YouTube Disables Comments and User Uploads For Korean Users

Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 21:14 · Score: 5, Funny

Posted Anonymously just because I can.

Re:Posted Anonymously by Quartus486 · 2011-09-11 21:51 · Score: 4, Funny

Considering it's about websites with over 100 000 unique visitors per day and the total number of internet subscribers in North Korea can be summed up by the fingers of your hand...
Re:Posted Anonymously by dintech · 2011-09-11 22:09 · Score: 2

Well done South Korea. Anything that protects people from Youtube comments is a good thing.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 22:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Replied anonymously and called you a dink.
Just because i can. For now.
I honestly feel no need to ever login here to slashdot. Even after what... a decade? damm. I rather like being able to say things that won't be held aginst me in a court of law.. Or more likely a job app. What i say today i may not agree with tomorrow. But the net doesnt work that way. Once you say it. Its attributed to you forever. And i can't imagine that ever being a good thing. At best it's neutral. At worst it can ruin your life.
Sure makes me miss bbses with required handles.
Re:Posted Anonymously by dingen · 2011-09-11 23:09 · Score: 1

South Korea obviously. Like YouTube would have a North Korean portal website.

--
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 23:29 · Score: 1

I think they can still read them, actually, that's only thing they can do.
So, it's somewhat worse than before.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Yvanhoe · 2011-09-11 23:42 · Score: 1, Interesting

But you lose the ability to brag about it when you made a correct prevision. You are also less likely to be taken seriously. Slashdot's attitude is smart : "Anonymous coward". Being anonymous is frowned upon, but is possible because of the few very legitimate reasons to do it.

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Re:Posted Anonymously by CubicleView · 2011-09-11 23:43 · Score: 0

AC posts are only good for one off comments, it's impossible to argue a point with a ghost, so replying to one is pointless (sigh)
Re:Posted Anonymously by TheRaven64 · 2011-09-11 23:53 · Score: 3, Informative

The main advantage of logging in is that you get notified when someone replies to you. This means you can actually have a discussion, rather than just a load of one-off comments.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Posted Anonymously by NoobixCube · 2011-09-11 23:54 · Score: 1

After a minor facebook fiasco not related to me at my previous work place (small shop/office, not many of us there), I told my boss that if our posts on facebook were to be scrutinised, even when they don't relate to work, don't defame the company, and don't involve any coworkers, they could pay me at quarter-time for all of my off hours. I worked there for another 18 months before I quit due to other issues caused by factors well outside the job's influence, but in all that time, I never again heard of anyone's social networking being criticised (and with just eight of us, I'd have heard it if it were the best kept secret in the office); and numerous times after that I DID directly criticise the company, I named names and pointed out blatant illegalities, with no repercussions. If you stand up for yourself, you either get fired, or get what you want. My competence and essential position as the only guy with any product knowledge meant they weren't about to fire me.

--
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Re:Posted Anonymously by NoobixCube · 2011-09-11 23:55 · Score: 1

That last sentence sounds more arrogant than I intended. Only intended a tenth of what's positively dripping off that.

--
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Re:Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 00:28 · Score: 0

It's half a conversation... like listening to North Korea respond to unpublicized provocation or a palestinian responding to her dead kid-often to scapegoat a wider population
Usually makes for good evening news in the form mass killings and murder suicides..
Re:Posted Anonymously by Smallpond · 2011-09-12 00:46 · Score: 3, Funny

They do have a North Korean Youtube. All of the content is Kim Jong Il singing "I'm so Lonely"
Re:Posted Anonymously by ciderbrew · 2011-09-12 00:48 · Score: 2

They do. It has a pirate copy of Team America on it. Some things the CIA do are +1 funny.
Re:Posted Anonymously by LordLimecat · 2011-09-12 01:01 · Score: 2

I rather like being able to say things that won't be held aginst me in a court of law.. Or more likely a job app.

I rather like knowing that I wont get a job where the sorts of things I say here (which I filter internally before I post them) would have been held against me.
If theres a job that would discriminate or penalize me because of my religious or political views, honestly, no thanks.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:03 · Score: 1

Says you.
One of the nice things about "arguing with a ghost" is that you are forced to address the points made as they are made. On their no merits, with no "well you just say that because (points to something poster said previously in a completely unrelated area)."
Sure, you can degenerate into namecalling. But you're conceding that you have no point and no ability to refute theirs, then.
Re:Posted Anonymously by v1 · 2011-09-12 01:06 · Score: 1

My competence and essential position as the only guy with any product knowledge meant they weren't about to fire me.
Assuming the local PHB won't react with a suicidal business decision on impulse and without forethought is a pretty dangerous gamble.
And if things are already bad enough there to put you in those waters to begin with, (i.e. managers already making dumb and reckless business decisions) it just increases the likelyhood of such an event.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:Posted Anonymously by SteveTheNewbie · 2011-09-12 01:12 · Score: 2

Least we forget..
http://www.textfiles.com/100/anonymit
Re:Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:12 · Score: 0

More to the point - someone can post something on some website somewhere, use the name you usually use, and then you get blamed for it.
It's attributed to you, whether you posted it or not.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:13 · Score: 0

The main advantage of logging in is that you get notified when someone replies to you.
The only advantage of logging in would be the ability to turn off this damn craptastic "non-classic" interface.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:33 · Score: 1, Interesting

