

You can redefine anything you want to be a fundamental human right, but I wouldn't want society to get to the stage where speed limits are removed as a restriction on personal freedom....

Re:Consistent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps nothing is so complicated as first amendment rights, etc.

Perhaps the university is soon to use pictures of illegal activity as
prima facie evidence of such activity... and act upon them.

The athletic department probably would have quite an interest in not
losing their athletes due to such a crackdown.

Re:Consistent?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's no longer true - they have recently added Work networks, so you can use your work e-mail (ie, @microsoft.com or whatever) to join.

Re:Consistent?

[mypalmike]

Yeah, it's almost as if the ones making the decision have no understanding of the internet at all.

Hey, you misspelled the empty string.

Re:Consistent?

[JimBobJoe]

Facebook is the only social networking site where your profile = your e-mail address

It's Facebook's main advantage (sorting people into nifty hierarchies) but I suspect it'll bring Facebook down (this KSU situation is just a beginning.)

Facebook made sense as a little website for Harvard, but aggregating this much information on people all sorted by college email address I just can't see working out in the long run (privacy issues, school identity issues, etc.)

Facebook will likely have to adopt Myspace's openness/non-hierarchy to survive.

On that note, I've been wondering why anyone hasn't designed a Facebook "proxy." To use, you give Facebook your facebook username/password, and the proxy accumulates usernames and passwords of people from other colleges, so that you could see anybody's full profile using the proxy (assuming that someone gave up their username and password, which I think is a pretty good assumption, given that by giving up your own you get the rest of the network available.) As long as there are enough usernames/passwords in the proxy kitty, the traffic on any one username won't seem excessive.

Re:Consistent?

[Sage Gaspar]

Man, that sounds like an awesome way to get fired, hehe. I half-wonder if they're getting encouraged to do it as honeypots for idiot workers.

Either way, the point still stands that it's 100% traceable back to you or your company/school.

Brilliant

[geddes]

Great write up. Yes, we already have a moderation system, but even moderating at +5 you often have to wade through repeats, jokes, etc. Thank you Timothy.

Re:Brilliant

[neonprimetime]

Great write up

?? This was more like an AP article ... copy & paste.

Re:Brilliant

[Bogtha]

Yes, we already have a moderation system, but even moderating at +5 you often have to wade through repeats, jokes, etc.

So let moderation go up to +10 instead of paying somebody to copy & paste comments from one article to another.

I've noticed Slashdot trying out some new ideas for their articles lately - original gaming content, linking to random weblogs, and now this inane copy & pasting. They all pretty much suck. Slashdot has never been good with original content, even back when JonKatz was doing it. The thing Slashdot does best is put a mechanism in place for discussion and then get the hell out of the way. I think if Slashdot is going to improve anywhere, it should be in the mechanisms rather than trying to be some kind of magazine.

Re:Brilliant

[utopianfiat]

you often have to wade through repeats, jokes, etc.

The jokes are the best part, though!
I don't know about you, but I'd find it awfully hard to live with myself if I didn't get my daily dose of netcraft and overlord welcomings.

Re:Brilliant

[theStorminMormon]

Yeah, the talent is in what you choose to copy and paste. And that's why timothy did a good job on.

-stormin

Re:Brilliant

[theStorminMormon]

The thing Slashdot does best is put a mechanism in place for discussion and then get the hell out of the way

If what we do best is have good discussion, doesn't it make sense to treat the good discussion as resource?

I, for one, almost never go past the first page of comments because you just get lost in the maze. So even with the mod system, I retrospective on the discussion itself - as long as it's not over done and the comments are chosen with some talent - makes a lot of sense to me.

Besides, I'd definitely rather have Slashdot try out new ideas from time to time and have them fail rather than just never try new ideas at all. As long as they don't detract seriously from what they're doing right, I hope they continue to try new stuff out.

-stormin

Re:Brilliant

[Bogtha]

I, for one, almost never go past the first page of comments because you just get lost in the maze. So even with the mod system, I retrospective on the discussion itself - as long as it's not over done and the comments are chosen with some talent - makes a lot of sense to me.

What do you mean, "past the first page of comments"? Do you realise that you can change the threshold to +5 and read only the most highly moderated comments? There's hardly ever more than one page when you do that.

Besides, I'd definitely rather have Slashdot try out new ideas from time to time and have them fail rather than just never try new ideas at all.

But I wasn't suggesting that they don't try out new ideas. I was saying that the ideas they have about generating original content aren't what Slashdot does best and always turn out like crap. That's not a criticism of new ideas, that's a criticism of bad ideas.

Re:Brilliant

[theStorminMormon]

What do you mean, "past the first page of comments"? Do you realise that you can change the threshold to +5 and read only the most highly moderated comments? There's hardly ever more than one page when you do that.

No, I realize that. But A - I prefer to read at -1 for the most part and it's a pain to change back and forth and B - I definitely wouldn't want to ready at just +5 because in general I'm more interested in seeing a developing discussion rather than discrete, disjoint points.

The difference is that timothy picked a sprinkling of points that were not only insightful, but diverse. I'd have to read through a ton of +5 points to see the diversity he got there. I don't think it's a replacement for seeing the argument unfold myself, but if I'm too busy (and I often am) than I'd rather have a good editor assemble the best points then sift through dozens of +5 points myself.

But I wasn't suggesting that they don't try out new ideas. I was saying that the ideas they have about generating original content aren't what Slashdot does best and always turn out like crap. That's not a criticism of new ideas, that's a criticism of bad ideas

If you're really not suggesting they refrain from trying out new ideas, than we have no disgreement. But despite your protests to the contrary if you say "this has never worked in the past, therefore it will never work in the future" you are discouraging new ideas. As long as they think they have a way of making "original content" (as you put it) then I say they should go for it. It costs me nothing to have one "BackSlash" post up there experimentally. If it succeeds, fine. If not; try again in a few days or weeks or months with something else.

-stormin

Re:Brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

So let moderation go up to +10 instead of paying somebody to copy & paste comments from one article to another.

These mods go to 11.

Re:Brilliant

[Dan D.]

There's a short-hand for this "copy and paste" based approach to writing... I believe some people call it "editing" :) ... /. whiners are funny.

Re:Brilliant

[Dan D.]

I think it would even be a value-add for the subscription to get this kind of rehash of any article with > 300 or so comments. Its not like I couldn't go back and read the original, but if I didn't want to... I'd pay.

Re:Brilliant

[theStorminMormon]

Good thought.

Speaking of which... I really need to get around to subscribing, but I'm too poor to even renew my subcriptions to Analog or Asimov's. That's a sad thought... I think I've already received my last issue until I can scrape funds together to feed my addiction again!

-stormin

Re:Brilliant

[Chris Burke]

Heh, you're right, but after years of reading /. do you really expect any of us to recognize what editing looks like? :)

I'll say it again..

[gasmonso]

If you don't like their policy, just leave the school. Eventually they will see the error in their ways. This is just a growing trend and is going to get worse. Social networking sites are a rather new addition and once the hype dies down, so will stupid stories like this.

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Re:I'll say it again..

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how quickly the policy will change once they have to revoke their star quarterback's scholarship and he heads to a different school.

Re:I'll say it again..

[Mr. Underbridge]

Yeah, and I'm sure he'll transfer over a facebook ban.

Re:I'll say it again..

[bunions]

So I guess it's not really that important then. Enjoy collecting fat athletic scholarships and getting an easy ride through college? Don't post on Facebook, porblem sloved. This is not a freedom of speech issue. No one is denying them the right to post pix of themselves drunk and shirtless on facebook, they're denying them the 'right' to a free ride through school, which - last time I checked - wasn't actually a right at all.

Re:I'll say it again..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Kent State.
They were 1-10 last season. (0-8 in a bad conference)
Their star QB isn't really all that big of a concern to them.

Re:I'll say it again..

[SydShamino]

That's insane. No one is going to leave college over this. Like many (commercial) markets where "if you don't like it, leave" is brought up as the free-market response to a problem, there are barriers to any service provider transfer that can make it more trouble that its worth. (Yes, this leads into the debate over service providers whose service just good enough to keep customers from switching, but no better, and whether this is good for society.)

The greater effect could be felt when prospective students weigh this school versus other alternatives, at a time where the barrier of choice is low. However, I would expect high school students without a facebook account to be more accepting of a policy like this, in effect before they started school, versus those who already have facebook accounts.

new feature...

[revery]

So what is this, some kind of new meta-discussion feature where Slashdot editors dig through some story and haul out lame comments that they think highlight the story. Whatever. Sounds stupid to me...

[Reads through some of the comments...]

A touch more cynically...revery...
Wait a second... I got featured?!?! On Slashdot!?! Hey that is so cool! Hi mom! Hi Cornelia! Check out my cynical self... I'm on Slashdot's new BackSlash feature.... Did I say it was stupid? I meant stupendous!!! and uh... lamerrific... or soemthing like that.
And Timothy, what an editor. Such insight, such wisdom. You're not gonna regret this... no sir. I'm gonna come up with some great comments for your next backslash. Something understated, but profound. Email me and let me know what the topic will be so I can do some research, ok? We'll do lunch.

--
This is a joke. I am joking. You have been joked with.

Re:new feature...

[Nerftoe]

So what is this, some kind of new meta-discussion feature where Slashdot editors dig through some story and haul out lame comments that they think highlight the story. Whatever. Sounds stupid to me...

I know your joking a bit.. but if you hadn't noticed, there's an unofficial digg vs. slashdot thing that has been going on for some time now. This is /.'s response to digg. /. says "we have intelligent conversation here.. look at these great comments that make your /. visit worhtwhile".

Isn't competition grand? If it weren't for digg, we'd still be looking at a nearly 10 year old /. design.

Re:new feature...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's another site which highlights Slashdot comments. Looks like you've been featured there, too. Congrats!

Re:new feature...

[idonthack]

If it weren't for digg, we'd still be looking at a nearly 10 year old /. design.

I miss it too :'(

Re:new feature...

[Drey]

/. doesn't have to worry, the intelligent conversation at digg won't last forever -- we used to have it here at /. also before it became 'popular'.

Re:new feature...

[finkployd]

I remember it well, right around user 12903 is really started going downhill.

Finkployd

Re:new feature...

[siriuskase]

What is the point of that seenonslash site? I just went there and it looked like a weak echo of /.

Infuriated

[DeanFox]

My first reaction was anger when I read TFA. Then I considered what it meant in a way I could relate to my life.

What if my bank agreed to waive my mortgage in exchange for me keeping the grounds? Their motivation was to make money off my work in exchange. Perhaps to showcase the house to prospective clients.

After accepting their offer, what if I decided I'd work in the garden nude. Or, post signs in the yard complaining about the bank. If they came back and said that this was not part of the deal and either to stop or I'd have to start paying my mortgage again I think they'd have a point.

If this were to extend to the general population of the student body not receiving a free education in exchange then that's when I will think they've gone too far.

MHO -[d]-

Re:Infuriated

[mrchaotica]

After accepting their offer, what if I decided I'd work in the garden nude. Or, post signs in the yard complaining about the bank. If they came back and said that this was not part of the deal and either to stop or I'd have to start paying my mortgage again I think they'd have a point.

1. We're talking about a public university, which is a government institution. It doesn't follow the same rules as a private organization.
2. They can't add terms to the contract retroactively. If the original text didn't prohibit you from gardening nude, no subsequent text can do so either.
3. Whether the bank can void the contract or not depends on whether you're in a "right to work" state. If you're not, then it's entirely possible the bank wouldn't be allowed to fire you since you're not breaking your end of the contract.
4. IANAL, so the above may or may not be valid.

Re:Infuriated

[nullset]

> If this were to extend to the general population of the student body not receiving a free education in exchange then that's when I will think
> they've gone too far.

But that implies that athletes get an education.....

Re:Infuriated

[Anonymous Coward]

If the university wants to protect its image, it should make sure that athletes don't post objectionable material on their facebook. However, it is completely inappropriate to ban facebook. It's a very important method of communication in college.

Re:Infuriated

[GigsVT]

Right to work has nothing to do with contracts between two entities that aren't in an employer/employee relationship, unless you are talking about unions.

Right to work protects you from being forced to join a terrorist orginzation like the teamsters just to be able to work somewhere.

Re:Infuriated

[mrchaotica]

Right to work has nothing to do with contracts between two entities that aren't in an employer/employee relationship

Re-read my post, and the post before it, and you'll see that I was talking about an employer/employee relationship. Besides, if you think about it these sports scholarships could be considered a form of employment too (a point people elsewhere in the thread made).

Re:Infuriated

[LnxAddct]

But in this generation, facebook, myspace, etc... are the new methods teens use to "hang out". Not everyone can see everyone everyday, so instead they write on eachother's walls and share pictures, etc... over the internet. This is akin to the school telling the athletes that they aren't aloud to hang out with friends because they might do something stupid that will embarass the school. It is complete and utter nonsense, and it simply shows how the administration doesn't understand what matters today.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Infuriated

[ggKimmieGal]

It isn't a way for people to hang out. I have never used facebook to spend time with my friends. If people want to hang out online, use a chat room or instant messanger service. Personally, I use facebook to look at the profile of anyone I am going to tutor so that I know a little about them. I use facebook to look up the screen name of a classmate. I use facebook to look up the mailbox numbers of my friends on Valentines day. On someone's birthday, I leave them birthday wishes on their wall. Facebook is not used to "hang out". It is a powerful resource that people are incorrectly using. It is called common sense. Would your boss tolerate you posting terrible things on your personal website? No. He or she would probably fire you. Here is a website where that did happen to the owner. If students of a college are posting information about criminal activity, the school has every right to crack down on it.

