Slashdot Mirror
MIT Project "Gaydar" Shakes Privacy Assumptions
theodp writes "At MIT, an experiment that identifies which students are gay is raising new questions about online privacy. Using data from Facebook, two students in an MIT class on ethics and law on the electronic frontier made a striking discovery: just by looking at a person's online friends, they could predict whether the person was gay. The project, given the name 'Gaydar' by the students, is part of the fast-moving field of social network analysis, which examines what the connections between people can tell us, from predicting who might be a terrorist to the likelihood a person is happy, fat, liberal, or conservative." MIT professor Hal Abelson, who co-taught the course, is quoted: "That pulls the rug out from a whole policy and technology perspective that the point is to give you control over your information — because you don't have control over your information."
"That pulls the rug out from a whole policy and technology perspective that the point is to give you control over your information -- because you don't have control over your information."
I have control over my information. And that is why you wont find be on Facebook.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Friend Everyone...
You can have your god back when you are old enough to handle the responsibility.
They haven't taken control of your information. They just took your ILLUSION of your control of your information.
Sorry... I was watched "Instinct" yesterday.
I am really curious if it thinks I'm gay (does it consider bisexuality?). Also, this could be useful as a dating tool; if you don't know if the object of your affections is gay or not, run them through MIT Gaydar, and then possibly feel more secure about asking them out.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
From the article:
I once wrote a computer program that predicted coin tosses. I didn't check, but I'm pretty sure that if I had tossed a coin that the predictions would have been accurate.
Should be: MIT Project "Gaydar" Shakes Privacy Assumptions of Stupid Twats Who Still Won't Care
The obvious next step will be to start selling (as a "separate company" for profit) gaydar jammers and gaydar detectors...
You mean if people can view your social networks on facebook they can deduce some basic facts about you? Shocking! People really need to think about the compromise that they are making when they make their FB profiles and info visible to anyone but their immediate friends. It's ok if you want to do it, but just realize what you are doing.
Being on a social network site at all exposes you a lot. I decided I didn't give a crap, but I have everything set to 'friends only' and I don't use apps or quizzes. Reasonable compromise for a non-tin-foil-hatter.
I just read that you can tell with about 87% accuracy who a person is, based on their date of birth, gender, and zip code. How's this much different - it draws on public information in a meaningful way.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
So twenty-five of your thirty Facebook friends are gay and of the same gender as you. And they conclude you're probably gay! Wow!
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
I just hope they don't invent a virgin-radar.
This is what the kids of MIT are wasting there time with...
There are a couple of fields of personal data in facebook which state your marital status, and whether you are looking for a man or woman. It might just be possible from analyzing these details, which way you swing.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
A computer fed with a few hundred megabytes of personal data can now determine in minutes what most of us in the life know as soon as we see the person. I should be impressed, except I'm totally not. Don't worry about this ever becoming popular though -- sooner or later someone will feed the program a list of US senators and then magically the next day all traces of the program, its authors, and the results will be declared illegal and the arrests will begin -- effective last tuesday.
More seriously, the problem isn't that people may be able to infer a person's sexual orientation -- it's the fact that this society still refuses to label those who use this type of information to slander, attack, and in some cases kill, other people. Our transparent society has brought a lot of social issues right out in the open where everyone can see them. And we can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to the injustices perpetuated by one group onto another. This, fundamentally, is what the fight over privacy is about: It's not what we are (or are not) that matters, but rather the correlations between those facts and the social meanings and messages attached to them. The fight for privacy is really founded upon the belief that the average person is insecure, full of prejudice and bile, and is generally a manipulative bastard who'll stab you in the back given half a chance.
And I can't find any fault in that statement. Most people are, and thus... Privacy will remain an important thing to fight for so long as we have reason to fight amongst ourselves.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Unless we can see the entire study, accuracy is suspect.
More paranoid nonsense from theo "DP". Huh huh. DP.
The whole friend thing is kind of an obvious privacy hole, isn't it? I have only used Facebook a little, because I only joined at the request of my brother, and most of my "friends" on Facebook are professional and semi-professional connections. Also, because I only use it to keep up with my brother, I haven't bothered digging into its capabilities... but I certainly would have expected that there was an option to hide your friends list. Even if I was interested in using it more broadly the lack of such a feature would be a deal-killer for me.
...at Sharper Image.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
They can tell me if the person I'm talking to online is wearing pants.
Sean
When I first used FB, I kept most of the personal information blank. I only told it my age, that I was male, and that I was in a relationship and not looking for one.
FB at once started serving up gay-oriented ads. I never clicked on any of them or in any other way expressed interest, yet over time the percentage of these seemed to increase.
I finally gave up, and filled in the "interested in" section. The moment that field went from blank to "women", the gay ads vanished.
It isn't clear whether FB actually thought that I was gay, or just sought to pressure me into answering more questions about myself. If the former, its algorithms are entirely too simplistic. If the latter, it's evil.