I don't feel a need to brag about anything to a bunch of people who simply won't care anyway.
*I* don't care. So why would anyone else?
Getting replies? This is a rather slow forum for a discussion. There's plenty of better ways to get replies (argue) than slashdot.
And i've seen some of the most intelligent things ever here posted anon. Not that i include myself in that catagory.
Needing a name and wanting 'credit' smacks too much of the social media type thing that really belongs on facebook where it can be ignored by people who want nothing to do with that sort of community.
Re:Posted Anonymously by drinkypoo · 2011-09-12 01:41 · Score: 1

The main advantage of logging in is that people have a reason to take you seriously, because they can now set you as a friend or a foe. You can't believe anything any AC says.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Posted Anonymously by PopeRatzo · 2011-09-12 01:48 · Score: 1

But you lose the ability to brag about it when you made a correct prevision. You are also less likely to be taken seriously. Slashdot's attitude is smart : "Anonymous coward".
The Korean government is full of pederasts and catamites.
And yes, my real name is "PopeRatzo". My mother had a sick sense of humor.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:02 · Score: 1

That is not true. Whoever makes a point has no bearing at all on the validity of the point. (Look up "argument from authority".) In a discussion, it should be completely irrelevant who makes which point - only the points themselves matter.
And (forced) anonymity has some other benefits since they can avoid some of the noted biases / flaws in the human brain. People are much less likely to entrench when they can just switch to the valid side without being pestered for that. And people are much more likely to bring valid but controversial points to the discussion when there's no risk of being shunned. Forced anonymity makes people much less likely to adopt an invalid stance because some of the people who hold it are long-time or well-known posters.
Re:Posted Anonymously by rockout · 2011-09-12 02:41 · Score: 3, Informative

Before what? This article was written in April of 2009. Are submitters, editors, and readers all so clueless that no one noticed this?
Okay, looking further down the comments, I see some people did notice. But still, this is ridiculous. You suck, timothy.

--
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:54 · Score: 0

They do have a North Korean Youtube. All of the content is Kim Jong Il singing "I'm so Ronery"
FTFY
Re:Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 03:12 · Score: 0

The linked pcworld article has no date on it, so theoretically someone might get fooled. And to contribute the conversation, the only anonymity left in Korea must be the streets where random one-off offensive yells go unpunished.
Re:Posted Anonymously by dbet · 2011-09-12 04:42 · Score: 1

Not from Korea you didn't!
Re:Posted Anonymously by Phyvo · 2011-09-12 04:52 · Score: 1

There's a bit of a problem with that though. For instance it gets really tiring arguing with conspiracy theorists because most people don't have the expertise to argue that it's completely impossible for evil US government overlords to have destroyed their own world trade center for nefarious purposes. The average person doesn't have the expertise to argue about melting point this, temperature of that, or explain exactly how the conspiracy theorist's "common sense" logic is misapplied.
In such cases argument from authority provides two very real and useful shortcuts. It helps you to identify the idiots expounding these theories (since they're often consistently unreliable) as well as the experts who don't always have the time to respond to every nutcase (since they're often consistently reliable).
Obviously argument from authority is not always accurate and is never sound in a strict logical sense, but the fact is that it's something that's impossible for us to completely live without in the day to day.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Oligonicella · 2011-09-12 05:12 · Score: 1

And says me.

One of the things that keeps me at no more than a couple of comments in an AC thread is you can't tell if the AC is pretending to be several people just to create a huge wast of time for you in responding.

"Death by a thousand cuts"... tedious.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Oligonicella · 2011-09-12 05:18 · Score: 1

You appear to be criticizing his decision as hazardous beyond where he calculated it, despite his having successfully calculated the risk.
Re:Posted Anonymously by johncandale · 2011-09-12 05:21 · Score: 1

note the article was about real names, logging in you still had a pseudonym before. Which it least protects you from random backlash, if not from a determined corrupt government, which could likely track you down with your logged AC IP anyway if they really really wanted to
Re:Posted Anonymously by Smallpond · 2011-09-12 07:49 · Score: 1

My aporogies.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 09:00 · Score: 1

One of the nice things about "arguing with a ghost" is that you are forced to address the points made as they are made. On their no merits, with no "well you just say that because (points to something poster said previously in a completely unrelated area)."
One of the things that keeps me at no more than a couple of comments in an AC thread is you can't tell if the AC is pretending to be several people just to create a huge wast of time for you in responding.

Disregard what I said above, I suck cocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111
Re:Posted Anonymously by tftp · 2011-09-12 09:50 · Score: 1

My competence and essential position as the only guy with any product knowledge meant they weren't about to fire me.
Many managers were in that position, including me (though I'm not a manager, really, just someone with some influence in decision-making.)
The problem is that you can't allow this guy to do just anything. He might be super-valuable, but there is always a threshold where you have to fire him. If talking too much wasn't enough to fire you, try some orgies, with drugs and hookers, at the office (at night first, then during business hours.) Anyone would be fired for that.
In essence, any developer is one bus away from being unable to code. This is not a high threshold - people get sick, change jobs, relocate for family reasons... the usual stuff. If the PHB doesn't have a backup - guess what, now is a good time to look for one. In practical terms your project will be thrown over the cubicle wall onto someone else's desk. That guy will swim or sink, but you won't be there to observe the results.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 10:52 · Score: 0