Re:Infuriated

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you could think of a scholarship as a form of employment, but that doesn't make it so. I don't understand what this has to do with "right to work".

Re:Infuriated

[operagost]

Seems like these students should have another look at their scholarship paperwork and see if it mentions anything about being void in the event they participate in any "unacceptable behavior, including but not limited to ...". That would be the only instance in which they could legally institute an ex post facto addendum.

Re:Infuriated

[Gkeeper80]

That's not an apt analogy. The school hasn't forbidden the athletes to defame the school or to refrain from making asses of themselves. The athletes were banned from creating an account on a particular website.

What if your bank made the same offer, but told you not to post on /. even if you never mention your house or anything about your business arrangment?

Skidmore's hook-up server

[Douglas Simmons]

When I was attending Skidmore College up in Saratoga Springs, and I shit you not, they had a "hook-up" server where students could log in with their regular college ID and type in the IDs of everyone they'd be willing to get freaky with. Whenever two people entered each other, the server would match them up and nature would take its course. It would tell you how many girls were willing to hook up with you (I had a few...), but it wouldn't tell you who. Very frustrating. Now normally in that case I would enter every girl in the whole college, but the catch was you could only enter 20 names. Anyway, it was eventually shut down by The Man.

Re:Skidmore's hook-up server

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the software for that server open-source? Er... not that I'd want it or anything. I'm just, ahem, curious.

Re:Skidmore's hook-up server

[finkployd]

That is freaking GENIUS!

So it is basically like Myspace, but without pretending to be about music, friendship, clubs, etc.

There used to be general public websites like that, but I suspected they were used solely to get lists of valid email addresses for spamming purposes.

Finkployd

Can you blame them?

[MikeRT]

Combine the fact that many student athletes are notorious for bad behavior like their pro-counterparts (where do you think it starts?) with the fact that many students are unabashed about posting about their bad behavior and the fact that they are affiliated with the university and you have an informal expose' on the team. Schools really do have a reason to be concerned. It's hard enough as it is to police their behavior offline to keep them out of trouble. The last thing they need is to have it all recorded for posterity online.

I'm a militant libertarian as a general rule. Much more so than your average slashdotter. Yet even I can sympathize with the school here. Until they take this over into punishing regular students, it's fine by me. If you wear the school uniform, your behavior reflects on the school the way that wearing a police uniform reflects on your department. Don't like it? Don't wear the uniform. It's not like there are a dearth of ways to pay for your way through college or jobs out there that lack these restrictions.

If it's really so important to them, they should be beyond reproach. No underage or heavy drinking. No womanizing, nothing. Be model students and athletes.

Re:Can you blame them?

[kebes]

Combine the fact that many student athletes are notorious for bad behavior ... Schools really do have a reason to be concerned.

Wouldn't it be more direct (and ethical) to deal with the problem behavior, rather than coming up with ways of hiding it, and thereby protect the university image?

I think your comment really picks up on what I don't like about this whole thing. It's not illegal, but it seems somehow dishonest for a school to try to 'hide' the behavior of their "star students." If the students are engaged in unsavoury activity, this should be dealt with directly. Yes, I know all the players sign these "I will be a good person" contracts, but evidently that's not enough. Somehow I don't think hiding their actions will make them *more* likely to follow those strange contracts. Quite the contrary: by taking extensive measures to hide bad activities, the university is in effect indirectly condoning those actions. They are saying "you can keep being bad as long as you help us cover it up."

Frankly I think the universities should just "deal with it" by which I mean they should either:
1. Find a way to make the players "act better," possibly by having entrance requirements more closely related to "ethics" and "behavior."
2. Accept that the university image will be tied to the actions of these people, for better or worse.

Re:Can you blame them?

[Red Flayer]

I'm a militant libertarian as a general rule. Much more so than your average slashdotter. Yet even I can sympathize with the school here. Until they take this over into punishing regular students, it's fine by me.

A militant libertarian shouldn't have a problem with any rules the school establishes, or any actions students choose to take (whether against the rules or not). Students are free to transfer out if they don't like the rules, and the school should be free to offer scholarships to whomever it pleases, to grant admission to whomever it pleases, and to expel whoever it pleases.

The market will sort it out, right? Schools that are too restrictive of students' behavior will see the quality of their students decline, as the good applicants will no longer wish to go there, right?

Re:Can you blame them?

[ScentCone]

Wouldn't it be more direct (and ethical) to deal with the problem behavior, rather than coming up with ways of hiding it, and thereby protect the university image?

Lack of discretion is the problem behavior. Web content that celebrates the exhibition of underage drinking suggests that the author considers that display to be symbolic of their world view. Having a beer next to a topless woman and telling the world that you think doing so is a idealization of the school's ethos are very different things.

Find a way to make the players "act better"

Perhaps one way would be to discourage the public celebration of not acting better, and thus reducing the peer pressure to behave that way and record it as a triumph of some sort? You know, like telling them that using a profile system that ties them to the school and makes their real identities as scholarship recipients to showcase actual law breaking might be bad?

Accept that the university image will be tied to the actions of these people, for better or worse

So... if they win on the field and get good grades, these students' records will shine. Even if they get blindingly drunk with Marxist transvestite strippers in pirate costumes. But making their primary online presence all about the blindingly drunk part... that skews the image. Never mind, of course, that these idiots aren't thinking about what this will do to a potential professional athletic career or even just a good office job.

Re:Can you blame them?

[kebes]

Lack of discretion is the problem behavior.

That's a good point, although I would say "Lack of discretion is part of the problem behavior."

Web content that celebrates the exhibition of underage drinking...

In a case like that (if the drinking is truly "underage" in the illegal sense) then I think the problem is not just the exhibition, but the illegal/bad action iteself.

Perhaps one way would be to discourage the public celebration of not acting better, and thus reducing the peer pressure to behave that way and record it as a triumph of some sort?

That's a good point, and I do agree. Certainly it sends an important message to say "it's not good to celebrate bad things" (or whatever). However there is a difference between suggestions/educating and mandating (in this case, the school has decided to do the latter). I certainly understand what you're saying about using such a rule to reduce peer pressure. That's an important point.

However the flip side is (as I mentioned before) that the university is sending the message "it's okay to do bad things as long as you hide it." If there is undesirable behavior going on that the university is embarrassed about, they should either stop it or deal with reality. This is just my opinion, of course (and obviously it is not shared by most universities).

Re:Can you blame them?

[Moofie]

It's unfortunate how many professed libertarians fall into the "I should get to do whatever I want! You should do it my way!" trap.

Re:Can you blame them?

[Red Flayer]

The funny thing is that I am definitely NOT a libertarian - yet I feel I have a better understanding of what libertarianism is than many who profess to be one.

Re:Can you blame them?

[Moofie]

I, on the other hand, am a lowercase-l libertarian. I just apply my principles symmetrically.

Re:Can you blame them?

[ezzewezza]

I fixed your first sentence for you:

Combine the fact that many students are notorious for bad behavior with the fact that many students are unabashed about posting about their bad behavior and the fact that they are affiliated with the university and the fact that student athletes are students and you have an informal expose' on the team.

It's rather naive to single out the student athletes from the rest of the students when discussing bad behavior. It's also statistically unsound to indict the collective whole of professional players for the bad behavior of a select few.

Re:Can you blame them?

[shimage]

It's also statistically unsound to indict the collective whole of professional players for the bad behavior of a select few.

But you know that that's what people do, and that's precisely why image matters. It doesn't matter what fraction of pro athletes are drunken bastards: that's the stereotype; what gets on the news is what people see and remember. It'd be nice if everyone was perfect, but failing that you either play the system or you don't; either way, you live with the consequences.

Re:Can you blame them?

[johnny cashed]

Up next on ESPN:

Private U's "Fighting Ethicists" vs. State U's "Bad Behaviorists" Hmmm, who do I bet on?

Re:Can you blame them?

[Red Flayer]

I would say simply that you have principles. Those who profess one thing, but then don't apply it equally, have principles that don't include what they are professing. The whole point of a principle is that it is applied to everything, no matter what.

Anyway, I'm glad there ARE libertarian voices-of-reason on Slashdot, sometimes I get very sick of seeing highly-modded pseudo-libertarian claptrap...

Re:Can you blame them?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest with you, I do somewhat think it is perfectly acceptable to do bad things up to the point that you get caught doing them.

The reason is this: there is only so much you can hide. If you're involved in something so heavy as to attract the attention from the authorities, you're probably hurting someone by doing it. By keeping illegal actions on a low profile, you're minimizing the damage and harm done by them. It's out of self-preservation one does this, but the end result is the same: Joe Addict who smokes marijuana in his bedroom by himself or with a pair of close friends is unlikely to attract attention, whereas Shawn Dealer is much more likely to -- because the first's actions don't endanger anyone, whereas the second's do.

Bigger crimes -- robbery, murder, hell anything of a felony-caliber, are a lot harder to hide. Someone is going to know about it, and the police are notoriously good about finding out who and how. I've watched more than enough Law and Order coupled with Cops that even if I was the law-breaking type, which I'm not, I'd keep it to misdameanors. The worst thing I've done is speed on my way to work, I think I've jaywalked a few times.

Slashdot clip-show! Neat.

[Rob T Firefly]

...and then we all had ice cream! Now that's what I call a sticky situation.

Re:Slashdot clip-show! Neat.

[spyinnzus]

Come on, feel the noise... girls, rock your boys!

sports as entertainment

[coyote-san]

Something that's overlooked is that the major collegiate sports are entertainment, not sports-for-the-sake-of-athletics. Harsh, but true. Viewed in that context, the athletes with scholarships are entertainers, and like all entertainers ALL of their actions reflect back on their employer/university.

Think I'm exaggerating? Ask the University of Colorado. How many scandals has it been involved with recently? How many were related to things that happened on the football field, and how many were related to things that happened off-campus? Guess which ones made the local, even national, news. Guess which ones resulted in ominous warnings that they would affect fundraising activities. (Which is somewhat circular since the money raised for sports rarely covers the actual costs of those sports -- the difference is treated as an advertising cost to promote the school to potential students.)

Actually the recent years have been unique since there was a legitimate athletics-related controversy -- the NCAA's ridiculous refusal to let Jeremy Bloom play football since he got compensation for his activities as a skier. The latter didn't bother the USOC, but it did bother the NCAA. Meanwhile there continue to be serious, but ignored, abuses by "boosters" nationwide....

So while I am worried that this case will set a bad precedence, much like the way "drug test HS athletes" (who do run the risk of injuring themselves on the field) got morphed into the "drug test for any extracurricular activity", I'm also aware of the unusual nature of the big sports programs. I don't know whether it's a good policy, but I think it's a defensible one.

False representation of person

[Rinisari]

For those curious, it is against Facebook's Terms of Use (Member Conduct section, last bullet) to allow anyone to use your account but yourself. On top of that, employees of an institution who pose as students on Facebook violate it, as well (same section, second bullet).

How well would an argument of "You accessed my profile illegally to bring charges against me!" work?

Re:False representation of person

[porkchop_d_clown]

It wouldn't because violating the terms of use isn't illegal, it's merely grounds for having your account cancelled.

Re:False representation of person

[Rinisari]

I put this in my profile a couple of days ago:

-=[ README ]=-
If you're reading this profile while considering me for a job, internship, or other opportunity-to-succeed, please note that you are, or the person whose account you are using is, probably in violation of Facebook's terms of use and my personal privacy. This is a private profile and you have been granted permission to view it only if you are following Facebook's terms of use and thus respecting my privacy. Thank you. Please read the terms of use at http://www.facebook.com/terms.php if you haven't already, and read the Member Conduct section closely.

Re:False representation of person

[NDPTAL85]

There's this thing called hacking you know.....

Re:False representation of person

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but if I'm an employer and I'm checking up on you that isn't going to stop me from not hiring you. Thats about as effective as the "If you are 21 or older click here" that they put on porn sites to keep underage kinds out.

Re:False representation of person

[pintpusher]

Can you argue that you weren't hired because of your private profile that was obtained through violation of the terms and through an invasion of privacy? In other words, in our overly litigious society, you could pursue the person who allowed access to your profile in violation of those terms. Not saying its right, but I can see it.

^x^s^x^c

Re:False representation of person

[tomknight]

That's really going to impress a potential employer. Sorry, but if a person's behaviour were any of my business (as a potential employer) I would consider using Facebook etc to check you out. If you really don't want people to see what you post on the web - well, don't post it there!

Re:False representation of person

[Animaether]

I would have to say... no. But they'd be welcome to try it in court. Think of it this way... a person gets murdered, the police has suspects, do their usual checks, come across a Facebook entry from one of them detailing things about the crime that only the perp would know as the information wasn't made public. Would that person get to claim "Oi! The police weren't acting in accordange with the terms of service of Facebook - and as such, the evidence collected was done by (the analogy of) an illegal search!"? I would like to think not.

Now maybe if the information wasn't public on Facebook, and instead stored privately on the server with access only to the author (and some other people - why else place it on there at all), and the police raided the ISP without a court oder and took the data... aye. Otherwise.. nay.

Re:False representation of person

[Anonymous Coward]

I recommend adding a "if you read this post you owe me one gzillion dollarssss!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Re:False representation of person

[Anonymous Coward]

You are forgetting that alumni from your school can view your profile. And those recruiters/HRs/Managers went to school somewhere. Possibly your school. I just recently graduated from a large university and atleast half of the people I spoke with at career fairs went to my school. No violation of the Terms of Service there. Your better off just changing your privacy settings.

Re:False representation of person

[ggKimmieGal]

You have to have a college email address to sign up for an account. If you do not, you cannot sign up for one.

Re:False representation of person

[finkployd]

My understanding is that many employees just hire someone (student, whatever) at said university to log on and print out the profile in question.