This is old news (and really pretty obvious) and have been known in the gay community since FB started :) I have ~250 friends and being gay, quite a few of my friends are gay too. Whenever I click on some new person I can usually tell whether that person is gay (at least if it's a guy) or not, simply based on the number of gay friends we have in common (i.e. I don't even need to look at that person's friends individually to see whom of them are gay). So if we don't have any friends in common at all, it's usually a sign that the person isn't gay. Now, being from a small country (Denmark, 5.5 mio. citizens) implies a smaller gay community, but I would still think this observation would be valid in other countries at least within cities.
The reason this works is of course that within all communities there are certain people who have _a lot_ of friends on Facebook and sort of serve as "magnets", in the sense that someone in the same community is likely to sooner or later run into that person and be added as a friend on Facebook - or at least run into one out of the "magnet" persons you are friends with.
What's an Assumpiton?
The problem is when we start using these perfectly reasonable tools to begin to make real decisions. You are guilty because the runes said so. Most of us tend to believe that decisions should be made on some direct evidence, not indirect assumption. I mean it is not liek some guys think, that every girl that won't go out with them is a lesbian and every guy that hates football is gay.
There is the issue of what makes a person gay, straight, or bi. Just like sleeping with large numbers of the opposite sex does not make one straight, and may indicate a deep seated concern, there is nothing other than a self identification that can suggest a real sexual preference. I don't think a professional, or computer program, or parent can within a reasonable certainty state a sexual preference for another person. And this has nothing to do with the controversy. It has to do with weather we live by reason and evidence or by superstition and hearsay. I think the MIT people are simply too infatuated with cult of technology.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
[..] predicting who might be a terrorist to the likelihood a person is happy, fat, liberal, or conservative.
Or? And an exclusive one too! You could as well go to the cave and bang on a piece of wood, "blarg good! wuoargh baad! ughwharrk!". You wouldn't stand out a bit.
Here, in the world of 21st century Homo sapiens sapiens, we aware of simple basic playschool-level facts, like that
1. Every property is a dimension in property space.
2. Every dimension has a gradient. (Possibly quantized on the Planck level of space-time, depending on what theories you believe in.)
3. If the properties are not exactly opposite to each other (making them one dimension with negative values), they are not exactly opposite.
4. The state of every position on every dimension may or may not be relative to any of the other positions of the other dimensions in property space, depending on their orthogonality.
My god, is this that hard to understand?
— Sheldon Cooper
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
geee, I never figured that out almost a year ago... to great success I might add... I bagged one, and now were engaged... :-D
A lot of the people on Facebook the MIT students predicted were gay were likely making no attempt to hide it and would have no objection to anyone knowing. Which makes the conclusion one big "so what?" A man who lists his favorite politician as Barney Frank, his favorite actress as Judy Garland, the city he would most like to live in as San Francisco, and who has among his friends the entire board of the campus gay and lesbian association is probably gay... but probably either doesn't care who knows or actually wants people to know.
Every so often we get one of those delicious stories in the news about some right-wing christian conservative being outed by an ex-gay lover or getting arrested after trying to pick up men in a public rest room. The funny thing is these are usually the most anti-gay people imaginable and it turns out they've either been playing or been wanting to play dingle-dangle-dingle with the personal equipment of their own gender for quite a while now. Can I just point this thing at Fox News, the Radio Talk Show Tinfoil Hats or the homophobic side of Congress and get a reading on how many of them are secretly smoking pole on the side?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Lets take something old school like 'Guilty by Association' and apply it to something controversial like being gay. Now lets point out how this is something you can infer given information freely give out online. Wow look guys we can add simple things up.
This is considered a break through? Next course will be inferring information based off of mailing lists people subscribe to.
So twenty-five of your thirty Facebook friends are gay and of the same gender as you. And they conclude you're probably gay! Wow!
Twenty-five of your thirty Facebook friends who say to be gay, who are said to be gay or which the system assumes to be gay?
In the last case, we will have lots of people being indicated as homosexuals based on distant associations. It might even end up saying everyone is gay. All the system does is speculations.
The great majority of my friends drink beer often and likes soccer. I do not.
The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
It's really no big deal, their code just checks to see if you're a mets fan or not. If you are, well... hello, 'Frisco!
An assumpiton is apparently analogous to a soliton.
Where a soliton is a stable, traveling, localized-energy solution to a wave equation, the assumpiton is a stable, traveling, localized solution to the ass 'ump equation, and thus it's perfectly natural that any revolutions in gaydar should shake them.
The Facebook app for this can't be far away.
colloquialism "Birds of a feather.." confirmed empirically. stop the presses.
There's a Spanish saying, "tell me who you are with and I'll tell you who you are". I guess this is scientific proof.
I have a program that can determine if someone on facebook may be gay, liberal, conservative, plus what their top 5 movies are, their top 5 albums, if they're bored, and even sometimes what they're eating! I call it: a browser.
I guess this answers the question of whether the old saying "Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are" is true.
Apple has "Mac vs PC", Microsoft has "Laptop Hunters", Linux has recession
assumpitons?
Preferences of cheese burritos,chorizo, and zuchinni squash over hot tacos, oysters, and females.
"tend to have friends who are also ___
I don't have a clue what women find attractive in men. Thats why I ask my female friends and the women in my life what they find attractive in men.