Arguing the points made by conspiracy loons is actually really easy, since they tend to be rather unoriginal. That aside, I don't think that having fixed names would solve any of the problems you describe.
It doesn't help identify who is right / wrong. It may perhaps help identify that there are camps, but we already knew that. And we cannot assume that because one camp has the low id's / whatever, that camp is right. The actual points will have to be dealt with at some stage, so we might as well skip the name calling.
And there is another problem of dismissing someone because you know (or think you know) that he's been wrong in the past, especially if you decide to ignore him. Since the new point will not have been properly dealt with, it will rightfully come to look like a valid point. It's basically the same thing that makes the Gish gallop work. Don't think that ignoring the point of a post is going to convince anyone that it's false.
All in all, I don't see how the questionable benefit of giving a conspiracy loon a label (like you couldn't tell from the posts themselves) could weigh up against the previously mentioned human flaws.
Re:Posted Anonymously by steveg · 2011-09-12 11:29 · Score: 1

That's a pretty significant advantage. Even the "classic" interface kind of sucks (it's really not like the interface used to be) but it's better than the one you're stuck with if you're anonymous.

--
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2011-09-12 13:41 · Score: 2

That is not what "argument from authority" means, or at least, it's not what it should mean. Argument from authority is fallacious only if the authority is trying to use his reputation to add weight to his opinion in unrelated matters. If someone is a recognized authority in a field, his ex cathedra arguments should indeed carry more weight, and should require additional effort to refute credibly.
For instance, people tend to dredge up clever-sounding quotes from Einstein on everything from religion to nuclear disarmament, but since those areas are outside Einstein's professional qualifications, his opinions shouldn't carry any more weight in argument than yours and mine. But if I claim my new free-energy invention disproves relativity, it's legitimate for you to wave a whole book of Einstein's writings in my face.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-09-12 19:06 · Score: 1

Do you feel the need to brag about anything to a bunch of people who do care?
There are so many people who talk of the pure wonder of anonymity but they're quite happy to slap their name on projects when it means increasing their reputation/employability/respect. Some very well-known open source projects - even though staffed by technically highly competent people - seem primarily about the social factors.
ACs are less likely to reply imho - probably because it's harder to find out when you get a reply.
Re:Posted Anonymously by tehcyder · 2011-09-12 20:00 · Score: 1

At worst it can ruin your life.
Short of confessing to an actual murder you have committed or something (in which case you are probably so stupid that you'd do the same thing to a group of off duty policemenin a pub), how can a fucking comment on slashdot ruin your life?

Presumably if you live in a country where you can get in serious trouble for criticising your great leader, or whatever, you'd be sensible enough to modify what you wrote anyway.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Posted Anonymously by tehcyder · 2011-09-12 20:05 · Score: 1

The Korean government is full of pederasts and catamites.
As catamites are the young boys beloved of pederasts, this seems unlikely.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Posted Anonymously by WNight · 2011-09-12 20:38 · Score: 1

But you lose the ability to brag about it when you made a correct prevision.
No. You could selectively prove authorship after the fact with a few schemes. For example, you could sign a post by publishing a hash of it plus a one-time key, before you publish the post. To later reveal it as yours you point to the appropriate random number, the post, and reveal your secret key for that post allowing the hashing to be checked.
By using a unique key you prevent a Google-level enemy from hashing all posts in the world to see which match your random numbers.

You are also less likely to be taken seriously.
Not by those worth being heard by.
I have a name because I choose to be findable by it, not to earn a modicum more respect from it. Frankly if you can't judge me by my words alone...
Re:Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 01:01 · Score: 0

I find "Anonymous coward" to be rather annoying. I especially find it sad that legitimate points of contention, rather than being logically challenged or refuted, are dismissed because its just and AC posting it (Argumentum Ad-hominem). I have never had a motivation to create an account even though I've been following slashdot for what must be more than 12 years now (well before my daughter was born and she just turned 11). Sadly, I see the kind of crap coming from many AC posts and I understand why the moniker exists.
Re:Posted Anonymously by NoobixCube · 2011-09-13 09:27 · Score: 1

I think it paid off because it was the only thing I ever put my foot down about, the only thing I took a stand on. I wasn't some whiny Prima donna, always demanding the business run subject to the whims of one sales guy. They even, actually, put me in a management position about two months before I handed in my resignation, so it's not as if there was an extended period of animosity over it, either.

--
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Re:Posted Anonymously by Slash.research_Kat · 2011-09-15 08:59 · Score: 1

This means you can actually have a discussion, rather than just a load of one-off comments.
that's true.. sometimes knowing who you're talking to makes the discussion more meaningful

--
This is a research account for studying online commenting so we can create tools to improve moderation.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 12:23 · Score: 0

You are mistaken. The fallacy ‘argument from authority’ is explicitly about the situation where the logic of the argument is something like: ‘Doctor Marcus believes Atlantis is located in the Indian Ocean. Since he has thirty years of experience in archaeology, overseen many excavations, and published a lot of articles, it must be true.’
If this were just about claims made outside the field of the supposed authority, I doubt we'd even need a name for this fallacy, since such arguments are unconvincing even to a non-sceptical person. The insidious bit is where the authority claimed is one in the field of the argument. This could mean having a low id on a tech site, having a degree in the subject at hand, being a well-known poster on a sceptical forum, and so on, depending on the situation.
The thing is, such authority claims do not make the argument better. I happen to be a physicist, but if I want to convince you how nature works, I expect to have to back up my claims. Your free-energy example is a case in point. If someone designs such a device, they must prove that it works, even if they're accomplished physicists and Nobel laureates. Similarly, it isn't good enough to just wave a book with a famous name in someone's face, you actually have to argue the case.
Truth follows only from evidence and arguments, and the truth value of a position is independent of whoever states it.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2011-09-16 13:18 · Score: 1

Truth follows only from evidence and arguments, and the truth value of a position is independent of whoever states it.
True in principle but never possible in the real world. Otherwise, you'd never see academic degree requirements on job postings.
Re:Posted Anonymously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-18 17:14 · Score: 0

That itself is a subtle argument from authority, and hence cannot be used to argue against it.
It's like trying to convince an atheist that the Bible is true by telling him God wrote it.