I personally would never do that but what starving undergrad is going to turn down free money for 10 seconds of work?

Finkployd

Re:False representation of person

[pintpusher]

Yeah, definitely not in a crime sort of situation. some *-parent was referring to the privacy clauses of the not-read-by-me terms of service for facebook. My point was that if your prospective employer asked one of their employees to use their facebook account to get information about you and then subsequently didn't hire you, that might be grounds for a civil suit. I'm sure some ambulance chaser in the US would love to try it for $300/hour...

Re:False representation of person

[Miseph]

That said, Facebook profiles are not just available to students, they are also available to alumni (I think faculty might be able to get them too, it's been a while since I made my Facebook account... which I did a year after leaving the college I got it through for another, I might add). Further, if somebody goes to your college, you don't need to be on their friends list to view their profile, photos, or other information; presumably this works for alumni as well.

All you need, even if there is not a way for general faculty to get an acount at the school, is an alumni faculty staffmember who is willing to troll around Facebook, and they have a dossier on virtually everyone that has an account, and they've done so without violating any contracts, TOS, or what have you. Heck, even a student who wants to play stool pigeon can do this.

Bottom line, if you don't want to get caught drinking, doing drugs, and being a slut, THEN DON'T POST THAT YOU DO THESE THINGS ON FACEBOOK. Seriously, that's just stupid. If you want to write about things you've done without anyone being able to read them, then keep a diary... don't just put it on the internet and make the completely asinine assumption that the only people who might see it are your close friends. Or have we all forgotten that the whole point of the internet is to make information available to everyone?

Re:False representation of person

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're reading this profile while considering me for a job, internship, or other opportunity-to-succeed, please note that you are, or the person whose account you are using is, probably in violation of Facebook's terms of use and my personal privacy.

Wouldn't it be easier to say: "If you're reading this profile while considering me for a job, don't bother - because I'm not only an abrasive, socially-inept geek, but I also think like a lawyer."

Yeah, that's going to get you hired.

Re:False representation of person

[AaronPSU777]

This sounds all well and good on paper but in practice it probably won't do much. If a potential employer uses Facebook to check you out and decides not to hire you based on what they find they probably arent going to tell you they used Facebook. They will just not hire you and that's the end of it. And I don't see how you could possibly prove that they checked you out on Facebook.

Re:False representation of person

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming that nobody at the hypothetical potential employer is taking classes at a university while working (and therefore _is_ a student) and thus has a legit login to view your profile with.

Employers aren't "hacking" or cheating their way into Facebook to see profiles. It's easy enough to do it within the terms of use.

Re:False representation of person

[linuxrocks123]

If you're that concerned, you should just restrict it to friends only while they're considering you, then change it back once they hire you (or not).

Re:False representation of person

[Rinisari]

Ooh, I hadn't thought about that. Hmm. Perhaps once I start looking for jobs, I will restrict views a lot more than now.

Re:It's broken.

[mnemonic_]

>> a -1 to +5 range just establishes a taller bureaucracy of opinions that every user attempts to climb

And let me emphasize this; the only way to climb it is to game the system, which the current moderation system just asks for. It's like Congress.

This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[plasmacutter]

I'm sorry but am I the only one who sees a lot of conservative bias in this piece?

There were plenty of good points made that this violated people's rights.. and yet this writeup seems to focus very strongly on the straw man that private activites can be curtailed on the idea that the students are being graciously allowed athletic scholarships.

The state also gives out medicare and a number of other social benefits to people.. maybe washington should be allowed to selectively deny us those benefits in the same way?

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you allow a college to selectively ban the use of this site you're opening the door for further abuse. What's next? We don't want our athletes to be associated with political groups, so you're not allowed to use this site that protests the war. Or we don't want you to use this particular external email. So we're banning our athletes from using gmail. How about if they ban the ability of their athletes to write blogs because someone was reporting about the abuses team members face at the hands of the coach? If you allow just a small part of your rights to be trampled on ... it's much easier to come back and trample a larger piece in the future.

I see this as the start of yet another disturbing trend. There are a lot of these trends out there that try to limit what it is you can and cannot say. It starts small with the socially unacceptable or questionable and then moves into other areas because after you've been allowed to censor free speach a little bit, a little bit more isn't very big news.

When a group seeks to undermine your rights, it's not a big push all at once. They chip away at the edges that no one cares about, that way by the time you take notice something's wrong they've chipped their way deep into the foundation of the rights you had.

It's a dangerous thing to say 'well this violation of rights is okay because I don't like how this group was using their rights'.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[Cyphertube]

But you're assuming that higher education is an entitlement, which it is not.

The reality is that in signing a contract, the government can restrict your freedoms in exchange for a number of things. This does not mean that you can't have those rights, but you will lose the benefits. Members of the military are constantly restricted in what they can and cannot do (hence when the media report that no one in the military is objecting to the President's actions, it's a worthless argument, because to do so publicly is a chargeable offense under the UCMJ).

It would potentially be arguable that these things are wrong for those under 18, because you can't hold a minor to a contract, but that's another issue entirely.

A simple way to look at this is that effectively these athletes become paid representatives of the university and if the university does not wish for them to associate with a particular location and makes it a condition of the contract, the athletes have a choice of whether or not they wish to continue.

I agree that Backslash is conservative on this, but I would argue that a sense of entitlement is one of the great problems facing this country. Because so many people believe they are entitled to thing, we have incurred massive debt as a nation in the last 25 years. Not only have Federal deficits run up, but personal debt has skyrocketed. People run up charges for things they really don't need.

I believe education is a wonderful thing and enables people to tackle many aspects of life. However, our idiot move to a 'knowledge-based' economy has created an environment where we constantly encourage people to be mediocre managers rather than top-rate plumbers. We stopped manufacturing a lot of things in an environment of artificially low oil and exported it. We then exported a lot of services, too, to save money. Now oil has corrected, and we still ship cotton to China to make clothes and then ship it back. We keep trying to use just-in-time manufacturing, when shipping smaller loads is more expensive than warehousing. The dollar is down, which is good for exports, except we don't export anymore. Trade balance is important for many reasons, most because when currencies devalue, the import-export balance allows other sectors to compensate. Instead, we threaten to topple the global economy as a whole.

So, when people feel entitled to those scholarships and not having any strings attached that might have to do with behaviour other than playing on the field and their academics, well, I have little sympathy. If you don't like it, don't whine. Either ask the court to decide, or vote for different policies.

(Yeah, I'm conservative, but I think public universities should be free and fiercely competitive instead.)

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[plasmacutter]

but I would argue that a sense of entitlement is one of the great problems facing this country.

yes.. that nasty sense of entitlement to say what we want when we want where we want in a free country without unreasonable reprocussions..

This contract law thing is getting really old really fast. There need to be more regulations governing contracts than there are now because like it or not many private institutions have as similar power and control over us the government does, and they need to be held responsible.. otherwise "contract" may as well be replaced with "constitutional loophole".

many slashdotters recognize this, yet this slashback story gives them no voice... claiming its "the bigger picture".. much like the riaa claims there's a "bigger picture" to DRM protection laws and the telcos say there's a "bigger picture" to net neutrality.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[bunions]

When a group seeks to undermine your rights, it's not a big push all at once.

I don't see any rights being undermined here at all. I don't believe playing college football is a right, nor do I remember being able to collect scholarships being a right.

When someone starts actually infringing on non-imaginary rights, please call back and we can talk.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[plasmacutter]

and how about I contact someone to take your house right now because of your slashdot posts?

you don't have a "right" to a house either, but you do have a right to free speech without unreasonable reprocussions.

when you start actually believing in the bill of rights, plesae call back and we can talk.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[bunions]

I believe property ownership is a right. Indeed, given the amount of libertarians around these parts, you'll get some spirited argument that property rights are the fundamental rights that all others come from.

No one is abridging their freedom of speech. They are free to post on facebook all they want. Freedom of speech never implied freedom from the consequences of that speech. Although you're free to call me a shitbag waste of human skin all you want, I don't have to continue to pay you while you do it.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[Jerf]

and yet this writeup seems to focus very strongly on the straw man that private activites can be curtailed on the idea that the students are being graciously allowed athletic scholarships.

Expanding on ScentCone's point, a strawman argument is an argument imputed to the opposition, which is then the focus of the rebuttal.

If people are actually arguming that "private activites can be curtailed on the idea that the students are being graciously allowed athletic scholarships" then by definition it can't be a straw man.

Straw man isn't a label you can just apply willy-nilly to this argument and then use it to discard the argument; that's weak thinking.

But I find the true irony of your post is this:

The state also gives out medicare and a number of other social benefits to people.. maybe washington should be allowed to selectively deny us those benefits in the same way?

This actually is a strawman. The point of the athletic argument is the right of the athletes to voluntarily enter in to some sort of contract that has real effects. Medicare and other social benefits are not contracts, and are thus not comparable.

(And anybody in a rush to smack on the reply button and "correct" that statement had better be able to describe the difference between "a law granting benefits" and a "contract". There may be similarities, but there are significant differences which would need to be carefully addressed too.)

Of course, like most straw men, I believe you aren't actually trying to be disingenuous; I think you actually don't fully understand the argument in question or you'd realize your strawman point doesn't apply to the given arguments. So, is it any wonder that you are mystified at how anybody could argue for what you think they are arguing for?

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[plasmacutter]

Freedom of speech never implied freedom from the consequences of that speech

what a mccarthyist viewpoint..

"oh you can be critical of the neocons, but youll be blacklisted everywhere you go"

how about the government being allowed to shoot you for saying things they disagree with.. after all you're not free from the consequences of your speech right?
oh and don't argue its a private institution blah blah free markets.. thats BS.. the markets are not properly free.. they are differentiated and monopolistically competitive.. tacit collusion resulting in unduely high market power is very prevelant, and most firms have localized power which rivals that of government institutions. they should not be allowed to use contract law as a loophole in the bil of rights.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[Anonymous Coward]

> The state also gives out medicare and a number of other social benefits to people.. maybe washington should be allowed to selectively deny us those benefits in the same way?

They already do this. Males receiving any kind of federal job or training assistance must prove they registered with selective service. It may be the same for education loans and grants.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[plasmacutter]

Expanding on ScentCone's point, a strawman argument is an argument imputed to the opposition, which is then the focus of the rebuttal....This actually is a strawman.

imputed implies unjust application.. I do not impute that argument on them.. they state it themselves.. it is not a strawman.. you simply declare it so.

The point of the athletic argument is the right of the athletes to voluntarily enter in to some sort of contract that has real effects.

i'm sorry but giving people the choice between massive debt and the right to speak is no choice at all.

from roosevelt:
"True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made."

Medicare and other social benefits are not contracts, and are thus not comparable.
they are contracts, you meet certain conditions and the government provides a service.. it was negotiated between the government and the people when the law was written. social benefit and contract are not mutually exclusive.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[bunions]

Get off your high horse, there's other people that want to ride too, you know.

No one is looking for a loophole in the bill of rights. Those kids are perfectly free to say and do whatever they like at any time. They just don't have the right to have other people pay them to do it.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[khallow]

There were plenty of good points made that this violated people's rights.. and yet this writeup seems to focus very strongly on the straw man that private activites can be curtailed on the idea that the students are being graciously allowed athletic scholarships.

No there weren't "good points". These students could say whatever they wanted (subject to some pretty minor legal requirements: no slander or libel, endangering the public, etc) on whatever forum they wanted to. That right hasn't been taken away. They wouldn't necessarily keep their scholarship or remain a student at KSU, but that's not a right.

Second, private activities can be curtailed as a condition of an athletic scholarship. It's reality not a "straw man". Besides one doesn't have a right to private activities, at least in the US. Probably should, but they don't. An example is the variety of sodomy and drug laws over the years.

I think the university's position was strikingly naive and misguided, but to claim that they can't do it on the basis of free speech rights simply means that you don't understand who or what has an obligation to observe those rights. An employer, even the Federal government can fire someone for their speech, if that speech violates the terms of employment. A university, even a public university can withhold a scholarship based on speech, if that speech violates the terms of the respective contract. The thing to remember is that a person's right to speak has not been impaired. The speaker is free to speak, but they bear the consequences when that speech breaks contracts they have agreed to.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[plasmacutter]

Besides one doesn't have a right to private activities, at least in the US. Probably should, but they don't.

the fifth amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[plasmacutter]

that statement opens the door to the majority excercising the "right to not pay them to do it" in order to discriminate.

for example.. gay people.. majority of employers would fire them.. is that their right in your book.. fire them just because theyre gay?

ok.. now bring it back.. deny them a scholarship just because of the websites they use?

same thing.. how about party affiliation? skin color? gender? the color or size of their house?

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[bunions]

Individuals are free to discriminate in whatever stupid way makes them happy.

And there's a fundamental difference between "gay" and "posts on facebook" which I see you're all too happy to ignore.

And yes, people are denied scholarships based on all kinds of crazy shit. Not a caddie? Then you can't get the Francis Ouimet Caddie Scholarship. Over six feet tall? Hey, looks like you can count yourself out of the running for The Billy Barty Foundation scholarships. Can't fucking stop posting shirtless pictures of yourself drunk on facebook? Guess you can't have a football scholarship at Kent State.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[plasmacutter]

Can't fucking stop posting shirtless pictures of yourself drunk on facebook?

that's not the point.. theyre not allowed to use it at all .And there's a fundamental difference between "gay" and "posts on facebook" which I see you're all too happy to ignore.

I'm sorry i don't see the difference.. do you care to enlighten me on exactly what you are trying to imply about gay people?