And an attractive man wouldn't look like a man anymore, they'd look like a woman. So once again I'd never find any manly looking man attractive and would have to ask a woman.
Bisexuals always are the ones to assume everyone is like them, yes there are completely straight and completely gay people who are disgusted by the other gender.
Amy: This is Bolt Rolands. Bolt is a hyper-sled racer with ten wins on the pro circuit.
Bolt: Hello, beautiful!
Bender: (whispers) I think she means ten wins on the gay circuit.
Bolt: (chuckling) I wish! Those cats can really fly.
I think the MIT people are simply too infatuated with cult of technology.
This just in, people at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology love technology!
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Kramer: Aaaah! Enough lying! The lying is through. C'mon, Jerry, the masquerade is over. You're thin, late thirties, single...
Jerry: So are you.
Kramer: Yeah... (jumps back in fear)
Jerry/George/Kramer/Jerry's mother/George's mother: Not that there's anything wrong with that.
"Lesbian Until Graduation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_until_graduation
does it consider bisexuality?
I know this is slashdot and people don't RTFAs but the article does say bisexuals were considered. The links of "1,544 men who said they were straight, 21 who said they were bisexual, and 33 who said they were gay" were analyzed. I haven't seen anyone mention it yet but the "analysis seemed to work in identifying gay men, but the same technique was not as successful with bisexual men or women, or lesbians."
this could be useful as a dating tool; if you don't know if the object of your affections is gay or not, run them through MIT Gaydar, and then possibly feel more secure about asking them out.
Only if you're insecure, homophobic, or heterophobic. As I've told others I don't mind being asked, and I'll say I'm not gay or bisexual. I have no problem with those who are and have had a male bisexual and a female lesbian as roommates.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Don't you ask somebody out in order to get the opportunity to get to know them?
No, you can start off any of a number of ways.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Is this the same Hal Abelson of SICP fame?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Namely, the project shows that its authors consider "gayness"/homosexuality to be something that many people would like to hide, to the point that they would suffer embarrassment or worse if someone else was able to infer it from other data.
Why not make "Project White-dar"? I'll bet you could figure out if someone is white (or black, or Hispanic, or Zoroastrian) based on their Facebook friends. Most white people don't go around online pointing out loudly that they're white. You don't see too many Slashdot sigs that say, "Hey, I'm Caucasian." But I'm guessing most white people would also not really care if you figured out that they were white based on their Facebook friends, or where they live, or some other data.
I think there are lots of kinds of information that people broadcast about themselves--income, education level, relationship status, etc.--which are expressed implicitly in various forms--language usage, clothing style, social networks, etc. Nevertheless people often don't state these things openly.
Why should being gay be any different in this day and age, at least in countries that no longer have widespread institutionalized discrimination against gays?
Bottom line: All of the interest in this study seems to derive from the tacit notion that there is or should be something inherently shameful about being gay.
My bicyles
Somegreyguy has the answer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFKHaFJzUb4
some clearly self-identify as gay but don't actually have same-sex intercourse.
To muddy the waters, there aren't just 2 sexs as witnessed by the controversy over the gender or sex of that South African athlete in the news. Fact is is there are people who are neither male nor female and those who are both. As an intro "MS magazine" has the article "Making The Cut: It's a Girl! ...Or is It? When there's doubt, why are Surgeons Calling the Shots?" emedicine and WebMD have the science behind Ambiguous Genitalia and Intersexuality. I didn't find it but one athlete was barred from compeating in the 2000 Olympics because she had an X chromosome and therefore the Olympics Committee ruled she was a male, that despite the fact that she gave birth to a baby before their ruling.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The two students had no way of checking all of their predictions, but based on their own knowledge outside the Facebook world, their computer program appeared quite accurate for men, they said.
This is not newsworthy without some inkling of whether the predictions turned out to be correct or not - and if not, who cares?
I am really curious if it thinks I'm gay (does it consider bisexuality?).
I'm sorry if this seems assholish, but does it really matter if your bisexual or gay? The people who would hate you for being one would hate you for being the other.
The difference is that if you're bi not only would you have straights hating you, you'd also have some gay hating you. There are gays who believe bis are too scared to admit their gay.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
TFA says its possible to determine whether a person is gay by observing their online friends. So? Quite a few people are out about their orientation. These researchers don't say whether they can determine this status in spite of attempts to conceal it.
I mean, if someone's FB page has a bunch of pics of nothing but guys with leather vests and assless chaps, it doen't take an MIT degree to figure this out.
Have gnu, will travel.
I think there is no way to make rejection more palatable.
You included a palatable way, "no, I'm not gay" I've said "no, I'm not gay or bi" myself, and yes I was asked out for a date a few tymes by other men.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I don't want to be the target of an advertising (or worse yet hate) campaign just because I fell into some arbitrary category based on the stereotypes of self righteous fools in the ivory tower.