How do... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 21:14 · Score: 1

Not familiar with the popular opinion in korea ofcourse, they may actually want this, but how does a law like this get through... don't people want any privacy?

Re:How do... by Gadget_Guy · 2011-09-11 21:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

how does a law like this get through... don't people want any privacy?
It is simple. Just tell the public that only terrorists, criminals and paedophiles want anonymity on the Internet. If people will put with being groped at airports, then it isn't so unthinkable that they would be too bothered by something that seems as trivial as requiring real names on the net.
Re:How do... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 22:11 · Score: 0

by Anonymous Coward

anybody got something to hide( or you are not free-minded or unwilling to admit you think other than other paeople)
or some opinion when spoken in public would invoke unrightfull prosecution(by the people next-door for example)

for example: in my opinion religion is for stupid people(is an example), but my [christian|Islamic|Scientology] (is still an example)neighbors might trow stones at me until i move outside the neighborhood.(is still an example)

in a free world you should be able to speak your opinion, even when your opinion revokes people or the government, Anonymity guards this right.

and final: we don't cut public bathrooms because some perverts place camera's there. so Anonymity helps offender's of the law, but it cannot be revoked just to catch the 0.5% criminal
Re:How do... by MichaelSmith · 2011-09-11 22:55 · Score: 2

don't people want any privacy?
No.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:How do... by Jawnn · 2011-09-11 23:01 · Score: 1

Not familiar with the popular opinion in korea ofcourse, they may actually want this, but how does a law like this get through... don't people want any privacy?
If the staggering success of Facebook is any indication, the answer is clearly "No. They do not."
Re:How do... by somersault · 2011-09-11 23:31 · Score: 1

IMO Facebook isn't much different from posting on Slashdot or any other message board, with the exception that you're a lot more likely to have met the people you chat to on Facebook, unless you actively participate in lots of random group pages. There's nothing forcing you to put private info up on Facebook, nor is there anything stopping you from saying private things on Slashdot.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:How do... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 23:52 · Score: 0

No, they don't. In fact, when I've brought up privacy on-line to people in the past there's always at least one that claims privacy is for criminals and child molesters. They don't see any reason why any non-criminal would want to remain private. It's quite sad.
"So this is how democracy ends, to thunderous applause."
Re:How do... by TheRaven64 · 2011-09-11 23:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Slashdot doesn't have web bugs on thousands of popular sites that all get sent your Slashdot cookie so that it can correlate your browsing habits across a large subset of the web. It also doesn't require to you provide your real name and won't ban your account if it discovers that some of the information that you've provided is incorrect. Oh, and it doesn't track your friends / foes to search for common interests to provide to advertisers.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:How do... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 00:02 · Score: 1

Our western values appreciate privacy. The east has some catching up to do on individual privacy.
(And yes, I'm saying that because I'm sick of attitude that everything out of the east is just as good but different. NO IT'S NOT. Hey man eastern cultures just like dictators, stop enforcing your western values on them man.)
Re:How do... by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-09-12 00:35 · Score: 1

Just tell the public that only terrorists, criminals and paedophiles want anonymity on the Internet.
How much money will it take to make us safe from anonymous Internet users?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:How do... by somersault · 2011-09-12 00:36 · Score: 1

Don't give them ideas..
Plus I don't care what the advertisers know. At worst, I'll get adverts for something useful. At best, I'll be using an adblocker (which I do on desktop machines, but not my tablet yet).

--
which is totally what she said
Re:How do... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 00:36 · Score: 0

What do you mean by that, citizen? Surely YOU have nothing to hide, right? If you object to having your rights violated you are a criminal because only criminals have something to hide.
Welcome to 2011. Your internet ID will arrive in your inbox today.
Re:How do... by siddesu · 2011-09-12 00:37 · Score: 2

The problem with Koreans is that online bullying is apparently wide-spread and vicious. So vicious, it appears, that some public personalities committed suicides because of anonymous attacks on them on forums that post private information, insults, lies, manipulative information and what not. Mind you, I have this image of the scary and borderline criminal Korean netscape from the Japanese media, which is to say it is probably incomplete and somewhat biased, but it probably covers with the prevailing opinion in the mainstream Korean media and political opinion.
Re:How do... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 00:40 · Score: 0

Clearly you don't understand Facebook. I just created a user Fu Ck, friended him from my account, so I can tag him in posts and he stands out as a link. I did have to have a valid email but Mailinator-esque emails work fine. I'm not sure why you think this isn't good-enough-privacy.
Re:How do... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 00:56 · Score: 0

This stuff is distraction and at best encroachment...
There's two main lobby's that are your bane, one is jewish (not necessarily israeli) and the other is feminism.
Re:How do... by fyngyrz · 2011-09-12 02:16 · Score: 1

