Slashdot Mirror


Poole To Zuckerberg: You’re Doing It Wrong

An anonymous reader writes "At South by Southwest Interactive 2011 in Austin, Texas this week, 4chan founder Christopher Poole (also known as 'moot') took the stage to talk about various online issues. One of these was how important anonymity is on the Internet and how Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg doesn't get it."

60 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. Useful info by gazbo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shame he'll not be able to hear how wrong he is through his insulating walls of billions of dollars. In fact it's surprising moot isn't aware of this issue given his similarly vast wealth.

    1. Re:Useful info by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because, of course, billions make you right.

    2. Re:Useful info by syousef · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because, of course, billions make you right.

      I'm wrong pretty often, despite my best efforts. I'd sure like billions to comfort me ;-)

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:Useful info by BigDXLT · · Score: 3, Funny

      Right, wrong, he's the guy with the money.

    4. Re:Useful info by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      yeah, that came as a surprise for me. i'm not sure how he could develop a business model outside porn ads on 4chan.

      perhaps large companies are paying him not to introduce an /i/ board?

    5. Re:Useful info by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't for myself, but you know what? Sometimes you don't want to let a con man take advantage of other people. Yes, it's terrible wanting to impose on somebody else's freedom and liberty, and I'll feel bad about it for about -3 seconds, but hey, it's for the best really.

      You can't help those that don't want to be helped. You ought to believe that people are entitled to make mistakes, if only because you want the right to take actions that others believe are mistaken.

      Consider the situation if the roles were reversed. You are a consumer that enjoys Facebook and doesn't care much about the privacy implications of having your vacation pictures and some banal details online. Some guy tries to explain to you that its evil and simply will not take "I like Facebook leave me alone" for an answer. What are you supposed to think, other than "this guy ought to mind his own business"?

      It's disturbingly common how many intelligent but partisan people get into the rut of believing that everyone who has thought about something must have come to the same conclusion. I feel like I hear it from everywhere these days -- the FSF crowed, the console fanboys, the Tea Party -- everyone seems convinced that no honest person could possibly disagree with them. Again, these are generally intelligent people, so much so that you would imagine they could grok the idea that thoughtful and honest people could legitimately disagree about the purity/utility of FSF, the merit of consoles or PCs or the values and policies in our country.

      At least I imagine it sometimes, and then I read these posts and am shaken back into hyper-partisan reality.

    6. Re:Useful info by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the claim is "anonymity is valued on the Internet, and Facebook has got it wrong", then I'd say Zuckerberg having a company that has an astronomical value and millions of members who don't seem to give a shit about anonymity, then yes, I'd say that makes Zuckerberg right and this guy wrong.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Useful info by Dynedain · · Score: 2

      Perhaps not, but with billions at your disposal, you can probably redefine "right".

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    8. Re:Useful info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. 4chan takes $85,000 in ads per year just to break even. Canv.as' $650,000 of investors' money can hardly be counted to his personal wealth either. If he has other money, he hasn't let 4chan know.

    9. Re:Useful info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So customer-retention is unimportant to you. Because you know, those who've been on Facebook for a while tend to turn it off completely.

      Facebook is like Myspace, a proprietary and intrusive fad.

    10. Re:Useful info by ocdscouter · · Score: 2

      "Argumentum ad argentum"

      Argument against a photo lab in Los Angeles?

      Have you ever tried to argue with a photo lab clerk?

    11. Re:Useful info by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      I feel it is a shame that so many people believe that their opinion is an absolute fact.

      It's disturbingly common how many intelligent but partisan people

      It's not just those people, but likely a majority of the population ( from what I've seen).

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    12. Re:Useful info by smellotron · · Score: 2

      It's disturbingly common how many intelligent but partisan people

      It's not just those people, but likely a majority of the population

      I could be wrong, but I don't think "partisan" was meant in the political sense. I think the word is being more generically used, as in a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

      Sadly, you are probably right that the term refers to a majority of the population.

    13. Re:Useful info by smellotron · · Score: 4, Funny

      Have you ever tried to argue with a photo lab clerk?