I already am. I bought a French movie on Amazon called Cote d'Azur and rated it highly - not any higher than say Battle Star Galactica - and ever since it has thought that I am gay... a gay nerd.
there is still privacy - if you can pay for it. a staff of security nuts, geeks, drivers, and bodyguards, will get you privacy. otherwise, a couple of detectives can break most people's security, no matter how careful they have been. yes, people break laws all the time, all over. what follows is, money and power get privacy. and secrecy, if so desired. how and where does the abuse of power take place? in secrecy, often disguised as privacy. in private firms, private meetings, private settings. so, does privacy/secrecy protect people? or protect power? what to do when claiming "right to privacy" means "power enabled by secrecy"? how do you know?
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
People tend to point out ways in which they are NOT the default for a given venue. So you can reasonably conclude that those who don't point out their differences probably don't have said differences. Rather like how here on Slashdot, we can reasonably assume posters are geeks unless they state otherwise, because that's the local default.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
For the most part it gets poor reviews. A common criticism is that the world becomes uninhabitable in a few "billion years*". If a game is designed with such a critical flaw in the game-play, what other faults lurk beneath the surface?
Another major criticism is less than half the players "win" the game. If you are the type that hates to lose, I recommend using the reincarnation option. If your "religion" is "Hindu" or "Buddist" it's turned on automatically for you.
A word of warning: Do NOT start playing this game unless you have plenty of free time. A typical game lasts 70-80 "years" of in-game time, and that's without the "reincarnation" option. This is truly a game only for the idle rich.
*Short periods of time are commonly expressed in "seconds" and small multiples thereof. Larger periods of time are commonly expressed in "years."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Wow.
Ohh, wait...
Namely, the project shows that its authors consider "gayness"/homosexuality to be something that many people would like to hide, to the point that they would suffer embarrassment or worse if someone else was able to infer it from other data. ...
Bottom line: All of the interest in this study seems to derive from the tacit notion that there is or should be something inherently shameful about being gay.
If you had read the fucking article, you would know they talk about this in the context of determining a person's religion, political affiliation, and whether or not someone is a terrorist. I suspect gay was selected not because people should be ashamed but rather because it is not obvious this information can be inferred. Where you go to church (if anywhere) is typically very public and in the open. You may be right that the "interest in this study" has this angle but the authors have the interest of promoting their research and advancing their research careers. Being college-aged (20s) they are more progressively minded that old-fogies like myself (almost 40!). I doubt they give a fuck who you sleep with.
Also, as pertains to the background check, it suggests a lot of information that is otherwise not asked in an interview, might be inferred from a background search even without pictures of you in a gay orgy. You may not care, I may not care, but your prospective employer may care (or rather the d-bag in charge of human resources).
People who loudly insist that they're "hyper-straight" are usually anything but.
Does this take into account recent (?) phenomenon such as the Mafia Wars game on Facebook?
Part of the object in this game is to gather a bigger 'mafia' with which your 'attack' and 'defense' is based. Each Mafia member needs to first be a 'friend' in facebook. Attempting this type of analysis in this situation couldn't possibly return useful results - unless you are looking to reason why someone added specific people to their mafia? :)
Perhaps they could just add a rule saying 'anyone with over 300 friends should not be evaluated in this manner'?
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
... if Goatse fits in anywhere in this study.
and was Pinoqachole used in any of the experiments?
-
Extracting sunbeams from
What does writing a paper about finding out who is gay reveal about the author of the paper? Hmmm.. And what does writing this comment about the author of the paper reveal about myself? DAMN - I think I just outed myself.
www.shortman.com.au - top shorted stocks on the ASX
HA HA!! Got the idiot moderator to waste his points on an AC!! What a fool you are! Oh well, fuck you if you can't take a joke. Probably some damn foreigner... from England HAHAHAHA!!!
I bet this gets tons of false positives. I mean... If they did one for detecting girls I know a guy named alex that has a pic of him in a dress on facebook...
There is the issue of what makes a person gay, straight, or bi.
It goes beyond that. Unlike what most people think not everyone is either male or female. Some people are born with body parts that are "male" and "female". Genetically females are said to have two X Chromosomes, XX, while males have an X and a Y, XY. However some people are born with XXY, XXXY, and XXXXY karotypes. These people are said to have ambiguous genitalia and are called Intersexuals. The more commonly known name for them is hermaphrodites. I don't know but the South African female athlete who's been in the news because of the question of her sex, with some saying she's not female, may be one.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
My own ears serve as a fairly reliable "Gaydar," for detecting homosexual men. Over the years, I have noticed that most gay men usually have a just barely noticeable distinctive characteristic to their voices. For some reason, I have not ever heard anyone else mention noticing that.
I first noticed that, several decades ago, when I would occasionally a hear gay men being interviewed on TV. They nearly always had that same distinctive quality to their voices. Whenever I would occasionally encounter someone who also sounded like that, my suspicions were sometimes later confirmed, by something I eventually heard or saw.
One of the few exceptions for my "Gaydar" is Rock Hudson. I have never noticed that gay quality to his voice.