Clearly you have not read Facebook's terms of service. The fact that you disobeyed those terms and your act wasn't immediately detected doesn't exonerate Facebook, or "prove" that those terms of service don't apply.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:How do... by Cimexus · 2011-09-12 02:59 · Score: 2

This is not a new to Korean internet users. Most internal websites, online games etc. require your Korean national ID number (and hence real name) to sign up. Only new thing here is that an international site (i.e. Google/YouTube) is honouring that local law (which they have no real obligation to do).
There has long been laws requiring real name/ID online in Korea and from what I've observed in my time there, people don't really think much of it (though that doesn't mean they ~want~ it, per se). Plus, it's pretty easy to get fake Korean national ID numbers if you want to disguise your identity online (just ask any foreigner that has done so in order to play on Korean MMO/gaming servers).
Re:How do... by Creepy · 2011-09-12 03:05 · Score: 1

This reminds me of the Telemedia Act in Germany, which requires an Impressum, and in 1998 (date is as I recall, so possibly incorrect) it was ruled that it applies to web sites, so Germans need to post at minimum name, street address, and telephone number or email address on the site. Technically it applies to anything written including blogs and posts to forums, but I doubt it is enforced much for forums (the government has gone after bloggers, however). Not sure why that law exists, but I imagine it is to keep track of radicals, and it certainly has nothing to do with privacy.
Re:How do... by redcaboodle · 2011-09-12 03:54 · Score: 1

Nope - that law applies only to commercial websites. Private websites and blogs are not affected unless they have ads on them.
The point of the law is to protect consumers' rights which are very strong here. Basically - if a company wants to make business with you, they have to state who they are and who is responsible and if they have the right to do business at all (some professions). There are some practical issues since the law is somewhat ambiguously worded and needed to be clarified by courts. The process is still ongoing, unfortunately.

--
-- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
Re:How do... by Zancarius · 2011-09-12 05:04 · Score: 2

The problem with Koreans is that online bullying is apparently wide-spread and vicious. So vicious, it appears, that some public personalities committed suicides because of anonymous attacks on them on forums that post private information, insults, lies, manipulative information and what not.
Damn, I hope they never discover 4chan.

--
He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
Re:How do... by Savantissimo · 2011-09-12 08:32 · Score: 1

Right. And the Korean Internet is essentially a closed system anyway - if you want to see pages in Korean, they're almost always going to be made and hosted in Korea by a powerful local conglomerate, and closely regulated by a clueless authoritarian bureaucracy.
It takes several years for the sites that are big in the US to catch on in Korea, with Koreans scoffing all the way, supporting local sites as a matter of national pride, until suddenly the market shifts - and seemingly in a matter of weeks, hardly anyone uses the Korean site and the US site is the only cool thing to use.
Michael Hurt is one of the most insightful analysts of the Korean media and cultural scene. His blog "Scribblings of The Metropolitician" is well worth reading. Here's a brief section from one of his main posts about the Internet in Korea:
Some More Thoughts On the Korean Internet and Cultural Barriers to Content Production

I remember people back then laughing at Google's increased vigor in making headway in the Korean market, since Naver will NEVER lose its dominance, right? People laughed and said Google overly-American dedication to simplicity would NEVER go over in Korea, and its little attempts at coloring up the Google Korea site with cute little animations was something akin to pitiful. People also laughed when YouTube Korea rolled out, swearing up and down that they'd be crushed by the better resolution of the domestic sites. Those techheads missed the point.
I've been saying, since that post, as well as in "The Mis-execution of Korean UCC" in April 2007, when I continued criticizing the utter lack of content on Korean UCC, that the Korean Internet is woefully devoid of ideas, and pitifully cordoned off from the rest of the world. Like the Korean economy, this is not just a side-effect, but totally intentional and a key part of how it succeeds.
In the 2006 post, I called the Korean Internet a "jaebeol" system, which I very much think it is. Inherent in the system isn't a core of intensely creative people and ideas that find expression in a myriad different ways, that come together and combine in unpredictable ways.
For instance, who knew how the synergy between blogging, embeddable video, other social media such as Twitter, social bookmarking, and other things would come together? It's led to new forms of media, business models, and ways of disseminating information itself. It's changed pop culture, politics, and so many other fields in a real -- not gimmicky -- way.
The Korean Internet? With broadband that leaves the US in the dust, no real problem of a "digital divide", computers everywhere, a high degree of technical skill with all kinds of programs and electronic devices, and a youth culture that is deeply socially invested in the Internet -- where's the beef? Meaning -- where's the content?
Where are the new ideas? Why didn't Koreans invent YouTube, Digg, or Twitter, or even the concepts of blogging, podcasting, or social bookmarking? Where are the funky new business ideas, new revenue models, or even (and especially) THE CONTENT?

Another good article of his on the subject:
Facebook Taking Over Korea, as Predicted!"I made a bet with my 'Korean Wave and Media' class that I teach at Myongji University that Facebook would inevitably take over the Korean Internet. Whoa, they said. That's crazy. Nothing can beat Cyworld."

--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Re:How do... by siddesu · 2011-09-12 10:18 · Score: 1

Apparently, 4chan pales in comparison to the said Korean boards. It is, after all, inspired by the much more "appropriate" 2ch ;)

hear that big record scratching noise? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 21:16 · Score: 0

it means the party is over in Korea. Sure their broadband is superior ot the US, but this throws a sledge hammer into it.