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[bunions]

Oh no! They can't use it -at all-?? What a goddamn tragedy. Say, wait - I'm not allowed to use porn sites from work -at all-! Oh when will someone stand up for my constituitional rights that are being so grievously violated?!?

And 'gay' is what they are - it is something they can't change. 'Posts on facebook' is a simple choice they make. It's the same difference between "is tall" and "watches Everybody Loves Raymond."

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[plasmacutter]

Say, wait - I'm not allowed to use porn sites from work -at all-! Oh when will someone stand up for my constituitional rights that are being so grievously violated?!?

flawed analogy. you are allowed to have accounts with porn sites and keep your job, and any move to fire you based on that would result in a completely justified wrongful termination suit.

It's the same difference between "is tall" and "watches Everybody Loves Raymond."

so it's perfectly ok to punish people for thinking bad thoughts? is that it? what a steaming load.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[bunions]

I don't have any similar constraints on me because I'm not in the public eye, like actors or athletes. Plenty of them have provisions that prevent them from doing things anyone else could. Pee Wee Herman losing his job at Disney after being found wanking in a theater springs readily to mind.

It's perfectly ok to punish people for taking actions you find objectionable. Say, for instance, you are the owner of the restaurant at which I work. Say further that I won't stop running around town telling people how awful the food is and how they should never eat there. In fact, on my time off, I wear a T-Shirt that says "Plasmacutter Pizza is Made of Ass and Poo." Are you telling me that you should be legally prohibited from firing my sorry ass?

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[booch]

if the university does not wish for them to associate with a particular location and makes it a condition of the contract, the athletes have a choice of whether or not they wish to continue.

Um. I'm pretty sure that staying off MySpace was not a part of the contract that they signed a year or so ago when they became student athletes. Plus, a lot of athletes are not receiving any athletic scholarships. Why do they have to abide by the "contract"?

It's one thing to require a code of conduct. It's another to tell people where they can and cannot go.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[plasmacutter]

Objectionable is one thing.. "potentially objectionable" is another.

using myspace is only "potentially objetionable".. it can only potentially be used to post drunken pictures of yourself.. it could also be used potentially for posting erudite essays on the merits of education..

it is not their place to blanket ban it under threat.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[bunions]

as the provider of the scholarship, it's their place to do whatever they damn well please with it, include making the students hop on one foot on alternate teusdays if they want to keep it.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[plasmacutter]

as the provider of the scholarship, it's their place to do whatever they damn well please with it, include making the students hop on one foot on alternate teusdays if they want to keep it.

and I say if you assert that than the bill of rights may as well be thrown in an incinerator because it's worthless!

I say damn that.. they don't have that right because the constitution is explicitly above any law, including contract.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[bunions]

well, then you better start reaching into the fireplace, because this sort of thing has been going on for decades.

Re:This Editor Piece introduces bias.

[khallow]

Ok, I've looked at it. I gave two examples of private activities (sodomy and drug possession) that aren't considered protected by the Fifth amendment. The Fifth Amendment doesn't say that any given private activity is a constitutional right, but merely that if you get caught performing it and there happens to be a law proscribing it, then the authorities must perform a certain set of procedures, "due process" before they can impose the penalty detailed by that law.

I'm a Kent State Student and I was surprised...

[jrister]

I'm a student at Kent State in (obviously) the Technology Division. While I've not been prohibited from using social networking sites, we (students) have received multiple warnings about the dangers of using such sites from the college security and network admin folks. Far as I know, (dont quote me on this) they have totally banned access to it from the campus networks (so we cant get on there from the lab, etc), and I thought the reasoning was bandwidth issues. Once again, I'd have to check on this to be absolutely certain. In any case, I'm fairly disturbed regarding this issue, as I am strongly against things that can violate or dampen the rights of US Citizens. If you all are interested, I might be able to try and get some more info about whats going on.

Re:I'm a Kent State Student and I was surprised...

[plasmacutter]

Far as I know, (dont quote me on this) they have totally banned access to it from the campus networks (so we cant get on there from the lab, etc), and I thought the reasoning was bandwidth issues

Campus officials are known for forcing partisan issues regarding the internet by blanket banning things like p2p, gaming servers, specific web sites, etc just like china's great firewall.

Knowing damn well there would be student and community revolt if they knew the real reasons.. they make up blatant lies like "security concerns" or "bandwidth issues".

it's all a smoke screen, theyre trying to force their point of views on you the student body and are taking advantage of most people's lack of knowledge regarding computers and networking to lie to them.

Re:I'm a Kent State Student and I was surprised...

[rob1980]

Yeah, I'm sure students are going to riot over not being able to use Facebook.

Re:I'm a Kent State Student and I was surprised...

[jandrese]

If they're citing "bandwidth issues" as the reason for blocking Facebook/Myspace/etc... then they're just outright lying to you. Neither of those sites are going to generate the kind of bandwidth that requires administrator intervention.

Re:I'm a Kent State Student and I was surprised...

[pintpusher]

This has gone on forever. I don't remember the reasons, but there were always protests on campus and petitions about this or that floating around. I think its sort of a dynamic stasis thing where admin continually tries to control students in a way the students dislike and the students constantly push the boundaries. In my brief college experience it resulted in not a lot happening and the status quo maintaining its... status?

You could view this as another bit of education. Putting students in an environment where they can experience some of the structure and control of real life, and some of the means of effecting change, without it really affecting anything real or important.

Re:I'm a Kent State Student and I was surprised...

[dfuhry]

Facebook is not banned from any KSU PCs that I've used.

$ telnet www.facebook.com 80
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.facebook.com

returns the expected from machines in the Kent CS and Geography departments. Granted, Network Services does bandwidth capping and QoS for at least dorm connections. I believe they severely rate-limit packets believed to be from P2P networks (so much so as to make them unusable). I've never heard of them outright blocking any web resources though.

What is the "Technology Division"? I've been in CS since 2001 and I've never heard of it.

Re:I'm a Kent State Student and I was surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Far as I know, (dont quote me on this) they have totally banned access to it [Facebook] from the campus networks (so we cant get on there from the lab, etc), and I thought the reasoning was bandwidth issues. Once again, I'd have to check on this to be absolutely certain."

I too am a Kent State student, however, I am active in the Computer Science division.
Facebook has not been banned from the campus network.
If I had a Facebook account I would "poke" you in your misinformed eye.
I actually administer several computer labs here and I'm looking at dozens of people accessing Facebook and MySpace right this minute.

You said you were not certain, and not to quote you, so why the hell are you contributing this alarmist reaction?

Re:I'm a Kent State Student and I was surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

School of Technology. It's what you do when you don't want to do CS or MIS. It's a hippy version, kind of like the Experimental School that they have. Dr. Rutan is watching you.

Re:I'm a Kent State Student and I was surprised...

[b.vixer]

Far as I know, (dont quote me on this) they have totally banned access to it from the campus networks

This is not true. I just checked Facebook from several lab computers, including the one I'm currently using.
If you don't want to be quoted, don't put it in print. Especially when misinformed.

Once again, I'd have to check on this to be absolutely certain. ... If you all are interested, I might be able to try and get some more info about whats going on.

You're not doing very well so far.

I help admin some labs here at Kent, our Network listserv debated this rather heatedly back in April.
Several Network Administrators were asked to look into blocking access to MySpace and Facebook in certain areas on campus.
Turns out they were not public labs or even open to the general student body.
They labs specifically for atheletes who are under-performing academically.
These "labs" only have only four or five computers.
The aforementioned students are required to spend study time there.
It's considered a detention by most.
Turns out, these same computers were being monopolized by Facebook/MySpace users.
Student-atheletes attempting to actually study issued some of the original complaints.
What students do in the privacy of their dorm rooms or at home is their business, but while utilizing a university resource, I think it is reasonable to expect limitations.

However, this overall ban is news to me. I actually found out about it via Slashdot, and somone just posted the link to our listserv. Should be an interesting discussion.

Last time, the Network Administrators considered this a violation of free speech, and advised another approach.
I hope this isn't it.

Re:I'm a Kent State Student and I was surprised...

[jrister]

I heard a ton of gripes from other folks at my campus towards the middle/end of spring sem about not being able to reach MySpace, Facebook, etc. Fortunately, I had better things to do with my time than waste it surfing (like write code) when I was in the lab so I was unable to verify for myself. But I had been told such by others. Forgive me.

Im out at Trumbull these days, only get to main occaisionally. I'll drop our network admin a line and see if I can verify if anything like that is/or was going on.

Re:I'm a Kent State Student and I was surprised...

[jrister]

Several Network Administrators were asked to look into blocking access to MySpace and Facebook in certain areas on campus.

Its quite possible then, that the info that I got may have been a filtered down (remember the telephone game?) version of that discussion or request, and as a result people started rumoring. It happens.

In any case, I never really cared if they did block it, because I can rationalize that as a official system, there need to be some filters in place to prevent folks from surfing garbage, just like any other corporate network. I agree with you there.

Re:I'm a Kent State Student and I was surprised...

[jrister]

Computer Technology div (COMT). The requirements didnt appear ot be that different from teh standard CS, least not to me. I was in the CS program when i first came to KSU in 2001. I had a 4 year hiatus (due to work) and when I came back last fall I switched to the COMT 2+2 (AS + BS) program since it offered the Associate Program as well as a Baccelors. I think the baccelors requirements for CS and COMT are the same though, or very similar.

Re:I'm a Kent State Student and I was surprised...

[ftaylor]

I know that it is discouraging to go into the labs and watch people play on these sites and hear them make comments to the friends they have there while you are trying to work on the comps. And to make it a fair topic, the ages groups range its not just the young people doing this either. Do I think that it should be banned, no, nor do I think that they should tell people what to do. But on one aspect I think that the students shouldn't be using the computers to go to these sites during classes and MANY do. KSU has limited a lot of the computer services since I started there so I wouldn't be surprised to see this being blocked.

No Slip-n-Slide = no slippery slope

[GapingHeadwound]

Nice recap. I like recaps. I'm slow like that. It's why I like reading the Sunday paper. Besides, I missed out on the comments the first time. I'm slow like that. Do I care? No. I'm just seeking recognition in any way possible.

Anyway... the aspect of this story that interested me most was the ACLU guy's whining about the First Amendment. The problem is that using Facebook isn't a right either in the human or the consitutional sense. Consider the lack of critical thought in designating Facebook-use as an activity protected by the First Amendment. Unfortunately, the ACLU is too quick to embrace this kind of "Slip-n-Slide logic" when their efforts could be better placed elsewhere after only the slightest bit of thought.

Could anything ever come of this?

The absolute worst that could happen is that some athlete(s) refuse(s) to stop using Facebook and get(s) cut. Some litigation over retroactive contractual changes ensues that results in a "grandfathering" permission for existing athletes to use Facebook while new contractees are forbidden. No big deal. No slippery slope.

If it's not a blatent violation of constitutional rights (or basic human rights), it really just isn't as much fun, anyway, is it?

Re:No Slip-n-Slide = no slippery slope

[plasmacutter]

I refer you to this post outlining exactly how it is a slippery slope.

By the way.. if youre so unconcerned about liberty why don't you move to a place more suited to your concerns, like china or north korea.

Re:No Slip-n-Slide = no slippery slope

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Consider the lack of critical thought in designating Facebook-use as an activity protected by the First Amendment.

I would be fascinated to know the thought process by which you determine that using Facebook is not speech, and therefore protected. Snarks like "consider the lack of critical thought" don't do much to explain this.

Re:No Slip-n-Slide = no slippery slope

[HikingStick]

Facebook itself is not protected. If I understand correctly, the argument for 1st Amendment protection is that these students have a right to free expression (as currently interepreted as an extension of freedom of the press). That right to free expression would include allowing a student to voluntarily post information to sites like facebook.

Other /.ers have hashed all the arguments for or against this action, especially the retroactive nature, so I'll not weigh in on those angles. A contract could have been written with lifestyle provisions that did not specifically reference facebook; now all the athletes need do is find some other alternate form of expression that is not otherwise prohibited.

I'm just not sure if the school was trying to modify student behavior, or simply protect its reputation from possibly being besmirched.

Kent state

[hauntingthunder]

some one commented >"Adults can also choose to enter into contracts. Since these are students receiving athletic scholarships, >my guess is that it's legal to say 'If you want this free money, you can't use facebook.' It's the same >way that NFL teams can write contracts that forbid things like skydiving or riding motorcycles."

Up to a point lord copper - you can sign any contract you like but there are overriding laws I can sign a contract that says I accept only 2 weeks holiday or sell my self into slavery. But it aint a valid contract in the UK the same principal applies in the stats.

Theres also the issue that more black kids get sports scholarships - so one could argue that its direct or indirect discriminaton.

Oh and this is from a senior HR/IR figure in a very big company that I got this info from

Re:Kent state

[HikingStick]

Overall, I wonder what will happen when this becomes commonplace in other arenas. How about an employer sending out an HR notice stating that anyone revealing illegal activity through a blog or similar site will be fired? After all, the company's reputation is on the line...

I wrestle with this one. I see a need to allow citizens to maintain their privacy, but I also see the desire for businesses to protect their reputations. Rather than barring the service altogether, including a lifestyle clause (for future groups--not retroactive) would be a better option. Services will change, but not the underlying behavior without an understanding of the consequences for making certain choices.

Re:Kent state

[Rophuine]

I'm reminded of an article which came across /. some months ago. A lawyer was fired from his firm because he sent private emails to some colleagues about his sexual exploits. Those emails were spread around, and the whole world got to hear about the sexual (and, I might point out, completely legal) exploits of a lawyer from this firm. The lawyer had no recourse against his employer.