I am probably somewhat better than average at picking up on subtle qualities to sounds. There are several people whose cars I hear a couple of times per day, and I can usually reliably recognize each of their vehicles as they pull up, without looking. I hear quite a few other vehicles throughout the day, yet I can usually tell the difference between the sound of their vehicles and all the other vehicles. That is despite the fact that some of the other vehicles, which I hear throughout the day, are of the same make, model, and possibly even the same engine type. I have also heard that many dogs can recognize the sound of their owners car from part way down the street. I wonder if blind people might have noticed what I am referring to. They frequently have a very well developed awareness of sounds.
My auditory "Gaydar" only works for detecting gay men, not for detecting lesbian women. I have not had enough good tests for my "Gaydar" to say precisely how accurate it is. I am just wondering how many other people have been noticing the same thing about most gay men's voices.
I do not feel any desire to go around "outing" people, or to possibly say something about someone which might turn out not be true, so I have always kept those observations to myself. Surely what I am describing must already be obvious to other people too.
Call it...Dragnet...
Here's some pseudocode for how to make such a "Gaydar."
if ($facebookUser == "1") then { faggotDetected(); }
Everybody knows Facebook is used by faggots and cancer.
Isn't that the whole idea of Facebook to expose who you are? Or who you prentend to be.
If you want to be in a closest then don't use Facebook. You could chose the real Gaydar instead, they will actually sell your details to the highest bidder.
In fact the biggest intrusion to your privacy is what you 'Google', that will give away what you have really been up to.
Yani
So people who are unsure about their own sexuality can just ask MIT and they'll be able to tell them? "Don't pretend that you know me 'cause I don't even know myself"
Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges
Shameful ? No. But it could be dangerous. You seem to be misinformed about the general enlightenedness and well-willingness of most of this planet. Yesterday, the gay pride parade in Belgrado, Serbia was cancelled because the police did not think they would have been able to protect the participants.
I just googled for some more info, and it seems that the actual march did go through (kudos to them for not giving in), and the results were as expected, unfortunately: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1415789.stm .
Enjoy your fluffy cocoon.
What a depressingly stupid machine.
I'm NOT gay, but my boyfriend is...
This technology could be quite useful. We should use it to implement a "fag drag" program so we can get rid of the degenerates.
Here at slashdot we'll all miss you and your friends, but we'll find a way to carry on, somehow..
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Namely, the project shows that its authors consider "gayness"/homosexuality to be something that many people would like to hide.
I don't see that implication myself. The summary mentions other factors that can be predicted by this kind of research: whether a person is "happy, fat, liberal, or conservative". Are these also things which the researchers believe people wish to hide? Although being outed as a conservative might be considered embarassing by the average Slashdot poster.
Why not make "gaydar"? Really, where is the offense? Oh, that's right, "gays" are a favorite of the politically correct crowd. Your reference to "white-dar" makes it clear either your offended or want to be offended. Get over it. Its far easier to turn the other cheek than look for offense in every comment or action.
Look, I think the students proved their point. It may never had been noticed if it had not offended. Why is it the fault of the authors if someone is trying to hide a major facet of who they are? If that person is embarrassed then its their problem, not yours, mine, or the authors. The interesting part is, people go to great extents to be heard, to declare who they are, and that occurs even on a subconscious level.
Facebook/Myspace/etc all show that as a society we want people to know who we are. This just shows that you may be revealing more than you expected.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
gaydar.com
Assumpitons? And no grammar nazi yet?
Yesterday,... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1415789.stm .
That link is from 8 years ago.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
"I'll bet you could figure out if someone is white (or black, or Hispanic, or Zoroastrian) based on their Facebook friends"
Your pictures might give that away too
D'oh. I googled 'belgrado gay pride' and didn't even check the date of the story. This year's was indeed cancelled, tho: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/nationalist-glee-as-belgrade-gay-pride-cancelled-20090919-fw5i.html
What a depressingly stupid machine.
For gay Slashdot readers like me, this article is a good reminder why (situation allowing!) it's best to be out of the closet and upfront with everyone. I came out to my folks when I was 16, and have always been upfront about my gayness, and I've reaped the benefits of this:
1. no having to lie/watch everything I say
2. no worries about been "found out" if I use some gay-oriented website (such as gaydar.co.uk)
3. no blackmail is possible (I remember that it was an excuse used by government agencies in order to deny hiring gays, as they could allegedly be blackmailed about their sexuality).
4. being an out gay man, straight people who get to know me learn that gay is good/they tend to get rid of their preconceptions about gays.
5. I can use Facebook/Flickr and not give a damn about who can see who my friends/groups are.
Basically, as an out gay man I can read the article, ponder on my Facebook account, and can calmly think "So f*ck*ng what??"
This is because being out of the closet defangs homophobes in many ways..
Of course I understand why some gay/lesbian/bi folk would be in the closet (live in a small town, close-minded friends/family/employers, work for the US military etc.), but if you're in the closet and reading this, realize that in the long run it's so much nicer to "thine own self be true", and I've been so much happier since I came out all those years ago.
I'm here, I'm queer, I'm a geek my dear! ;-)
Because you list them here:
http://slashdot.org/~laron/friends - friends with hobo sapiens. Fans of hobo sapiens and angstorm.
Now you're probably going to say they're not really friends, but the same is true of other online networks like Facebook. Sure, it might be more extensive on Facebook, but don't try to pretend that you're completely immune, or somehow superior to Facebook users. If they can infer information just from online connections, why should the fact that you post to Slashdot be any different?