Re:hear that big record scratching noise? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 22:40 · Score: 0

So, by implication you're saying the US can now continue sucking at broadband? At least you can be number one in something...

Korea? Wich Korea? by biduxe · 2011-09-11 21:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

North Korea of course. No democratic country would have such a law.

Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by Rakshasa-sensei · 2011-09-11 21:25 · Score: 1

They of course talk about South Korea, after all the North is called 'Democratic People’s Republic of Korea' which as we know fall into the category of democratic countries.
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 21:25 · Score: 0, Informative

Nope. FTFA, it's South Korea.
We're doomed.
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 21:26 · Score: 0

North Korea of course. No democratic country would have such a law.
"Democratic" (and the various other forms of government) are all about who makes the laws, not about what sort of laws they make. No form of government is immune to making bad laws.
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by ledow · 2011-09-11 21:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Any country with "Free", "Democratic" or "People's" in its name is, almost without exception, anything but.
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by RuBLed · 2011-09-11 21:30 · Score: 1

No you are mistaken, North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The one in the south is the Republic of Korea which doesn't have Democracy in its name. This is really obvious.
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by MRe_nl · 2011-09-11 21:43 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You missed "United".

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by Suferick · 2011-09-11 22:11 · Score: 1

The eternal conundrum. What is democratic behaviour? Behaviour that democrats like, or behaviour that preserves democracy? In any case, I'm not sure this law would qualify. Perhaps the key is in the date it came into force, and it is a giant April Fool?
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 22:44 · Score: 1

North Korea of course. No democratic country would have such a law.
Really? I can tell you Brazil got close to implementing such a law more than once. And the subject comes and go in the Brazilian political mediums with alarming frequence.
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by shentino · 2011-09-11 23:43 · Score: 1

It could have been deliberately posted on april 1st just to avoid scrutiny.
NK: "We're passing an outlandish law today"
world: har har har har ...
NK: *enforces it*
world: wtf you were serious?
NK: "you snooze you lose. It's already entrenched try and stop us"
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by TheRaven64 · 2011-09-11 23:59 · Score: 2

Not sure why this is flamebait. Consider the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So united that we had Irish terrorists blowing up people for half a century trying to make Northern Ireland independent, we have a referendum on Scottish independence scheduled soon, and there's a growing movement for Welsh independence. Or maybe the United States of America, where states rights are a major issue and people from Texas (for example) will claim that they're Texan rather than American.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-09-12 00:42 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Or maybe the United States of America, where states rights are a major issue and people from Texas (for example) will claim that they're Texan rather than American.
Before the Civil War, the common parlance was "The United States are" - now it's "The United States is". The original design was to factor out redundant effort among the States as a convenience, not to be a centrally-controlled nation with several provinces. They even called the federal government 'the general government' to describe its genericness.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by jackbird · 2011-09-12 01:11 · Score: 2

And when Texans brag to non-Texans that their state constitution uniquely grants them the right to secede from the union at any time, we tell them "what are you waiting for?"
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-09-12 01:20 · Score: 1

Of course, state's rights are almost always the enemy of progress. The upside is the "states as laboratories" which means you can vote with your feet if a law is so onerous it justifies moving out of your state. But on the downside, states' rights have been used to try to hold onto slavery, racism, and a lack of civil rights. If the states' rights arguments had won, we would not have anywhere nearly as powerful a fourth amendment today, or a bill of rights generally. The bill of rights only became applicable to the states after the Supreme Court decided to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment in a novel way.

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by GameboyRMH · 2011-09-12 01:28 · Score: 1

True, it's like when an ad for some medical/exercise product says "verified by scientists" or "proven by science." So far every ad that's used this phrase has been for a bullshit product.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by Suferick · 2011-09-12 01:31 · Score: 1

Reminds me of a UK Government press secretary on 9/11, who famously said: 'This could be a good day to bury bad news'. Fortunately she was quickly given the boot
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by GameboyRMH · 2011-09-12 01:39 · Score: 1

True, there are democratic places that even if every citizen had a chance to vote for a law, would still pass asinine draconian laws. Heck look at the USA, they'd have a fair chance at banning gay marriage with a constitutional amendment, disbanding the EPA, revoking all environmental regulation and drilling in ANWR, or passing any damn thing with "cyber" and "security" in it (or "terrorists" and "security," for that matter). And a lot of places are much worse. There are places in the Caribbean where you'd have a decent chance at making homosexuality punishable by the death penalty.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by drinkypoo · 2011-09-12 01:45 · Score: 1

We probably should disband the EPA, it is not only ineffectual at its stated goals but it actually works against the will of the people today. The same is true of nearly every government organization, you name it, we can come up with an example of how it is doing evil. FDA is big pharma's tool. USDA is Monsanto's tool. CIA under Bush Sr. became the Cocaine Import Agency. Need I go on?