Why? Because every employment / tuition / membership contract I've ever seen has general provisions against bringing the employer/whatever into disrepute. You will certainly see them in sporting scholarship contracts. The behaviour the school is attempting to prevent goes beyond the behaviour of the lawyer above (communicating, privately, details of legal, but potentially disreputable, behaviour). The athletes are posting details (and PHOTOS!) of disreputable behaviour to a fairly-public forum. The behaviour sometimes crosses the line from disreputable to illegal.

If the case of the lawyer above was justifiable (and you don't sack, of all things, a LAWYER if you can't justify it) then the case of the athletes is emminently more so.

Re:Kent state

[Rophuine]

Replying to myself (because I've had more relevant ideas...), thus please read the parent first.

Of course, this argument means that the university can justifiably take action against athletes posting embarrassing information to Facebook.

As for the outright banning of facebook... If they can establish a reasonable contention that, by and large, when their athletes use Facebook, it DOES result in embarrassing material being placed in a public forum, then they can (and possibly should) ban it altogether. From what I've heard about facebook (though this is based on purely second-hand, at best, information) this may be a reasonable stance to take.

On the other hand, if there are numerous athletes using Facebook without any problem, and this ban is the result of a few bad eggs (in my opinion, this is unlikely, but that may be unfair of me), then it is unjustified.

Re:It's broken.

[mnemonic_]

Oh fuck, I made a political analogy. We're all in it.

Re:It's broken.

[tomknight]

And that's exactly how I post with a karma bonus. I spent a while (a long time ago) whoring for karma and ended up with the magical 50 points. Kind of sad of me, but there you go ;-)

Should be...

[rwgeorge]

Anyone who is still taking algebra in college _should_ be drug tested ;)

Luddites

[peter303]

Often adults who dont understand a new technology seek to ban it outright rather than correct it. Guideline, moderation from both the public and facebook itself can go a long way to correcting a few flaws, yet preserve this new avenue of youthful communication and identity expression.

Drinking Age

[EnglishTim]

All of this would be so much easier if the drinking age was lowered to something a little more sensible, like 18. It seems odd to me that adults should not be allowed to drink at an age when they can drive, smoke, get married, have sex, have children, buy a gun, start a career as a porn star etc.

Re:Drinking Age

[ggKimmieGal]

This would also solve almost ALL underage drinking problems on campuses since most people in college are over 18. However, until that happens, we'll still have 18 year olds posting pictures of their first keg stand on facebook.

Re:Drinking Age

[Anonymous Coward]

No, No, No, a thousand times no!

I fully support the 21 drinking age.
By that time one has had a 3-4 years of drinking and can handle their booze in a responsible manner.

Thank you very much, I'll be here all week!

Re:Drinking Age

[Anonymous Coward]

The 21 year old drinking age -- brought to you by Reagan's Department of Transportation, spurred on by the new age prohibitionists: MADD. And by cowardly and corrupt local prosecutors.

Clearly fails the equal protection clause of the consistution.

The 21 year old drinking age ensures that no adult can legally supervise drinking by those aged 18-20. What a bad idea.

dilemma for social network users

[peter303]

You want to have a profile that makes you appear fun and interesting, yet not cross the line to appear be a total goof off or reveal too much personal detail to crooks. I believe its possible to meet both these goals, but inexperienced kids might need some coaching to find the proper boundary.

Dupe

[Doc Ruby]

Whoa, Slashdot editors can monitor the discussions? We're all busted!

Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[ScentCone]

I'm sorry but am I the only one who sees a lot of conservative bias in this piece?

First, aren't you even a little embarassed to pretend that the general editorial and commentary orientation on slashdot isn't demonstrably left-leaning on many subjects? I don't care that it is, it just is, and that's part of the atmosphere. But don't pretend that it's normally straight-down-the-middle objective or equally deferential to every point of view.

There were plenty of good points made that this violated people's rights.. and yet this writeup seems to focus very strongly on the straw man that private activites can be curtailed on the idea that the students are being graciously allowed athletic scholarships.

I don't always subscribe to Timothy-think, but he's actually providing a valuable service, here. He's pointing out that, contrary to the foregone conclusions that people like you have made, that some very thoughtful people are seeing the larger picture here, and bothering to make those thougts clear to this audience. In essence, it's worth the posting space because it's unusual for slashdot. Oh, and just because identifying "straw man" arguments is a favorite junior varsity sport here doesn't mean that simply calling something one makes that true. These students are graciously receiving scholarships, and countless court rulings have affirmed that participating in extra-curricular activities (to say nothing of being given money) can sure as hell be dependent on a code of conduct that extends outside of the classroom.

The state also gives out medicare and a number of other social benefits to people.. maybe washington should be allowed to selectively deny us those benefits in the same way?

You mean like means testing? Already done. Do you mean like, certain types of criminals and fraud artists don't get to have the benefits? Already done. Other than that, your merit as an athlete isn't what gets you government entitlements - but it is what gets you a selective, qualified, and behavior-dependent athletic scholarship. Scholarship students with bad grades lose the scholarship. Medicare patients with crappy eating habits and drinking problems still get medical care.

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[plasmacutter]

First, aren't you even a little embarassed to pretend that the general editorial and commentary orientation on slashdot isn't demonstrably left-leaning on many subjects? I don't care that it is, it just is, and that's part of the atmosphere. But don't pretend that it's normally straight-down-the-middle objective or equally deferential to every point of view.

i'm sorry but this assertion just is not true. The media is generally very right leaning and those with conservative points of view hold a greater power and voice than those with a liberal point of view.. they get more exposure. The truth is that 70% of the US and an even greater percent of the world is "left leaning".. this means that the center is further "left" than you care to admit.

He's pointing out that, contrary to the foregone conclusions that people like you have made, that some very thoughtful people are seeing the larger picture here

"larger picture" is a piece of jargon which in lobbyist speak means "my point of view rather than common sense"

You mean like means testing? Already done. Do you mean like, certain types of criminals and fraud artists don't get to have the benefits? Already done.

no.. i mean unreasonable and unrelated activities such as party affiliation, brand name preferences, controlling the forums youre allowed to browse, denying you benefits if you read slashdot for instance..

That would be a better analogy for the current situation than means testing and excluding convicted con artists.

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[ScentCone]

i'm sorry but this assertion just is not true. The media is generally very right leaning and those with conservative points of view hold a greater power and voice than those with a liberal point of view.. they get more exposure. The truth is that 70% of the US and an even greater percent of the world is "left leaning".. this means that the center is further "left" than you care to admit.

Wow, that's rich. Heh.

First, the editorial stances of almost every major newspaper, of ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN... all of those could scarecly be defined as conservative by any standard. More conservative, perhaps, than way-way-out crazy left, but being more conservative than, say, George Soros or Barbara Streisand doesn't mean you're some hard-core right winger. But never mind my take on it or yours: just read a little bit of actual academic research.

"larger picture" is a piece of jargon which in lobbyist speak means "my point of view rather than common sense"

Ok, so you think that's how lobbyists use that phrase. So what? That doesn't change the fact that most of the discussions surrounding this issue have tunnel vision that only sees "person trying to say something, evil institution preventing them," when there are actually many more factors in play (thus, a larger picture).

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[plasmacutter]

here are actually many more factors in play (thus, a larger picture).

factors? HAH!

we're talking about free speech here. if an academic institution is allowed to control where you speak then you no longer have it. it's a fundamental right.. I don't care how "big" the picture goes.. you don't mess with that right.

that's like saying.. "so hesbollah killed people.. you don't see the bigger picture!"

First, the editorial stances of almost every major newspaper, of ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN... all of those could scarecly be defined as conservative by any standard

They used to be "objective".. not liberal. now they are "conservative" because fox news has yanked all others to a rightward kant... anyone who hasn't noticed this is either blind, illiterate, or so far to the right they believe that the objective story is "left".

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[ScentCone]

if an academic institution is allowed to control where you speak then you no longer have it. it's a fundamental right

How are they controlling it? Putting conditions on getting tens of thousands of dollars of services for free as long as you participate in representing the school's sports program in a particular way is not controlling expression. It's stating the terms under which a very select bunch of students gets something the rest of the students don't get, and which they (the rest of the students) in fact subsidize. If you bothered reading the article you'd see that the school has no stance one way or the other on what the average student puts up, and further doesn't seem to care about things like MySpace. It's the tying of the school's established teams and the students who are being paid by the school to play for them to certain types of online coverage that's being discussed. I know you're trying to ignore that because it allows you to rant better, but you're ignoring reality.

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[plasmacutter]

I'm ignoring nothing, I'm asserting that it doesn't matter

the school previously had a code of conduct which prohibited the activities that the irresponsible put on myspace (underage drinking,etc..)

They should penalize people when they break that code of conduct.. instead they are stifling all uses of myspace rather than those which violate the code of conduct. That crosses the line.

Why not dictate the stores theyre allowed to shop in as well? how about forcing them to buy a specific make and model car? how about rejecting republicans? muslims? athiests? where exactly does this end sir?!

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[ScentCone]

Why not dictate the stores theyre allowed to shop in as well?

Because it's pretty hard to come up with a way in which choosing a store would reflect badly on the school's standards and reputation, or showcase the students acting illegally. Of course, many schools have dont things like refuse to do business with certain stores because of student-body or faculty votes/policies dictating interaction with companies that, say, used to do business in South Africa, etc. Careful what you wish for.

how about forcing them to buy a specific make and model car?

See above.

how about rejecting republicans? muslims? athiests?

See above.

where exactly does this end sir?!

It ends where each institution's rational policies say it ends. There are more schools to choose from than there are decent students to fill them. If you want a school that says "we're fine if you break the law and put coverage of that up on a web site that explicity ties that behavior to the school," then choose one that does. If you'd rather go into the world with a resume that cites your training and education at a school that doesn't seem like a giant, drunk joke after spending one minute on Google, then support such a school with the thousands you'll spend on buying their services. Higher education is, and should be, a marketplace. That's why there are schools that range in local culture from Berkeley to Catholic University - something for everyone. And somewhere in most of the middle are schools that actually act as if an education, rather than advertised binge drinking by underage scholarship atheletes, is their primary goal and the source of their professional reputation. If such objectives don't matter to you, spend your dollars somewhere else.

If you're right, and there is a huge, pent-up demand for college diplomas from schools that don't have any code of conduct or expectation of standards, then all sorts of schools will rise (or sink) to the demand you've identified. Just like they did years ago with co-ed dorms, or any number of other shifts in cultural mode. I'm betting, though, that your average journalism student, or physics student, would like it if the school they're betting their tuition on isn't a laughing stock. But it they don't care, they've got other choices.

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[plasmacutter]

Because it's pretty hard to come up with a way in which choosing a store would reflect badly on the school's standards and reputation, or showcase the students acting illegally

and myspace is not a "showcase for the students acting illegally".. it is a social networking site and has no bearing on weather or not students break codes of conduct.

They have no rationale for blanket banning myspace, as the illegal activity in question is already a violation of the code of conduct.

Don't give me that free market babble about supply and demand .. for one this is a state run institution, for another private entities of this sort have power rivaling that of government and should be held to constitutional standards, otherwise term "contract" may as well be replaced with "constitutional loophole".

So once again where does it end?

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[ScentCone]

They're not banning the use of MySpace by their students. They're deciding not to put the campus bandwidth to use in that way. That's a policy decision that in no way infringes on anyone's free speech since those students can still make use of that non-school service over their own non-school (or free, elsewhere) bandwidth all they want - and also deal with the consequences if in doing so that happens to break their agreed-to code of conduct, which most probably do not.

Just like the students can't simply decide how to use other campus infrastructure in whatever manner they see fit, a particular heavy drain on the IT infrastructure (or the prospect of one) is no different than having policies in place to prevent a certain type of march down the campus parking lots while they're busy trying to use it as a school.

this is a state run institution

Yup! And the people of Ohio, who chartered and operate that school, and whose kids make up most of its student population (and tuition revenue) have a fantasticly simple way to set or change such policies: voting. The school's administration works for people who are voted into office by Ohio residents. And they have regular opportunities to throw out or keep people who make decisions about how state funds (and infrastructure, such as college campuses, equipment, networks, etc) can be used. Kent State isn't "free" for every Ohio resident, and does indeed put boundaries around what they expect students to do (and not) while receiving the services that school provides. Just like state law governs what you can do, or what kinds of signs you can display, while using a state road - even the ones in Ohio that charge those steep tolls.

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[plasmacutter]

everything youve put in this statement is a fallacy..

the bandwidth argument put forth is a pitiful veil to put over what is "blanket banning" for partisan purposes. The idea that loading myspace would constitute a bandwidth drain is like the notion that only ford taurus drivers are the cause of rushour.

Just like the students can't simply decide how to use other campus infrastructure in whatever manner they see fit

it's not "any manner they see fit".. it's the bloody internet.. the proper way to put it would be "in the manner in which it was designed and intended to be used"

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[Shimmer]

I read the "actual academic research" you pointed to. It's hard to tell from the article, but it appears that this study assigned bias merely by counting "the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation".

This hardly seems like an accurate measure of bias. For example, any criticism of the Heritage Foundation would nonetheless be counted as a "right-leaning" reference. Am I missing something?

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[ScentCone]

it's not "any manner they see fit".. it's the bloody internet.. the proper way to put it would be "in the manner in which it was designed and intended to be used"

You mean, as a tool funded by the Defense Department, developed by and for academics doing defense-related sciences during the Cold War? As a network designed to be decentralized and still allow critical government institutions to communicate even after a large-scale nuclear attack? It was designed to facilitate research and allow schools and government scientists to expose their research data and facilities to others working on the same projects. That's how it was "intended to be used."