Indeed, even without your "friends", the fact that someone posts to Slashdot gives us plenty of information about the sort of person they are likely to be: almost certain to be a male geek, likes computers, probably more likely to have liberal views (in the not-conservative, anti-authoritarianism sense; not necessarily Liberal or whatever connotations other people like to put on the word). Opposes censorship, patents, and the RIAA. I bet you that assessment is at least as accurate as anything they could get from looking at Facebook friends.
To be honest, whilst the data may be useful, I'm not sure that anyone risks being outed, as there will be a large number of false positives. This is simply a more rigorous version of the bleeding obvious "people mix in circles with people similar to them" - but with sexuality, religion, political views or whatever else, there will be enough false positives to provide plausible deniability to anyone who doesn't want to be outed. So in other words, please save your "I'm not on Facebook" smugness for another article :)
Well that reminds me of another point - how do these researchers find out someone's friends in the first place?
Facebook is very good with this - you can set whether you're listed in people's friends lists. I don't show up at all, and I believe there are other settings too (I forget what the default is). So all of us can join you in the "I'm not on Facebook" smugness, as we also would be immune to this "research".
Slashdot OTOH has no such options.
I could have got that kind of accuracy simply by assigning the quality "gayness" to all Facebook members. How many false positives did they have?
I see your point and I was wondering about that myself. Then I realized it doesn't have to be about shame. It could be about a Neo-Nazi Serial Killer compiling a hit list for their cross country killing spree of self righteous purification of humanity. A cause they might be willing to give their life for. We don't need to be talking about mom or dad or your employer or teacher that already knows you treating you differently after discovering your gay. This is about people you have never met before that are willing to give their life up just to take yours away from you despite never having met you, and willing to do this whether your proud, ashamed, or neutral feeling regarding what you are.
Perhaps you might think those people aren't out there anymore. I can assure you they are, and this is not restricted to sexuality either. Although not proof in of itself, I submit the possibility that the only reason we don't hear of this happening is because this opportunity hasn't existed until now and it is only a matter of years before this technology is out of the hands of university students and into the hands of psychopaths.
Maybe it isn't violence or embarrassment. Maybe your Zoroastrian and you get harassed with Islamic or even Christian spam? This could be junk mail 3.0! Maybe a fascist is in charge of approving some financial aide scholarship and now they just found their magic tool for finding their winning applicant? Try not to limit something that has endless possibilities. Statements that begin with the word "All", for example "All of the interest in this study" are generally handicapping statements to make. Be careful.
People tend to point out ways in which they are NOT the default for a given venue. So you can reasonably conclude that those who don't point out their differences probably don't have said differences. Rather like how here on Slashdot, we can reasonably assume posters are geeks unless they state otherwise, because that's the local default.
Just geeks? I'm pretty sure you can default the opinion that the typical slashdot user is single, male, white, geek, lives in his mother's basement, is 35, loves linux, hates apple fanboys, and hates windows.
Did I miss any?
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
I honestly don't find this too interesting. They didn't look only at the friends, but also at the gender and sexual orientation of the friends. First, this is not information that is readily publicly available. Either all a user's friends would have to have their profiles visible to everyone, or you would have to friends with all of this user's friends. Second, this is really just the same thing as being seen on the streets with gay friends. Or any other type of friends, for that matter. Have you never wondered "maybe it's not so good for my image if I'm seen with this anarchist/effeminate gay guy/punk/..."? So I think people already know that their friends list on facebook gives away possible information about oneself, be it true or not.
Facebook have a very extensive privacy control area of the site where you can lock your profile down however you want. You can even completely block every user on Facebook from viewing your profile (thus making it pointless to be on the site)
Another level of privacy is what you publicly offer up from your profile. You can make you entire profile open to the public or hide everything (including who your friends are). HR types love the dumb people who don't lock their profile down.
Probably the best setting to use is to only allow friends to view your profile, friends list, profile picture etc.
"During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
Nope, think that pretty much covers it :D
Would make a fun poll just to see what the demographics here really are -- tho as with most such venues there's probably a separation that could be codified as "loudmouths who fit the stereotype" and "silent majority" ;)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I have noticed that gay organisations tend to quote a higher incidence of gays in society ( e.g. 1 in 4 ) while conservative organisations tend to quote higher ratios (in Iran it is 70,000,000 to 0 apparently)
Now why is that? Is it because each group genuinely gets it wrong and sees it the way they would like it to be, or is it because they believe that propaganda exaggerating the numbers belonging to their own group will somehow alter the reality?
What's the point of exaggerating the figures.
Now all you gays hold back a bit and let the straight at the back have his say!
It's probably something to do with the widespread discrimination against gays even in those counties where it is theoretically no longer institutionalized.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So, does this mean that our future killer robotic overlords will stereotype?