      OMG you're totally right. They just never let up about those bathtime pictures with the neighbor kids! It's like fighting with a brick wall and then they call the police.

    14. Re:Useful info by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      having a company that has an astronomical value and millions of members who don't seem to give a shit about anonymity, then yes, I'd say that makes Zuckerberg right and this guy wrong.

      Yep, let the market decide what's "right" and "wrong".

      So, that means McDonald's and Coca Cola's approach to nutrition is "right". Cigarette companies are "right" that their product is safe. Fox's news reporting is "right".

    15. Re:Useful info by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet here you are telling me what I ought to believe.

      I'm telling you what you ought to believe if you want to be consistent with your own expectations. You certainly can persist in saying that you are entitled to judge for others what is best for them concurrently with saying that others are not entitled to judge what is best for you. I, for one, will not take such a transparently non-universal position.

      This is really no more than Kant's categorical imperative -- do not presume to substitute your preferences for others' for the same reason (and by the same logic) that you do not want others to substitute their preferences for yours.

      And consider it from the view of the Anti-Facebook opponent, with somebody mindlessly doing something that is unwise at best, dangerous at worse. Did you do that?

      Dangerous and unwise in your judgment. Do you allow for the fact that perhaps someone else, seeing the same facts, could come to a different conclusion, or do we all have to abide by your estimation of what is dangerous and what is not?

      No, you did not, because you're stuck in the mental trap of chasing a false idealization of liberty and freedom, of somehow it being good for folks to be allowed to stick their hands in fires to learn from it instead of saying "Hey that's hot, stop!" .

      If an adult wants to stick his hand in the fire, that's his business. If he seems inclined to listen to my advice, I will share my opinion with him. What I'm not going to do is start interjecting myself into what other human beings want to do with their own hands and their own fires against their will.

      Otherwise, when I turn around and want to ride my motorcycle or eat some Cheetos, I will have no grounds to complain when the safety sissies or the nutrition naysayers start berating me for my choices that they think are dangerous or harmful.

      Quid pro quo -- I'll leave you to make mistakes (that you think are not mistakes) and you'll leave me to make mistakes (that I think are not mistakes). Note the beautiful symmetry of the situation -- it's exactly the same if you swap the identities of the participants. If you want to propose a contrary arrangement that obeys that symmetry -- that operates the same on you with relation to everyone else as it operates on everyone else with relation to you -- be my guest, but such a symmetry is a fundamental requirement.

    16. Re:Useful info by NateTech · · Score: 2

      Ahh, you just hit the real crux of the game. To these guys, they're in charge... so telling each other "you're wrong" is their whole world view.

      The fact that millions of people agree or disagree with them, doesn't matter at all to their distorted view of the world. They argue amongst themselves and whatever us "millions" do, must have happened because of something THEY did, not our own free will.

      That's their view of it all, anyway.

      --
      +++OK ATH
    17. Re:Useful info by murdocj · · Score: 2

      You are trying to inject rationality into the discussion. That isn't allowed on Slashdot.

    18. Re:Useful info by anyGould · · Score: 2

      Yes, it does. If you're aim is to make lots of money. If you don't like FB's policies, here's a shocker for you, don't use it you twat.

      That would be a great idea, if Facebook would mind it's own business.

      But FB will happily let other users slap your name all over photos (and if you're not a user, you won't be notified that Goatse is now labeled as being *you*). Those "like" buttons that are popping up all over the bloody place? They track you even if you're not registered with Facebook. And now they're farming out their logins for other sites (my local paper now requires a Facebook account to send a letter to the editor).

  2. Remind me, which one is the billionare? by timeOday · · Score: 2
    Facebook took off precisely by leveraging pre-existing real-world relationships, but allowing people to be exclusive in sharing what they write.

    All of that is based on people as people, not as ideas.

    If you want ideas to predominate, come to slashdot or, I guess, 4chan.

    1. Re:Remind me, which one is the billionare? by DurendalMac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. Sorry Moot, you have a good point, but Zuckerberg didn't hear you over the sound of how much money he made in the time it took you to make that statement. Moot seems to genuinely care about online anonymity, but Zuckerberg cares about making money and doesn't think twice about selling every piece of info he has on you to anyone who wants it.