That other network providers and commercial entities have hooked their own networks up to that other network of networks may have completely altered the practical landscape for your average private citizen, but it doesn't change a thing about how a given campus has to allow students to use that campus' network infrastructure whether or not that network has a gateway to other networks. It's no different than the campus water system, roads, cafeterias, or phone systems. You may have the expectation that you can park, in a campus dorm parking lot, a giant billboard showing pictures of you drunk and naked at a party, but that doesn't mean the school has to let their facilities be used in that way. It's not about whether they have the bandwidth (or the parking lot space), it's about whether the terms of your use of their facilities and of being either student or faculty at that school are, or are not defined. Which, of course, they are.

is like the notion that only ford taurus drivers are the cause of rushour

Remember when Napster was just a quaint little curiosity? Back when it was consuming well over half of the bandwidth of many college networks? No? That's OK, just Google a bit and you'll see endless articles about how that particular form of traffic completely choked many networks - to the point of rendering many of them academically useless. Now that's been replaced with other multi-media files being passed around via e-mail (including through things like GMail accounts, not the campus e-mail systems, necessarily) and of course, the ubiquitous embedded movie-type nonsense on so many social networking pages. But your point, that certain types of traffic aren't any worse than others, is just simply wrong on the face of it, historically, currently, and conceptually. If campuses don't shape bandwidth, they end up drowning in P2P traffic. But we're not talking about capacity, here - we're talking about the school's obligation to see its infrastucture used in a way that's consisten with why the school exists at all.

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[man_ls]

I thank its creator every day that I browse Myspace, for my Flashblock, Adblock, and Filterset.G extensions.

It manages to block most of that crap at the perimiter, and let me easily block all the other sites that provide such crap.

Whoever thought calling the EMBED commands to display remote video "videocodez" is a moron and I hate them, also.

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[AK Marc]

First, the editorial stances of almost every major newspaper, of ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN... all of those could scarecly be defined as conservative by any standard.

I'm from Texas. Every major paper there is conservative. The Belo Corp (owns the Dallas Morning News) also owns Channel 8. That was one of the stations that wouldn't show NYPD Blue because it offended the delicate sensibilities of their viewership. Of course, once the series was popular, they quickly caved for $$$. But they are what I grew up with. The paper here has half the editorial space dedicated to the conservative paper that failed. Those editorials make Rush look like a raving hippy liberal. You know the kind, the ones that go out of their way to explain why Pat Robertson should be threatening the life of foreign leaders he doesn't like, or why Hillary should have been impeached when she was President, and not Bill. And all sorts of stuff that sounds more like a drug-induced hysteria, rather than what an organized editorial page should put out. They even whine one week that there aren't enough police to enforce the law, then the next week complain that the police are not enforcing inconsequential tickets. Then they'll complain that the governemnt spending is too high, and police could be cut back, at the same time they should get raises to fill the open positions. They complain that the police aren't investigating gang crimes. They complain that the police are spending too much time investigating organized crime (same thing as a gang, right?). The only consistency I see from the conservative papers (and most I have seen are conservative) is that they like to complain.

That's what Conservativism means to me these days. A bunch of old white men that are fighting change every step of the way, yet complaining endlessly about how things are. If it's so bad, why do you fight so hard to prevent others from trying to make it better?

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[ScentCone]

Every major paper there is conservative.

I'm certainly not referring to local pockets of culture that have local papers tilted one way or another - that's like talking about global weather by citing the temperatures in four zipcodes around a certain town. No doubt there are some locals with rabid-crazy righties, just like there are with rabid-crazy lefties. I was referring to the more big-ticket, mass-media outfits with the sophistication to make their spin (bias) a trifle more subtle, and thus far more insidious.

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[AK Marc]

I was referring to the more big-ticket, mass-media outfits with the sophistication to make their spin (bias) a trifle more subtle, and thus far more insidious.

Those would be the billion dollar empires owned by rich white conservative men. There may be some number of liberal journalists working for them, but the owners (and thus the actual mass-media outfits themselves) are very conservative.

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[ScentCone]

Those would be the billion dollar empires owned by rich white conservative men. There may be some number of liberal journalists working for them, but the owners (and thus the actual mass-media outfits themselves) are very conservative.

No. First, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc are not "owed by rich white conservative men," they're parts of publicly traded companies with large boards of directors. Surely you don't think NPR is as you describe it. Likewise with big outlets like the NT Times, the LA Times, and their ilk. I'm guessing that despite what you're saying, what you really mean is that Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News, and that's the one larger outlet you're complaining about. One.

Did you really find Dan Rather (and team)'s attempts at election manipulation with that forged document nonsense to be the editorial decision-making of some mythical conservative puppet-master trickling all the way down to the level of the producers and reporters that decided whether and how to present the story?

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[AK Marc]

No. First, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc are not "owed by rich white conservative men," they're parts of publicly traded companies with large boards of directors.

Well, I must admit that I didn't make it past this line. Please describe to me the makeup of the boards of directors of these companies. Specifically, what is the average net worth of the board members, what % are white, what % are men, and what % have a net worth over $1,000,000 (maybe not the high-end of "rich" but still far enough above the average to be rich), as well as are male and white.

I'll leave the "conservative" point alone, since that is something that isn't as easily available. And if you want to talk about the "owners" let's take a look at the people that vote. Most "little" people that buy, buy stock through managed funds where they do not vote their shares. So the voters will be rich white men as well. Since we couldn't come to an agreement as to who runs the companies, I didn't find it necessary to keep reading with known disagreements in the premise. Feel free to prove me wrong. Tell me which of the boards of ABC or such aren't made up of rich white men.

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[ScentCone]

Please describe to me the makeup of the boards of directors of these companies.

First, why would any large operation want unsuccessful people guiding their business? There's no nobility in running a company that employs thousands of people into the ground. But as for makeup, let's start alphabetically, shall we? ABC News is a piece of Disney. Their entire board of directors is:

• John Bryson - contributes to Dianne Fienstein's campaign
• John S. Chen - born in Hong Kong, president of Sybase. Is he "not white" enough for you?
• Judith L. Estrin - also CEO of Packet Design (network tech company she co-founded). Is she "not male" enough for you?
• Robert A. Iger - been with ABC since the early '70s
• Steve Jobs (of course, of Apple and Pixar fame) - A diehard Democrat - is he "not conservative" enough for you?
• Fred H. Langhammer - Has managed operations for Estee Lauder in Germany and Japan
• Aylwin Lewis - Part of the Sears/K-Mart universe. Google for his picture. Is he "not white" enough for you?
• Monica Lozano - CEO of La Opinion, largest Spanish-speaking newspaper in the US. Is she female and latino enough for you?
• Robert Matschullat - a private investor with Seagram, Clorox, and others
• George J. Mitchell - Chairman of the Disney Board - from Maine, previously a career politician and lifelong Democrat. Worked as a US attorney for Jimmy Carter, and while the Dems still had the senate, he was majority leader. Bill Clinton asked him if he wanted to be offered a seat on the Supreme Court. Is he "not conservative" enough for you?
• Leo J. O'Donovan - He's a priest. OK, that's probably pretty conservative - but not particularly "rich"
• John E. Pepper, Jr - currently chairman of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, and anything but white, or conservative
• Orin C. Smith - formerly CEO of Starbucks. Big on the "fair trade" coffee initiative, etc. Not quite the rich robber baron you were hoping for?
• Gary L. Wilson - previously of Northwest Airlines - also contributes to Dianne Feinstein's campaigns, but some Republicans, too
• Roy E. Disney - you going to complain that he's on the Disney B.O.D.? Really?

So, that took a minute or two on Google/Wikipedia. CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. look very much the same. Would you like to take a turn documenting them this time? You're not allowed to skip any people that show how wrong you are - I didn't skip anyone at ABC/Disney.

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[AK Marc]

From http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/board_of_ directors.html I got the following list:

John E. Bryson
white male

John S. Chen
non-white

Judith L. Estrin
non-male

Robert A. Iger
white male

Steve Jobs
White male

Fred H. Langhammer
white male

Aylwin B. Lewis
non-white

Monica C. Lozano
non-male

Robert W. Matschullat
white male

George J. Mitchell
white male

Leo J. O'Donovan, S.J.
white male

John E. Pepper, Jr.
white male

Orin C. Smith
white male

Gary L. Wilson
white male

So, that's 10 white males to 4 that are either non-white or non-male. Please tell me again how these aren't dominated by old white males? If you want, we can get into a discussion on their ages, but I think that you get my point.

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[ScentCone]

Actually, no. The only point you seem to be making is that you think "old" and "white" = "conservative," which is clearly not the balance on their board. You were harping on that subject, but have dropped that one little word (which completely deflates your point about a media company's board as it relates to the editorial positioning of its outlets being universally "conservative") because, of course, you see that it's simply not true.

Instead, you're now just falling back to classic race-bating. Which is, of course, exactly the tactics that are so abhorrent in so many media outlets - because they are intended to stoke emotions rather than cover the news objectively, especially when specializing in (and especially the creation of) stories of class envy/strife, and racial drama so that they can play the role of championing the very downtrodden people that wouldn't actually feel so downtrodden if they weren't told that some imaginary all-powerful cabal is keeping them from, say, learning a valuable skill and raising their standard of living.

You aren't identifying any mechanism by which the people successful enough to be asked to sit on a board of directors is somehow making a reporter's choice of words/pictures/footage/editing "conservative" (I notice you also deliberately slipped out of addressing things like the Dan Rather episode by pretending to be shocked - shocked! - by the one other issue in my earlier post... yeah, like you really didn't read the one other sentence that was there - heh). So, you're ignoring actual practices, behavior you can see every night on the news, and you abandon your own central point in exchange for pretending that even though guys like George Mitchell (board chair, and lifetime liberal Democrat politician) is what... somehow unable to control himself because of his age and skin color, and is suddenly directing ABC reporters to go and make Democrats look bad in the news? Except... that's not what actually happens on ABC news. So I'm still wondering what your point is, now that you've simply identified that board members tend to be older experienced people (gee! almost like experience is valuable - were you thinking that maybe they should have mostly college freshmen on the board, since experienced people aren't... what, "edgy enough?") that have been in and around related industries for many years.

So, how about you rewind and point out some examples of, say, the conservative bias that you think CBS news has been exhibiting for the last couple of decades (be sure to pay special attention to their election coverage, OK)? Or, just skip all of that and explain how you figure that Disney's board chairman is a conservative. Stick to your own conversation and recognize that you can't seem to see a person older than you and actually imagine that they're still the same Democrat they were a fews ago. If you really think a guy like Mitchell has had only that flimsy of a grip on his liberal politics, perhaps that tells me what you think about the validity of what you think is his abandoned former idealogy? Or, he hasn't abandoned it, and you're trying to make rhetorical points hoping I won't notice that you're glossing that sort of thing over as fast as you can.

Or, is all this a gag, and your real point is that when people have learned how to successfully manage a large operation's finances and not ruin a business, and have aged enough to have a longer, wiser view of things, that they tend not to be (or cease to be) mushy, irrational, emotion-driven nitwits that can't find value in any action unless they're able to assign someone to victimhood status first?

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[AK Marc]

Actually, no. The only point you seem to be making is that you think "old" and "white" = "conservative," which is clearly not the balance on their board.

Tell me how much money Disney gave to Republicans and the Republican party in the last 4 years, and I'll tell you how conservative they are.

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[ScentCone]

Tell me how much money Disney gave to Republicans and the Republican party in the last 4 years, and I'll tell you how conservative they are.

Way to keep dodging the actual claims you were making! I see that you don't want to address any actual, observable behavior, or talk about party affiliation or personal politics of the board that you said was setting the tone for ABC's news coverage, so now you're making an unsubstantiated inference that they donate more to Republicans than Democrats, and asking me to go do your homework for you. I don't feel the need to, since I've already shown you that their board's more Democrat than Republican in their personal interests, leanings, and even actual political careers. If you think, despite those obvious affiliations, that they still donate more to their political opponents than they do to their own proclaimed party, then don't you think it's on you to point that out? Or, do you know you're wrong, and you're passing the buck, hoping I won't call you on it so you can walk away hoping you've saved some face, here?

Here's the reality of it: mass media companies are, by and large, overseen and controlled by people who tend to be lefter than righter. Mass media operations, especially entertainment, but very much in the "news" area, is shown in survey after survey by both parties to be overwhelmingly more on the liberal side of the fence. That's reality, and that absolutely impacts how reporting is done, and how editorial positions are taken. It's not like it's some little secret. What many liberals just can't stand is that, after decades of that being across-the-board true, a small percentage of the outlets has drifted back the other direction in answer to a huge audience demand for less left-tilted coverage.

That minority change in the editorial stance of one cable company doesn't even come close to offsetting the long-standing biases that continue to shape most coverage. It's actually much more true in newspapers, but that's less meaningful to a younger audience. And of late, traditional "news" outlets are having less of an impact on shaping the minds of a younger audience than, say, Michael Moore movies or Al Gore movies, or unabashedly politicized material on MTV. Hollywood is so left of center that it's not really even worth debate, but since they're not part of the news universe per se, that's not part of this discussion and doesn't need to be.

The main issue is that your notion of an NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR and CNN being run be boards and staff that are all rich white conservatives in some way that tilts the overall news landscape to the right is laughable, and you're doing nothing (because nothing can be done) to actually show that to be true. You're wrong, and would get more traction attacking the one cable channel you're really mad at for existing and for not towing the Dems' party line on every issue.

Re:Bias? Balance, perhaps.

[Scudsucker]

First, aren't you even a little embarassed to pretend that the general editorial and commentary orientation on slashdot isn't demonstrably left-leaning on many subjects?