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
Don't forget that the amount of grinding required is horrendous, the community is full of r-tards, no mod support, ridiculous rules that let elite farmers and traders abuse the economy and get low-level players punished or even permabanned for no good reason, and the storyline gets really fucking dull and slow-paced about 1/3 way through. You can find some ways to have fun like stunting and stuff, but again that's expensive so you gotta grind, grind, grind. Stupid shit game.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Bottom line: All of the interest in this study seems to derive from the tacit notion that there is or should be something inherently shameful about being gay.
I don't believe that's true. Personally, I find the study fascinating from an Information Theory point of view -- from seemingly innocuous points of data, they're able to infer other presumedly-unrelated information about the individual. The name, I admit, is a bit controvertial, but the point is that "gayness" is something people DO hide. Whether they should or not isn't relevant; the project can use innocuous data to infer something that is not explicitly listed, and is likely actively hidden. "White-ness" passes the first test (not explicitly listed) but not the latter (as you noted, no one tries to hide being white).
Regardless of all that, even, as the article notes, the theory can be extended to infer who's fat, happy, a liberal, or a terrorist. Some of that could be useful to psychological studies (it'd be helpful for them to be able to infer more information about their patients from innocuous information) and others could be useful to law enforcement. It's a terribly interesting idea, if it works. The project in question is just one (rather prevelant, I'd argue) method of testing the theory. It doesn't have to be about how homophobic the authors are.
"Bottom line: All of the interest in this study seems to derive from the tacit notion that there is or should be something inherently shameful about being gay."
I didn't get that impression at all. And I'm at MIT, bi, and don't have my sexuality up on facebook. It's not that I'm ashamed - I'm out to my family and the vast majority of my friends and coworkers - but it has to do with your other comment:
"Why should being gay be any different in this day and age, at least in countries that no longer have widespread institutionalized discrimination against gays?"
Sorry, the US isn't one of those countries. I realize that you may not have meant the US, but since the study was conducted by people in the US on a network geographically based in the US, I'm using that as my reference point. In the US, being gay means not having your spousal relationship recognized by the federal government, being barred from serving in the military in any capacity, being subject to job termination at will in 29 states, not being allowed visitation rights to a partner in the hospital, having parental rights in constant jeopardy (and please, let's not make any jokes about gay people not having children, because they do), and next of kin/inheritance issues. All of these are legally sanctioned by the federal government and courts. If that's not institutionalized discrimination, then I don't know what is.
The point is that there are very real and compelling reasons for wanting to keep your romantic interests offline and discreet.
The fact that you can be identified as gay by your social connections is not at all surprising to me. One of my favorite apps on facebook is the nexus app which shows your friend network as an undirected graph. People I've known in different contexts are clustered together in cliques - I can even identify cliques with different periods of time in my life. It's truly fascinating. The largest clique in my social network graph is the set of connections I have with my gay/bi friends. Like me, many of them do not list their sexuality, but by virtue of their associations it's a pretty safe bet to guess they're either gay/bi or very gay friendly.
No, it correctly acknowledges the historical trend in many societies that have a history of oppressing (or killing) homosexuals. Recognizing that broad swaths of people DO have a problem with homosexuality is not the same as validating it.
Yes. "Chronic Masturbator"
"I watched Will & Grace one time, one day...Wish I hadn't, 'cause now TiVo thinks I'm gay." - Weird Al, "Couch Potato"
...is just another form of traffic analysis. Good for them that they thought about applying it for this particular purpuse, though.
- Funny (although not always intentionally) :D ;)
- Tall (nearly 6'2" of car-roof-smacking action!)
- High IQ (I r smartey man, cant u tell?)
- I play some meatspace sports and I'm not a lardass, so you could say I'm athletic
- Only hard to find until we exchange contact info
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Even some that are closeted.
While there are indisputably some gay men who can be spotted by their 'limp wrists, leather chaps and tutus' (e.g. John Waters, Boy George, Liberace etc) there are others that can and do pass for normal.
Lesbians are the same way, some are out without even saying a word. 'Hiking boots, flannel and facial hairs (3 of them).'
In any case I'd hardly call it gaydar. You are picking up on things they want known even if they can't say the words.
One test: Refer to girl/woman as 'so fine you could boil her panties and make soup'. Gay men can't help the horrified look that comes over their faces at the thought of pantie soup. Especially when you discuss the 'Manhattan style' pantie soup that needs to be made monthly. Women usually have about the same reaction as gay men. Even lesbians, which might say more about their familiarity with _dirty_ panties then anything else.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
And you think that isn't true? In this society? Jeez. Pretty much anything except a standard white, married, middle-aged, 9...5 100-IQ sheep is begging for some kind of hate and discrimination in our culture, if not outright persecution. It's such a problem that, like snow for Inuit, we have names for every kind of discrimination --- ageism, sexism, homophobia, being a jock, being a geek, being a bitch, and people forget it's all just the same fucked up emotional response.
I hope I'm not the only one who laughs when we have a discussion thread where the majority of the people (like myself) would defend the right of men to have anal sex with other men (ok, yuck, but it's their inalienable right just the same), and yet the word "Chronic" goes in front of Masturbator.
I prefer "Healthy Sex Drive" In fact, "Partner-Flexible Healthy Sex Drive" would seem to fit both groups. :)
She didn't think of me as a man?