    2. Re:Remind me, which one is the billionare? by surgen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >Remind me, which one is the billionare?

      I'd say that's a bit of a false comparison. I'd be surprised if moot has even 1/4 of the business ambitions with his website than Zuckerburg does with his.

    3. Re:Remind me, which one is the billionare? by mug+funky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      4chan was never good

    4. Re:Remind me, which one is the billionare? by sourcerror · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean his point is moot? /ducks

    5. Re:Remind me, which one is the billionare? by Americano · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, diaspora's really a resounding success, just look at their github: a handful of contributors actually working on the code (one of the more active ones recently appears to be someone who isn't even a member of the original "Diaspora" team), a steady downward trend on the pageviews graph, and no notable news since November's alpha testing started, other than a blog post at the end of January saying "We're still like, working on stuff, and we're still super-relevant, just look at these blogs that called us cool!"

      With success like that, it's just a matter of weeks before Facebook is obsolete.

    6. Re:Remind me, which one is the billionare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow, so it's just like Slashdot, but with porn?

    7. Re:Remind me, which one is the billionare? by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes. Moot point is moot. /rabbits

      --
      +0 Meh
    8. Re:Remind me, which one is the billionare? by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Neither was facebook

    9. Re:Remind me, which one is the billionare? by ZorroXXX · · Score: 2

      To play devil's advocate: what is this incredibly sensitive personal information that Facebook has that could not be obtained by anyone else very easily?

      You know that is is actually trivial to find the sexual orientation of people, even for those that has not disclosed it? And who knows what else that might be possible to pick out from such a system. That you're a virgin? That you pick your nose? That you actually like "Never Gonna Give You Up" by Rick Astley?

      For individuals or groups putting effort into data mining there are undoubtly information to be found that someone would prefer to be private. There is a paradigmic difference in everyone in the whole world can find out you are gay compared to just a few of your closest friend (and other gay men you meet).

      --
      When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
  3. duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Mark Zuckerberg is getting it. lots of it. billions actually.

    He also gets anonimity. He just does not care about (other people's) anonimity.

  4. moot by psergiu · · Score: 4, Funny

    moot on /. ? a 1st page article about 4chan ?
    How long until /. introduces image attachements for each reply ? :)

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    1. Re:moot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This illustrates part of Moot's point, I think; before you can begin to receive his idea, let alone process it, you already know who made the statement, and that has colored your perception in some way (you aren't obviously for or against 4chan, but you clearly know what it is). Anonymity is therefore arguably better for the transmission and sharing of ideas, because each idea is forced/allowed to stand on its own. Obviously there is also a place for credited work, such as peer-reviewed submissions, but I think his position is a strong one.

      I think he's missing the point of Facebook a little bit, though; it isn't (at least in my experience) an exchange of ideas or the nexus of a creative endeavor. It's a really fancy online address book.

  5. Re:Oh he gets it by yeshuawatso · · Score: 2

    ...Once this happens, people might go,"Oh, wow, I gotta monitor what comes out of my mouth instead of being a non-stop idiot"

    Yeah, because being non-stop idiots with diarrhea of the mouth has stopped soooo many politicians from getting and/or staying elected. You might want to hear/read some of the dribble these politicians are spewing now on Facebook, Fox News, and MSNBC and you "poke" me when one of these politicians lose an election because of a stupid/racist/offensive status update.

  6. Facebook is not for people who seek anonymity by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Informative

    How anybody could not understand that, particularly an internet veteran like moot is rather mind boggling.

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  7. Facebook isn't "Social" by rsborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Society is a balance between privacy and sharing. When a so-called "social" website decides that everything that goes in the website should be "public by default" that really violates the public/private social balance.

    In the absence of strong information/data privacy laws, only a fool would use Facebook to put more than even the basic public details about themselves; you only need take a look at the growing legal, workplace and criminal ramifications to see the end results.

    The real tough part is that rabid facebook users can get you listed on Facebook just by "tagging" your photo. So you have to join to even purge the stupid... this is anti-social.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  8. Re:They're both wrong. by themightythor · · Score: 2

    Most people who use it do so to commit crimes, from trolling to murder.