But of course this is the cornerstone of the "biased liberal media myth": if it's not super conservative, it must be liberal, which simply isn't the case. For one thing, there is a big ocean of center in the middle, and for another, this country has been steadily drifiting to the right for the last 50 years. Democrats today are more conservative than the GOP was thirty years ago. Hell, Nixon - who went to China and started the EPA - would be a flaming commie pinko in todays Republican Party. "Liberal" is not 30 yards to the left of what's "conservative" these days just because reactionaries have carried the "conservative" marker thirty yards to the right.

First, the editorial stances of almost every major newspaper, of ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN... all of those could scarecly be defined as conservative by any standard.

Of course it can be. Compare the press's obsession with Whitewater with Harken Energy, a should-have-been-scandal involving blatant insider trading by George W. Bush and given a whitewash investigation by an appointee of George H. W. Bush. Or the endless "fib factor" myths thrown at Gore during the 2000 race, while ignoring the fact that Bush took credit for legislation he vetoed as governor of Texas during one of the presidential debates. Or when absolutely no one in the press asked Bush if, as a former member of the Air Guard and posessing a former Secretary of Defense in Cheney and a two time SOD in Rummsfeild, if he might have gotten on the phone to NORAD or his SOD or his VP instead of reading "My Pet Goat" for twenty minutes when the nation was under attack.

Or when they ignored the Florida recounts that proved that Gore got more votes in that state and should won the electoral vote along with the popular vote. Or when no one in the press demanded the resignations of Rummsfield, Cheney, or even Bush himself when there turned out to be no WMD's in Iraq. Or how two peices of moderatly good news, the death of Zarqawi and no charges being brought against Rove, is trumpeted as a "surge of momentum" even as the death toll for American troops in Iraq tops 2,500. Or when the press goes Hardball on Democrats, like when Tim Russert went after Howard Dean for not knowing exactly how many troops were in military service, but go out of their way to avoid questioning Republican actions, like when Wolf Blizter started off an interview on Katrina by asking if the Clinton administration had defunded the levees. Or how GOP guests on programs consistently outnumber moderate guests, much less actually liberal ones. Or how any anger shown by Democrats is bad (see Kerry, Gore, or Dean again) but Republicans can be as angry as they want to be (Ann Coulter. Nuff said).

Speaking of Coulter, what are the chances of the mainstream media continually featuring a far left wing anarchist calling for the assisination of Republican politicians and blowing up the buildings of Fox News? Zero. Or how bout the recent tabloid style obession by the mainstream media with how much time the Clinton's spend together, and are already talking about how much impact Monica will have on a Hillary run, completely ignoring the affairs of two GOP frontrunners, Giuliani and McCain.

And so on and so on. The bias in the media for presenting conservative positions and persons is so obvious, and so blatant, that continued complaints of "liberal media bias" aren't even funny anymore.

Unfair

[Salzorin]

A news topic with pre-fed comments!? How will we get our "FIRST!" posts!?

A bias, conservatism, liberalism soliloquy.

[dino213b]

Have you honestly ever seen a piece of text that was not biased? In my opinion, Universities, Colleges, Schools, Employers and so forth should stay out of facebook and personal web pages; however, in real life that just does not happen. Employers actually spend some time researching their applicants. Two former employers of mine have actually told me they liked my personal web page. I am happy that they found my electronics projects very interesting but it does make me wonder if I have been rejected for a job because of someone not liking my hair style in 2001. Don't buy into my anectodal evidence until you experience this for yourself.

New college students are not stupid. My job allows me to witness thousands of them coping with a new environment every semester. While their culture is "radically" different from three decades ago, it is no indication of decadence. New college students are, however, detached from the hiring class. Employers have wrist watches; applicants have loud cell phones. Employers wore hip clothes back in the day; applicants showed their underwear to the world. It's true that these new whippersnappers may not survive in the wilderness, be able to construct a shelter or grow vegetables -- but they will be able to assimilate into the workforce easily as the industry branches out and expands.

So, as someone in position of administering policies I feel that it is my duty to (at the very least) inform students of dangers of putting out an informal portfolio. I feel that they aren't aware of the real dangers in life - discrimination. In theory facebook is just personal expression. In practice, it's a nice source of dirt for sinister employers and as a bonus to them, it is neatly cataloged. Does the University know what's better for their own students? I don't think so. I do think that the Universities are trying to protect their alumni from being haunted by the past - even though they are doing it the wrong way.

For example, I have seen internship applications shredded on the spot because the brilliant, colorful and well-qualified applicant put down their email address on the application as "halfpimp69@.. whatever.com". I do not know what a half pimp is, but I do know discrimination when I see it and I feel powerless to stop it. Prevention and information just might be the key.

Just my 2c.

Re:A bias, conservatism, liberalism soliloquy.

[Anonymous Coward]

People who use mail addresses containing "hot male" also can run into
the same kind of problem.

Of course you can

[phorm]

The answer is rather simple. Don't ban the blogs, networking, etc sites... do ban the activity or have expulsion rules for illegal activities. When student X is dumb enough to post pictures of him and his friends drinking underage and doing stupid shit that's enough evidence to kick 'em out... but don't ban the students who just have a normal page up without said activities.

Re:Of course you can

[finkployd]

When you have tens of thousands of students attracting warrants, c&d orders, and DMCA notices like rotting garbage attracts flies, it because really annoying to deal with. I don't agree with that Kent State is doing, but I can sympathize with where they are.

Finkployd

Re:Of course you can

[farnz]

And you've just put your finger on the conflict of interest here. Kent State does not want to lose its best athletes just because their off-pitch behaviour is bad; as a result, they don't see expulsion as an option.

Hence, instead of trying to crack down hard on athletes who break the law, they're trying to avoid the image damage those activities can cause.

OMG!

[UnknowingFool]

A story about the comments of another story. But it's not a dupe. . .

[Brain explodes]

Protecting dumbasses from themselves?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any thought that Kent State was merely doing this to protect their athletes from themselves?

My brother and a few of his friends created a phoney Facebook profile and would reach out to players on the opposing basketball teams a week or two before they came into town. Then they'd try to lure the kid to a bar or something the night before on or gameday to mess with the guy, and they'd heckle the hell out of the kid during the game. They never did anything illegal, but man, I would have loved to hear about JJ Redick getting jumped by some guys posing as a girl off Facebook while he was on the road for a game.

New Excuse for Dupes

[Nom du Keyboard]

I see Slashdot now has a new mechnism for rehashing posts in essentially dupe articles. Will there be another Backslash about these comments tomorrow?

This is blatantly biased

[donscarletti]

It is not a rehash of all the best comments, it is a rehash of all the comments supporting the Universities and just a couple of comments of the other side (which formed the bulk of the original discussion).

Now I don't care about this issue (Jocks and facebook users can burn in hell), I'm not usually the sort of guy who says "moderation is censorship" nor did I actually post on this the first time, but this is the most blatant and shameful case of bias on slashdot I have ever seen. To reiterate one side of a discussion and almost completely cut the other, then put the results onto the front page? What the hell kind of fair discussion is that?

I hope to never see anything like this on slashdot again.

Re:This is blatantly biased

[theStorminMormon]

Talk about overreaction.

We all know that the knee-jerk reaction of everyone (clearly including yourself) was to basically scream out "AHHH!!! CENSORSHIP!!! TEH INTERWEB IS UNDER ATTACK!!!" It's not as though we didn't all read the hordes of people criticizing the decision (myself among them).

What timothy did was to notice that some of the dissenters (who were mostly swept away in the tide of people who think like you do) actually made compelling points. So he drudge some of these compelling points and now instead of having 100 posts that say what we know most people think, we have a good look at the 5 posts that bring a new perspective.

How can this be a bad thing? You're already in the majority, nobody is censoring your opinion, it's just a chance to look at voices that were otherwise kind of lost in the crowd. I'm sorry if you are still suffering from some kind of post-traumatic stress from middle school (Jocks and facebook users can burn in hell) but I think this is just an example of an editor doing a very good job of editing.

-stormin

Re:This is blatantly biased

[crazybilly]

for real. preach on, brotha'

Re:This is blatantly biased

[donscarletti]

I don't have an opinion, I don't care about this issue, I have said as such.

What Timothy did is hold up certain people's viewpoints above others simply because they are more original, not because they are more correct, valid, informed or popular. The world is full of minority opinions and the majority of them are minority opinions because they don't have enough merits to be accepted by the bulk of the populace. I don't see why giving them a helping hand really benifits anyone. If universities are right to control the web habits of their scholarship recipients, then their argument can stand on its own without special treatment, if it cannot, it deserves to fall into obscurity.

And how am I in a majority in this instance? I have already implied that I favour universities over jocks and facebook users (I teach at a university for a living b.t.w.), indicating that I would probably be biased into the minority if I cared about this. I just don't like seeing an unfair advantage going in either direction.

Re:This is blatantly biased

[theStorminMormon]

First off, I'll withdraw the point about you being in the majority. I may have misread your post.

Secondly, I disagree strongly with your contention that original arguments are not worthy of special consideration. You object to Timothy's selection becaseu the posts were original, as opposed to being "more correct, valid, informed, or popular". Your first obvious error is the idea that you have passed arbitrary judgment on the correctness of the posts Timothy selected. If you are so confident in you ability to inerrently lift from the morass of a tangled argument those points of view which are unambiguously "correct" than A - it's no wonder you're a university professor, B - there's no chance that I'm going to be able to reason with you. Most people who take discussion seriously would believe that it is only through discussion and the mutual disclosure and examination of competing points of view that both parties have a shot at coming closer to what is correct. If you don't need a discussion to see what is correct, then I'm curious as to why you are involved in the discussion at all? Just slumming it with those of us who lack omnisience?

Now, returning to the original point, I'd say that originality is in fact a critically important criteria when deciding which view points to look at. And here is the reason. I concure that, as a general rule, minority opinions tend to be minority for a reason. Let's just say 99% of the time for the sake of discussion. So in a given argument it's 99% likely that the majority opinion is more valid. That's fine.

But what happens when you get to the 1% where the majority is incorrect? Where is the correct (or more correct) opinion? It is, by definition, in the minority. Thus it is a critical flaw to assume, as you seem to do, that minority opinions are less valid. In a status quo kind of way you'll be OK, but in terms of actually improving knowledge you're going to have a 100% failure rate.

Of course I realize this isn't exactly what you said. You state: their argument can stand on its own without special treatment, if it cannot, it deserves to fall into obscurity. (and I'm going to assume you mean this in general and not just this particular instance). But how, I ask, are minority opinion supposed to "stand on their own" in the face of people who believe they don't get special attention? What is this "special attention" you speak of? Surely an idea published in a book has received special attention versus an idea that someone has to spread by word of mouth, right? So we should not publish minority opinions? This is the practical side of the issue. Without special treatment how are minority opinions supposed to be effectively spread? And if not dispersed through the population, then the majority opinion remains the majority by default - and not by virtue of the argument itself. So you need to give minority opinions room to air for the sake of majority opinions as well as for the sake of minority opinions.

There's a philosophical aspect as well, however, that I believe is more fundamental. What it comes down to is this: humility. The greatest and most oft-repeated mistake of educated people, in my opinion, is the refusal to admit the infinitude of human ignorance. You can know what you know (I know my name). You can know things you don't know (I know I don't know your name). But the truly important discoveries are going to come from the things you don't even know you don't know. Obviously I can not give an example for myslef, but an example from history would be radiation. Gravity was a known phenomena (things fall) and so it was possible to ask questions about it (as the earliest philosopher-naturalists did). But no one even know that radiation existed, and so no one knew to go looking for it. Imagine what other natural phenomena might exist right now that we don't even know to ask about or look for.

Those things that you don't know you are ignorant of are boundless, and it is precisely those types of ideas th

This story sucks

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Ok so you were bored and wanted to rehash a DEAD HORSE! PLEASE don't do this crap! If I wanted to see this on the damn frontpage again I would have just searched for it. Other then the comments is there anything new with this story? NO! At LEAST you could have looked at the frickin title....and made the title different some how....

It's bad enough when dupes are posted (by a sight that has fulltime editors no less!) but now you have to manufacture stories that look like dupes but really are not??

Oh Wonderful

[finkployd]

Finkployd supplies the rhetorical question raised in the original story with a possibly unpopular answer

So here I am, typical /. demographic (white, male, geek) posting to a site where I can finally belong. A place to meet and interact with other white male geeks who don't necessarily fit in.

And now I'm being set up to be picked on and bullied by YOU GUYS TOO!!?? WTF? I can't get a break anywhere.

I kid, I kid.

I actually have some pretty mixed feelings about all of this. On one hand there is the crowd that seems to shout "give me my internet connection and then go away. I will do whatever I want with it including share movies, music, disparage my employer who provides the connection, my school who provides the connection, and there is nothing you can ever do about it". I don't agree with these people, that is just stupid. I can understand the desire for the school to limit the occurrence of people the give scholarships to who represent them at major sporting events that a lot of people place importance on advertising how much of a drunken idiot they are to the world. That probably is not good for recruitment and I would want to stop giving that person money too.

Then there is the other side that shouts "It is the school/company's connection, they can enforce any rule they want. No more political activism, no mentioning competitors/other schools in emails, websites, or IM. Any asinine rule the school or company thinks up should be valid, you have no free speech over someone else's medium". I don't agree with that either, that is just scary. There is no point in having a first amendment if the most popular communication mediums are exempt from it. We ARE talking about a state school, although maybe not a state funded scholarship.

So what is a self respecting geek to think? Does a net connection from someone else come with an entitlement to do whatever you want with it? I don't think so. It does not seem unreasonable that an ISP like a school would want to curtail certain activities which would damage its reputation, or put it at legal risk. Otherwise you have every machine turning into a spam gateway, porn server, and limewire client pumping out crappy music and movies all day.