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by fyngyrz · 2011-09-12 02:30 · Score: 1

The bill of rights only became applicable to the states after the Supreme Court decided to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment in a novel way.
Novel?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
Seems clear to me. What is constitutional free speech but a privilege extended to US citizens guaranteed by the power of the federal government? Where would it come from if the federal government didn't guarantee it? The constitution seems to be the initial level of privilege definition and assurance for US citizens as a class in our society.
Likewise, the immunity from search without warrant, probable cause, and oath or affirmation arises specifically as a consequence of the constitution.
What other types of privileges or immunities could the 14th amendment possibly be talking about? Please enumerate some (or even one) specific privilege or immunity a US citizen has in the absence of the constitution. I would be fascinated to learn of such a thing. Not sure they don't exist, but I'm completely unsure where they would arise from. Please enlighten me.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by fyngyrz · 2011-09-12 02:36 · Score: 1

"The will of the people" is often not a good thing. That's why our society was designed as a constitutional democratic republic, rather than as a straight democracy. Not saying the delegates don't get it wrong -- they often do, and spectacularly -- but I think they do better than the masses do. For instance, with 80% or so of the country being Christian, general sentiment doesn't favor equal rights and immunities for atheists. But the republic does, because the constitution lays out principles that transcend popular sentiment. This is an excellent example of where the masses cannot be trusted to do the right thing, ergo where democracy is a bad idea.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by drinkypoo · 2011-09-12 02:41 · Score: 1

If you actually look at the history of the EC disagreeing with the popular vote I don't think you will think that it is a good thing.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by cobrausn · 2011-09-12 02:45 · Score: 1

A political leader with integrity and cojones. The three sets have a very small overlap.

Also, there is no way in hell I'd support secession with someone like Perry in charge. I think he would use it as an excuse to set up some kind of theocratic-leaning state. Even worse, he might support an interventionist foreign policy. I'd be worried what the 'new' constitution would look like under this kind of leadership. We're better off as part of the US for now. This also has the nice side effect of propping up the GDP of the US by about 8%, but the drawback of having our state education board influence national schools. Win some, lose some I suppose.

--
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by Gideon+Wells · 2011-09-12 03:03 · Score: 1

Times change. I am not bashing you with the following comment if you are a states' rights supporter, but are you just focused on that issue or the whole picture? That is just the largest and most promoted example I see, as a US citizen, being thrown around. It isn't the only example of that.
* Europe is following after the US. It is now in a state of affairs similar to what the early United States were in.
* Locally communities are merging. Access to cars and good roads have destroyed smaller communities and merged others. My town used to have five fire department wards for different named areas. Many, many more schools, but small ones. All due to each set of blocks, the group of homes up on the hill, the town itself, the group of homes on each side of the river, that group by the old shut down factory were factory owned with a factory store were all closed off groups effectively.
My grandparents still talk as if there are six/seven communities in the area, my parent thinks of the area as two/three but retains the others as direction descriptions, my siblings and I think of boro/township only due to legal differences. In my part of the country boros and townships are now looking to merge to reduce redundancy with how things are changing.
* Quick, are you talking about New York City or the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Statan Island?
Counties are becoming the new towns/cities. States are becoming the new counties. The US is/is becoming the new "state", It is merging all the way down and up.

--
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by fyngyrz · 2011-09-12 03:14 · Score: 1

The EC? European Comission?
If that's what you're talking about, I'm not surprised at the level of fail you indicate; the attempt to place one governmental entity over a large number of radically different cultures was fated to create discord from the very start. You need at least some kind of unified outlook in the populace to come to reasonable consensus on broad rule-making.
The US is a different case. We started small and to the extent that our states and regions express different cultures, they are mostly rooted in the same source, basically trying to extract ourselves from the bottomless pitfalls of England's foul 1700's-era monarchy. With perhaps one exception, the Louisiana region, whose culture expresses a mishmosh of French-derived law and custom.
We've made some horrible errors. Early on, slavery, subjugation of females, followed by McCarthyism, the Patriot Act, the current intentional inversion of the commerce clause, ex post facto laws, erosion and abrogation of constitutional authority by the executive, judiciary and congress -- but the design of the system remains, I think, a standout. The main problem is that there are no penalties for those individuals and government entities that violate the constitution.
It was a good try, and I'm sad to see our nation on its current downward swing. If we can't restore government compliance with our constitution, I fully expect to witness a complete collapse of our society. With the majority continuing to shout "rah-rah" in lockstep as we go.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by jackbird · 2011-09-12 03:15 · Score: 1

Honest question - what fraction of that 8% of GDP is DoD spending that would evaporate on secession day?
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by Zancarius · 2011-09-12 04:58 · Score: 1

And when Texans brag to non-Texans that their state constitution uniquely grants them the right to secede from the union at any time, we tell them "what are you waiting for?"
They may brag about it, but that was never in the version of the State constitution that was ratified when they rejoined the union.

--
He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by cobrausn · 2011-09-12 05:03 · Score: 1

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/defensemap2.html"/a>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

If you look at this number and compare it to other states, it appears defense spending is fairly proportional to state GDP (notice California). So, in other words, no, the Texas economy is not being propped up via defense spending... Virginia gets much more defense money (33% more), but has a GDP 1/5th of Texas. Alabama also seems to get a lot.