    Two things:

    1) Do you have numbers to quantify "most"?
    2) Since when is trolling a crime?

  9. Re:They're both wrong. by Tigger's+Pet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are you trying to suggest that we shouldn't have anonymity because the bad side of it outweighs the good? I'd take the assholes, criminals and general wankers all day long as long as it means that people can have the ability to let the world know what is really going on in their various industries, countries, whatever-elses. If we were to have the ability to be anonymous removed then the world would be a far, far worse place. Anonymity is like everything else - what it achieves depends on what you decide to do with it - good or bad.

  10. "moot" doesn't get it. by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Many (perhaps most) people do not want to be anonymous. This is Zuckerberg's market.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  11. It's entirely possible... by sootman · · Score: 2

    ... that Zuckerberg gets it just fine and knows his users don't care.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  12. Re:4chan and facebook are both wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You sound too far in the middle. Are you from Neutropolis, the capital of Neutral Planet by chance?

  13. Anonymity IS cowardice (hence the userid) by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of my very first bosses said to me, back when I was still a teenager, that if you have something to say, you should be able to stand behind it. Even if all you're doing is dropping a note into the cash register saying "we keep running out of nickels," you should have enough character to sign it and date it. If you feel like you can't do that, maybe you shouldn't bother saying what it is you were planning to say. I still mostly agree with him about that.

    Sure, I understand there are many cases where it would be preferable, or even essential, to remain anonymous: when you're acting as a whistleblower, for example, or working against an oppressive government. But for most exchanges that we have on a day-to-day basis -- the kind of thing Facebook is good for -- I think anonymity just spoils it.

    Compare MySpace to Facebook, for example. On the former, you're inundated with friend requests from "DarkLordSeth79" and "PowrGrrl," where their photographs are screen grabs from anime or movies. I haven't used MySpace in a long time, but ultimately I found the only meaningful exchanges I had on there were with the dozen or so close friends whom I knew well already. Anybody whom I didn't know came off as a troll cloaked in MMORP wish-fulfillment. (See also the people who post on YouTube videos.)

    So I guess in summary, 4chan has its place, and maybe that should remain the place for it. Facebook is a place for something else, and I for one am thankful.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Anonymity IS cowardice (hence the userid) by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hah, when you're anonymous it's easier to debate because personal qualities of the people making the arguments are unknown; therefore, the arguments are more likely to stand on their own (although people do speculate).

      That "stand behind it" crap is really all just manly-sounding bullshit.

    2. Re:Anonymity IS cowardice (hence the userid) by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 2

      So why isn't your screen name your full name and address then? That's what facebook attaches to everything you say on THEIR site. In fact, they attach your name to everything other people say TO you!

    3. Re:Anonymity IS cowardice (hence the userid) by jafac · · Score: 2

      I'm Just Another Fucking Anonymous Coward.
      And I understand that the fuckers in the KKK wore hoods for a reason.
      But then again, the perpetrators of the original Boston Tea Party dressed up like Natives for a reason too.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    4. Re:Anonymity IS cowardice (hence the userid) by guspasho · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do you know any previously-closeted gays? Or currently-closed ones that haven't come out to everyone yet?

      Have you ever lived in a small community?

      Have you ever tried asking friends and family members about something personal and embarrassing to you, like erectile dysfunction? In a restaurant, or at a ball game?

      Beyond the rare cases where one is actually threatened with death or imprisonment, social ostracization occurs all the time, and stigmas are attached to practically everything, especially in small communities. These make it difficult, even unbearable, to live openly. I recommend you read these Wiki articles:

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

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

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

      One can hope for a perfect world where nobody has anything to fear from sharing everything with anyone, but such a world is unrealistic in the extreme.

      I can go on 4chan and find people asking about things like erectile dysfunction, but I can't imagine that many people are willing to join groups about that on Facebook. That's the value of anonymity.