She may of very well thought of you as a man, just not one she would be romantically interested in. As a full time college student I had a number of girl friends, though female may of been more appropriate, that or lady or women friends. Perhaps just "friend". I had more female friends than I had male friends and while we'd hang out and do things together, there wasn't much if any romantic interest either way. There were 4 of us real close, two females and two males. For a while one lady was dating a man she worked with but then she started seeing another one. Eventually she married that one, who was in the Navy, and it was practically mandatory we all went to the wedding. The three of us almost felt like we were giving her away.
Thankfully I'm married now and don't have to go through that sort of thing anymore.
I thought I'd be married by now, but while I'm not I don't date either. I had an accident that left me with a disability and I eventually had to move across the country to continue with therapy. While I had a number of friends where I previously lived, and was pretty active, I haven't made friends where I live now. Hopefully that will be changing, several weeks ago I met an aide who will be working with me as part of therapy. Both he and a health care coordinator at my doctor's office are working to get me socially active. I'm hoping they can also help me get financial aid so I can get back into college. Between the three, people I'm working with, social activities, and college I'm hoping to start dating again as well as make friends irl.
Rejection on the other hand is still rejection, it hurts even if done politely.
I know all about that. As noted above I have found it hard to make friends never mind date where I moved to. If you look at my posting history I post almost all day long, well almost all after noon and night long. I have an apartment, live alone, and other than to work in my garden about the only reason I get out is to go shopping.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Actually you can buy prepaid VISA cards with cash.
Actually, even people checking your credit report is in your credit report.
Yeap, and the more credit report requests there are the worse it is. The more requests the lower the FICA score.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Well sure, but "credit" can mean some pretty plain-vanilla transactions these days, like having an account with the local electric company or telco.
Sure, even employers use credit reports now.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
They don't have to delete information more than 7 years old. They have to delete negative credit information more than 7 years old.
Alias names, SSNs, and DOBs are bad info. People have gotten arrested because of these. As for deleting info after 7 years, you're right. Looking at a credit report from Equifax I got late last year it lists an address almost 10 years old (as of the date of the report). It also has an employer I last worked for more than 15 years go. It doesn't list my last employment though, from 13 years ago, I wonder if Experian or TransUnion lists it.
And the "alias" isn't credit information so it can remain indefinitely as well.
But if it's inaccurate or incomplete info they still have to investigate and correct it if is wrong. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I included the part I found offensive, your "they are such a tiny percent of the population that it is essentially irrelevant."
It has been said that they don't fit the mold of pure male or pure female.So, someone who has a penis but has 2 X Chromosomes is not a male, and someone who has a vagina even if they have a Y Chromosome is male?
You didn't answer either to either question, is someone who has a penis a male? And is someone who has a vagina, and gives birth to a living baby, a female? Are you dodging them?
I never said that. I said that anyone with a documented gender abmormality that could cause confusion (like being XY with and giving birth, or XX with a penis) should be excluded from gender-based competition.
You never said that either, you said the Olympic Committee was right in it's decision. I even included that part, "So I would think the Olympic ruling is sane. A Y-chromosome defines male. The organs the chromosome are supposed to trigger to be made do not." I then pointed out that most people do not use your definitions of male and female.
What they are or are not isn't for you to decide.
Yet you are doing exactly that, you are deciding what they are and are not. My aim is not to decide what people are and are not, though I never did say it I fully support each individual's ability to decide for themselves what they are though I'd personally get rid of gender classifications. Actually I support research into ways to allow a person to, if they decide to, how they can become pregnant and carry a baby to birth or impregnate someone else and sire a baby. I have no problem with one person becoming pregnant and giving birth at the same tyme they fertilize another person's egg making them pregnant.
The dictionary has nothing to do with fairness or the perception thereof. This isn't about classifying them.
You define what things are and classifies them yet when I point out you're wrong, as I did providing a link to the definition of "male" and female (oops the link didn't work the first tyme you indicate I shouldn't do that.
In most cases, hermaphodites are sterile
I don't know the ratio of those intersexuals who are fertile to those who are sterile, however some can have babies:
"A variety of factors go into this decision. Important goals in deciding sex assignment include preserving fertility where possible"
And, oddly enough, from the definition you posted, an infertile person, regardless of reason, is neither male nor female.
male "noun: a person who belongs to the sex that cannot have babies".
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Their level of investigation is asking the original organization whether the information was correct. If they say yes, and it isn't correct, there's nothing you can do about it.
That sounds like Equifax, they are the hardest agency to get information corrected. With them a creditor can report that you owe money but you can send Equifax a receipt and canceled check to prove you did pay but they may not correct it anyway. As per the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or another law, credit report agencies are also supposed to allow people to include in their report statements like the receipt and canceled check in cases of dispute. But again it's hard to get Equifax to include one. People have had to sue Equifax to get them to correct info.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes I agree there are degrees however neither I nor most other people agree with the International Olympic Committee's, IOC, definition of "female". Almost everyone says a person who gives birth to a baby is female, but not the IOC. And maybe other sports groups too, with all this ruckus about the South African woman in the news lately.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?