The problem from the school's perspective is that while p2p, facebook, open email relays, etc. can all be used for legal things, they often are not. And while yes the student ultimately bears the responsibility in the eyes of the law, the school still have to devote resources to complying with DMCA takedown notices, cease and desist letters, and that sort of thing. Combine that with the drain on bandwidth these activities often cause (granted not facebook but I have long since gone off topic) and I can see their desire to just cut out these annoying and troublesome activities (from a PR point of view). They built this infrastructure for research remember, and never said they would be happy dealing with constant illegal and/or problematic (from a technical standpoint) use.

Two things bother me a lot about this:

(1) the fact that it was tacked on as a condition of the scholarship after the fact. Yes I know there is probably a "this agreement may be changed at any time" clause but it still sucks. Why not just make this a new clause on new scholarships and roll it in that way? Retroactively changing agreements, legal or not is still a bad way to do business.

(2) The slippery slope. Some wise ass is going to chime in with how the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, and they are right. However it keeps happening and claiming "logical fallacy" is a bad excuse for poor pattern recognition. Like just about everything designed to limit some kind of use, more will pop up after this. Now that the school knows that anytime a troublesome service appears on the internet, regardless of legality or even liability (has a school even been sued over something that happened on facebook?), they will. Government starts demanding information on people who post on DailyKos (or

Re:Oh Wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

scholarships are renewed every year. besides, to get an athletic scholarship is dependant on being part of the team. break a team rule, such as no facebook, and you lose out on the scholarship the next semester. you dont follow the rule, you will no longer be on the team. problem solved.

The Web, Photos, Blogs, and the Truth

[SlashdotUserEpinions]

I think this phenomenon of Facebook, Flickr, MySpace, and other so-called Web 2.0 sites, as well as blogs, is quite amazing.

Unfortunately, it reveals the truth. Or is it fortunate that the truth is revealed?

I've read here before of a comment "wait until the next generation of politicians," in the context of what these websites and blogs and simple email will do for skeletons in the closet.

I guess the safe thing in life would be to walk around and say "all the right things," right? I mean, why ever be honest? Can anyone be trusted?

There are plenty of proverbs about this stuff. This is hardly a proverb - "never write anything down."

Well, I would like to think that in the future, there will be dirt on everyone. There will be long forgotten emails written, under the influence, under stress/duress, during trying circumstances. Email is so common now, compared to loose talking before there was email.

Heck, how about archived chats? That is even looser talk (er, text).

I don't think it is worth going through life walking on egg shells. If somebody gets drunk and wants to post a photo of himself, and it is in fun, then what is the harm? He won't get elected to the City Council in 2032? That's crazy.

Most people drink. Most people have gotten drunk. A lot of people have taken drugs. Everybody makes a fool out of himself from time to time. The fact that some people choose to make images of these incidents public doesn't change the truth.

So if there are consequences in the future, I don't see them. Because if employers want to avoid people who drink, smoke, do drugs, or make fools out of themselves at one time or another during their lives, then they won't find anybody to hire.

I think this stuff is getting overblown and I think the more stuff that is posted about what is truth - real life experiences - the better. If the school wants to send the photos to local cops and have people arrested for minor consumption, that's one thing. But banning photos and blogs and stuff like that simply because it could be embarrassing, I think that's to the point of ridiculous.

Be more specific...

[Doches]

So, Linear algebra, Algebraic structures, and Sigma algebra aren't legitimate classes? Hmm. I'm all for drug testing everyone who's not a math major; anyone taking college algebra doesn't have enough free time to drink...

Re:Be more specific...

[rwgeorge]

Ha...surely not enough time to get drunk...I was referring to the article which said something like "...the reason you can't get drug tested for Algebra 2, but you can for playing basketball..." The algebras you have mentioned are definitely no cause for drug testing :)

Re:Be more specific...

[Doches]

Yea, I know. Just felt this...overwhelming...urge...to be pedantic.

Re:Be more specific...

[linguae]

The original poster meant elementary algebra, not university-level algebra such as linear algebra, abstract algebra, and the like.

KSU is being an ostrich

[NevarMore]

The university is doing this so it does not have to enforce behavioral clauses in its athletic agreement. I estimate KSU would lose at least two atheletes a year from each sport if it was reported to the university that there was evidence of a breach of contract on Facebook/MySpace.

Many of these photos and entries are timestamped and certain events in Kent only happen once a year Thus it would be easy enough to demonstrate that the breach occured within the time specified in the contract.

According to university policy if a breach is reported they have to investigate it and if the reporting person is agitated enough the university then faces another legal issue. A large enough wager/bribe on an important game and a few well placed free-beers and digital cameras would make a good payday for someone.

If it matters, I'm a KSU student. Graduating (escaping) in August. I suspect this might have something to do with Kents new president, but don't give a shit so long as they give me my diploma.

Re:KSU is being an ostrich

[TubeSteak]

I suspect this might have something to do with Kents new president,

Oh.

I didn't see that mentioned in the last thread, or in TFA.

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

Formerly, Dr. [of psychology] Lefton was senior vice president and provost of Tulane University where he was responsible for overseeing [lots of people & lots of stuff]. Dr. Lefton oversaw athletic eligibility and compliance for student-athletes and was responsible for the divisions of student affairs, housing, dining and recreational facilities, enrollment management, admissions and financial aid.

So, in addition to the fixation on improving student behavior (usually through increased enforcement) that new Presidents have, one of this guy's former specialties was dealing with athletes.

This all makes a lot more sense in that context.

Don't donate to Kent State, and discourage others

[Animats]

OK. So don't donate to Kent State's athletic scholarship program. Put a note on your website and blog encouraging others not to do so. Write to Tim Hall, Associate Athletic Director for Development at Kent State and tell him what you did. Starve the beast.

If you're in Ohio, write to your state legislator and complain about the "arrogant state employees at Kent State" who think they have the right to muzzle their students.

If you're at Kent State, step one is to register to vote, and get as many other students as you can to register. You know what to do after that.

No different than a non-disclosure agreement

[spun]

The fact that you can't sell yourself into slavery through contract does not make contracts where you voluntarily limit your speech invalid. Similarly, your comment about racism has very little merit. In fact, you don't actually know that more black students get sports scholarships at Kent State, you are just guessing. But even if there were, not letting them use Facebook would be no more discrimination than giving more scholarships to minorities in the first place!

Beware the evil fingerd...

[Vorondil28]

Agreed. Remember back in the day when stalkers and the like used finger on unix systems to gather personal details including even current location (if they were logged in at the time)? Then when it was discovered that finger was being used for nefarious ends, nearly everyone stopped running fingerd on their systems. Could finger be "fixed" to prevent things like that? Sure, but it's far easier just to turn it off despite the legitimate uses of it. Oh well.

We live in a world of prudes

[hellfire]

If you really want to take the discussion a new direction, how about you lay it all out on the line. We live in a world of stupid, rude, prudish people who need to get over themselves.

It is true that the motivating factors here are for the University to basically avoid litigation, save face, and present a superficial facade to make it look better. And it's because the people in this country and many others are so overly concerned about what the next person is doing in their own personal life and what their personal values and ideas are.

The only reason the university is being prudish is because prudes come out of the woodwork if a guy posts a picture of himself holding a beer. C'mon! We all drink! Get over it! And if you didn't, what the hell is with the stick up your ass? Lots of us do things a little crazy, but that's by definition that these are the people who push at societies stupid mores and boundaries. So society reels them back in by playing the power and money card. It's utter bullshit.

You might say "well that's the way it goes" but this goes to underlying freedoms and trying to deal with people on a reasonable and logical level. This is not reasonable or logical. Society shouldn't be worried about what this does to the image of the university. And yet they pass it off as being worried about their athletes. If they were worried about their athletes, the logical way to go about this would be to what Ohio state did, and set up some committee or group to educate kids. To take it a step further, set up some department that reviews kids "public" information and offers councilling and discussion. If the kid who posts a picture of himself holding a beer says "well it was a joke because I found an empty can lying around" well what's wrong with that? If the kid turns out to be alcoholic, that's something else. You can't make that judgement from that picture, but somehow we judge that picture to be bad.

I'm really just playing devil's advocate today because I'm tired of hearing about "this is the world we live in so just deal." I just feel that excuse is old. I have my own website and I'm starting to finally get how aware I have to be about this website about removing personal information, down to my name, or people are going to find me, read my opinions, and make judgements not on the merit of my opinions, but for my potential candicacy for a job or loan or some other crap.

And just to tack on, the point about scholarships is very scary, because schools use it all the time to control students. The cost of college is skyrocketing, and so many kids get scholarships on their atheletic abilities. This is how they get into school and pay their way, and they are being judged on how they pump up the image of college, not about their ability on the field. And because they might be your average college kid who just wants to have fun, if they fail to be pristine and shiny, they could basically lose their scholarship and be forced to leave the school. That's not a student athlete doing something they like as an extra curricular activity, that's being forced to be a whore.

I stand corrected, no bans on our network...

[jrister]

Alright, I got in touch with our network admin at my campus, and he said that it is his understanding that the university is not legally allowed to prevent access to any website due to "academic freedom".

He went on to state that he believes the school is banning that only in some of the athletic depts because they dont fall under the same jurisdiction, and those machines are for use strictly by the athletic students. He said apparently there is a contract that the athletes sign that waves that freedom.

So it appears that the guy who mentioned the athletes signing contracts regarding that kind of activity is probably correct. They are signing a contract statins they will refrain from those activities.

Anyhow, I stand corrected on the issue. They are not banning social networking on the campus networks, as I had heard. Please forgive me the mistake.

inalienable rights...

[advocate_one]

I was under the distinct impression that freedom of speech is one of the "inalienable rights" and as such, cannot be taken away from you by a contract...

however, with freedom of speech comes responsibility...

so, maybe they can't ban you from posting on Facebook, but they can hold you responsible for anything you post there...

Re:I'll say it again. - yer still wrong

[DennisInDallas]

I can't imainge that this would be grounds for a release, their star QB looses a year of eligiblity to make this move... yeah I can see that happening a lot because the poor guy just won't be able to hookup at all if he doesn't post pictures on facebook. Nobody will talk about him and everybody will forget he goes to that school and he won't be able to get a date for the big dance.

I've thought about it and I have it straight

[AaronPSU777]

When I first read this story my immediate reaction was that it was a clear case of the university overstepping it's bounds. Then I thought about it for awhile and realized that it was common and accepted for clubs and organizations within a university to have their own code of conduct seperate from the university and that I may have initially overreacted.

Now I have thought about it some more and changed my opinion again. I now feel that the university is overstepping their bounds in this case. To me the key thing is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using Facebook and the students are fully responsible for their actions while using it. The problem is that some students post things that they shouldn't and that can get the students and the university in hot water.

Would you ban athletes from talking to the press entirely? No, but you may tell them that they cannot badmouth the school and other players when talking to the press. Would you ban athletes from going to social events? No, but you might tell them that they aren't allowed to get sloppy drunk or there will be serious consequences. It's the same thing with Facebook, don't ban them from using it, just tell them to exercise some common sense, for the athletes that don't there will be consequences.

Posters comparing this to sports teams banning athletes from skydiving and motorcycle riding are mistaken, it is not the same thing. They are banning athletes from participating in dangerous activities because they don't want their multi-million dollar investements to get damaged. And it doesn't matter how good of a skydiver you are, you can still die from events outside of your control, that is what they want to avoid. What they do not typically do is ban athletes from activities where the athlete, and the athlete alone, is fully responsible for their actions. Going to a party and having a few beers for example, sending and receiving emails with friends and teammates, going on a date with a woman, etc. All are activities that could potentially have severe negative consequences for the team, but the player is fully responsible for his actions and it's his butt on the line if he screws up, that's the difference.

the observer becomes the observed

[peter303]

We have the curious phenomena that the web tool becomes its own remedy.
Potential dating partners or employer and employee google each other.
The person who plagiarizes based on a google search is exposed via the professor's google search and so on.

This concept works as long as each party has equal democratic access to the same suite of web tools.

Definitions and Rights

[himurabattousai]

I hope that none of the administrators at KSU dig far enough to read this, but there is a legitimate that, as far as I have read, has not been addressed: "What kind of a site is Facebook?"

If the University considers it to be a social site, then the administration does have the right to restrict access to the site, and whether or not it should becomes a new debate. The issue in this case would be the right to peacable assembly. If the University's concerns about the activites represented on Facebook are based on facts, then considering (underage) drinking parties where god-knows-what happens would be stretching the definition of peacable assembly.

On the other hand, if one considers Facebook to be a news or information portal, then this action would be a violation of free speech rights. The key here is that, as we all know, KSU is a government-funded university, and, therefore, an extention of the government.

The legality of the decision rests on how Facebook is defined as a website, and making things worse is that social versus news is not a question of mutual exclusivity. Facebook can be, and probably is, some combination of the two. Because of this, erring on the side of caution and not making rules such as this one would be the wisest choice of action.

The alternative to stupid rules would be actually expecting that the state laws be followed and enforcing existing general codes of conduct, which, unfortunately, seems to be too much work these days. Unless KSU gets smacked down for this, look for it to spread to other universities and levels of education. In some ways, it already has. Illinois school district 128 also has a policy similar to this one, but theirs extends to the student's personal computers at home!

Re: Parent includes offtopic advertising link [OT]

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators, for the love of slashdot please put a stop to this. Hint: he's going to keep doing it as long as you keep modding him up.

Obligatory Bender quote...

[SonicSpike]

"so it's like a place about lifestyle, culture, music, art, and sex. Just without the lifestyle, culture, music, and art!"

Shit, I wish my college had something like that!

Intolerable cruelty

[Anonymous Coward]

Now how will attractive athletes get laid?