  14. Re:4chan and facebook are both wrong. by inviolet · · Score: 2

    They are different at ends of the spectrum, but too much of either is bad. 4chan is worthless, plain and simple (that includes so-called Anonymous). Facebook is a not worthless, but abuses what they have/know.

    Much like politics, you never want someone too far right or too far left.

    Yep yep.

    Republican: Society needs less sharing in order to create incentives!
    Democrat: Society needs more sharing in order to create a middle class!
    Me: Shut up, you're both right.

    Likewise, we need anonymity in some contexts, and identity in others.

    --
    FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  15. Re:They're both wrong. by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Do you have any numbers whatsoever to back up your claim that most anonymous entities are criminals, trolls, or murderers? Or are you just making shit up to back up the same position that you have taken numerous times in previous threads regarding anonymity, blair1q? Because if I recall correctly (and I do), you have made claims in the past that are basically along the lines of "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

    For those of us with a sense of privacy, and who are a bit schooled in history, we realize just how silly and dangerous such a position is. So please, blair1q, before you go spewing more opinionated bile around Slashdot, could you back up some of your claims that:

    Most people who use it do so to commit crimes, from trolling to murder.

    Mind you, I count such practices as keeping sexual orientation, religious beliefs, political stances, and thoughts regarding your opinion of coworkers and/or bosses secret a form of anonymity, in the sense that you are keeping your personal details regarding those matters anonymous in the eyes of the public.

  16. Re:Oh he gets it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Facebook is only free if your privacy has no value.

  17. Re:4chan and facebook are both wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't think 4chan is worthless.

    Vulgar, irreverent, mob mentality... Can you honestly say facebook is none of those things? Wouldn't you say that it is all of those things, if you were honest? Is the veneer of "manners" and censorship really so important for its own sake?

    Maybe your mom would feel more comfortable in the lie (see what I did there?), but 4chan's /b/ is just as valid a form of human interaction and expression as facebook -- it merely operates by different rules, with different norms, and a different history. To deny that 4chan is important as a feature of the human condition is to deny that anyone has a mental life: the life that we don't blurt out in public for fear of social repercussions. Nevertheless, this aspect of humans does still exist, and you won't make it disappear just because you get rid of 4chan and other anonymous modes of communication. Repression makes things worse, never better.

    You do need both -- and you can't assert that 4chan is "worthless" and be self-consistent. Facebook, in all its corporate data-farm glory, is no more legitimately "good" no matter how much less child porn, no matter how much less gore, no matter how popular it is, and no matter how wealthy its owners.

    You're a a soft-skulled, sophomoric, self-righteous hypocrite. It doesn't say anything good about /. that you were modded up (why expect an enlightened, objective moderation response from the anonymous internet, though).

    Still. Parent remains profoundly inane.

  18. And Zuckerberg can tell him back ... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That when building a tool for the masses you go by their preferences, not your own valid-but-uncommon ones. And the plain fact of the matter is that most people do not mind the Facebook privacy model as evidenced by their enthusiastic uptake of the system and their lackadaisical attitude towards all these "ZOMG Facebook is the devil" news stories.

    I get it, the /. and 4chan crowds have a different set of preferences than the average consumer. This has been beaten to death so many times that there's scarcely anything more to add there except to remind you guys that not everyone must have the same preferences as you. In fact, many prefer the convenience of Facebook over the loss of privacy. We keep hearing the refrain of "if they knew the truth they'd change their minds" and yet they continue to not change their minds not matter how much bleating goes on, probably because they know and don't change their minds. I know this is an odd thing to the partisan/zealot, but really some people understand your position, heard the arguments and just aren't convinced. Try not to take it too personally.

    Heck, I've got a Facebook page that shares all sorts of banality. And truth is I wouldn't at all be upset if everything on there was printed out and handed to every person I've ever known (I would feel sorry if they decided to actually peruse through that banality, to be honest). Is is "authentic" as Moot wants it to be? No and I bloody don't want that in the first instance. The fact that he thinks I give a fig about his preferences for the content and tone of my communications is really astounding, roughly equivalent to me thinking that he should consult me on whether he should have jam or cheese on his toast (cheese, with a tiny bit of Marmite).

    TL;DR version: Not everyone is like you. This is a good thing, the world would be boring if everyone was the same. Quit projecting your own values onto others, at least in such cases where they have taken clear and unequivocal steps to demonstrate that they do not share those values.

    1. Re:And Zuckerberg can tell him back ... by binary+paladin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wish I had mod points for this. Oh well.

      One point I want to add though is that you don't lose any privacy by using Facebook. If Facebook jacked into my computer and started posting all kinds of things that I didn't authorize it to, that would be losing privacy. However, for the most part, my Facebook profile gets no more data than I CHOOSE to give it. I'm not giving up privacy by using it because nothing I put there is of a private nature. Otherwise it wouldn't be on Facebook.

      There is nothing I post on Facebook that I give a rat shit about the whole world seeing including government agencies. It's boring, mundane shit. As for target advertising... can someone tell me why this is a bad thing? I'd rather see 5 adverts about the New York Jets than some product I don't give a shit about.

    2. Re:And Zuckerberg can tell him back ... by sessamoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish I had mod points for this. Oh well.

      One point I want to add though is that you don't lose any privacy by using Facebook. If Facebook jacked into my computer and started posting all kinds of things that I didn't authorize it to, that would be losing privacy. However, for the most part, my Facebook profile gets no more data than I CHOOSE to give it.

      What you choose to give it, PLUS what everybody you're linked to chooses to reveal about you or inadvertently reveals about you.

      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
  19. Re:They're both wrong. by discord5 · · Score: 2

    Most people who use it do so to commit crimes, from trolling to murder.

    Damn, there's laws against trolling now? I always thought people were joking about the internet police thing, but I guess it's all true then.

    Oh shit, what have I done. Quick guys... HELP ME DELETE THE INTERNET!

  20. Re:They're both wrong. by mug+funky · · Score: 3, Funny

    lol. what are you gonna do, arrest me for trolling?

    *opens legs*

  21. Re:They're both wrong. by blair1q · · Score: 2

    i don't see me going AC to post an unpopular opinion
    my karma's fine. excellent, even.
    and if someone decides to karma-bomb me, i can point it out to the staff and they'll look behind the magic AC curtain and fix it.
    but, i don't share your observation that there's a 50:1 ratio of good:really bad; nor did i limit the bad to "overtly racist or whatever". i still like my n_good n_bad estimate.

  22. Is DEMOCRACY a crime? by mangu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The value of Anonymity of course depends on the value of what you're doing with it.

    Most people who use it do so to commit crimes, from trolling to murder.

    Most people vote in democratic elections anonymously. Do you think voting is a crime, or do you consider it trolling?

  23. Re:Oh he gets it by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually it seems that it's a requirement nowdays.

    Want to be a senator? IQ below 72? check, welcome congressman!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  24. Re:Oh he gets it by lostros · · Score: 2

    so it will be a win because the future leaders of america will all have little to no experience with actually living, and where such sociopaths that they decided by about 16 to never have a drink with friends because they wanted to run for public office. Many of our greatest presidents did things in their youth that if well documented and brought up in a campaign in todays political environment would keep them out of office.

  25. I would tend to agree by Cyberllama · · Score: 3

    I've noticed recently that a lot of places have suddenly switched to the Facebook commenting system for their websites with that assumption that forcing people to post with their real names will cut down on trolling.

    It may well do that, but it certainly comes with a cost to non-troll posts as well. I, for one, have stopped visiting Techcrunch as a result -- let alone stopped posting there. People censor themselves when they know their friends will read their comments. This is not always a good thing, this includes keeping valid and valuable opinions to themselves simply because they don't want to offend anyone. Not to mention the number of people who will simply choose to say nothing at all. What Techcrunch and anyone who switches to this new commenting system has done is throw the baby out with the bathwater, then pat themselves on the back for getting rid of that pesky bathwater. It makes me kinda sad. The Facebookification of the Internet is the death of the internet. Go down that road at your own risk.

  26. Re:he get's it...... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 2

    What does a hooker do to earn $5000 per hour? Make cheese sandwiches during sex, but with gold instead of cheese? For that price it'd have to at least include a journey in to space.

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005