--
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by TangoMargarine · 2011-09-12 05:49 · Score: 1

Yeah, because that worked out so well the last time.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by Politburo · 2011-09-12 06:01 · Score: 1

This post is, of course, demonstratively false. On the first part, one need only look at air monitoring data, water quality data, haz waste disposal, etc. There is still a ways to go, but the idea that EPA is ineffectual is just silly. Ask anyone who was alive 50 years ago. By definition, EPA cannot work against the will of the people. The people's will is expressed through the Congress, which established the EPA and writes the laws that EPA uses as the framework for regulations. Congress has not suspended or revoked any of these laws wholesale. Congress did prohibit enforcement of a few specific rules, but these are very targeted cuts. Another measure of the will of the people is public opinion polling. Polls showed that the public was against EPA cuts and is generally for additional regulation in the area of climate change.
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by drinkypoo · 2011-09-12 06:16 · Score: 1

The EC? European Comission?
If that's what you're talking about,
No, we're talking about the USA, which is why I'm talking about the Electoral College. But I guess that's a reasonable misguess if you're thinking about something else.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by fyngyrz · 2011-09-12 10:47 · Score: 1

Whoops. Sorry. :)

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Korea? Wich Korea? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 03:59 · Score: 0

This is South Korea, people. They've been doing stuff like this for years.
I live there (...or here..where I currently am...in South Korea). You have to provide your federal ID number to post comments and play online games. When signing up for forum accounts you are sometimes even asked to verify which high school you attended. One time, since I'm a foreigner (non-Korean) I had to submit a scan of my passport for the game company in order for them to consider creating an account for me. I sent in the scan. They denied my account.
So, to answer your question: It's South Korea. The one you didn't think it was.

Seriously old news by crossmr · 2011-09-11 21:26 · Score: 5, Informative

Google did this over two years ago..seriously slashdot.. I know you're usually behind but this is embarrassing.

Wow timothy you are really clueless aren't you?
Cmdrtaco must be spinning in his grave.

This is extremely easy to bypass, just set your location to another country, done, you can upload and comment just fine.

Re:Seriously old news by ShiftyOne · 2011-09-11 21:32 · Score: 1

Apparently even the posters don't even bother reading the articles anymore... First line under the title: Apr 13, 2009 3:50 am
Re:Seriously old news by biduxe · 2011-09-11 21:49 · Score: 2

First line under the title: Apr 13, 2009 3:50 am
For those with disabled javascript the date is hidden.
Re:Seriously old news by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 23:10 · Score: 0

For those with disabled javascript the date is hidden.
Even so, the story is clearly several months old at least (April). Sure, April 2009 is way worse, but even April 2011 would be considered too old to post IMHO.
Are the editors actively trying to force CmdrTaco to return by posting crap?
Re:Seriously old news by MightyYar · 2011-09-12 00:05 · Score: 1, Funny

Dewey Defeats Truman!

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Seriously old news by ShakaUVM · 2011-09-12 00:58 · Score: 0

>>Dewey Defeats Truman!
Dude, put a SPOILER ALERT on that shit, ok?
Re:Seriously old news by Greyfox · 2011-09-12 01:57 · Score: 1

I'm going to treat it as musical theater! Like a tragiepic rock opera! Or Frank Zappa's "Thing Fish"!

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:Seriously old news by rubycodez · 2011-09-12 04:25 · Score: 1

CmdrTaco himself posted many dupes, old stories, incorrect headlines, etc. As long as the money from the eyeball clicks keeps coming in, the editors don't care now, CmdrTaco didn't care toward the end of his position either.
Re:Seriously old news by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 23:59 · Score: 0

Cmdrtaco must be spinning in his grave.
Maybe it was posted late on purpose? Maybe Cmdrtaco is connected to a generator and powering the site?

Isn't G. a little schizo about name collection? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 21:26 · Score: 0

On one hand: Google+ (Google's product) that mandates the use of real names, and on the other hand: YouTube (another Google's product) that does not want to collect real names...

Re:Isn't G. a little schizo about name collection? by crossmr · 2011-09-11 21:28 · Score: 0

keep in mind this story is 2 years old.
Timothy has apparently taken leave of his senses.
Re:Isn't G. a little schizo about name collection? by TheRaven64 · 2011-09-12 00:01 · Score: 2

And now YouTube is connected to G+, so real names for everyone!

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Isn't G. a little schizo about name collection? by crossmr · 2011-09-12 03:10 · Score: 1

the fact that this story is 2 years old is rather relevant..it's not like google is taking both actions at the same time..
apparently timothy must have gotten mod points..

Youtube comments by sakdoctor · 2011-09-11 21:27 · Score: 1

Yes, I'm all for disabling these globally. No good has come of allowing people to comment, or vote on videos.

Re:Youtube comments by adamofgreyskull · 2011-09-11 21:49 · Score: 1

Not true. The problem with widespread internet take-up is that more and more idiots are finding their way onto the internet. With the decline of Myspace and Geocities the internet needed a new idiot-sink. Youtube comments, and, indeed, the comments sections of most major news-outlets, draw in these idiots and lock them in combat with one another in a few easily avoidable places.
Re:Youtube comments by sakdoctor · 2011-09-11 21:53 · Score: 1

Maybe it's just nostalgia, but I can't remember geocities being that bad.
Re:Youtube comments by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 23:26 · Score: 0

You can blame aol i think.
they got more braindead morons onto the internet by just putting in a disk than anything else ever.. they turned 'the internet' into a household appliance that everyone should have like a stove.
And dammed if the masses are not ......... yeah.
Damm shame.
Re:Youtube comments by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 23:54 · Score: 0

> the internet needed a new idiot-sink
That would be facebook then.
Re:Youtube comments by TheRaven64 · 2011-09-12 00:02 · Score: 1

With the decline of Myspace and Geocities the internet needed a new idiot-sink

Isn't that what Facebook is for?

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Youtube comments by enrevanche · 2011-09-12 00:36 · Score: 1

You're against an expression of free speech because you don't like the comments. You have a great future as a censor, one of the few careers with ever expanding opportunities.
Re:Youtube comments by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 00:45 · Score: 0

It's not so much the comments I dislike, as the people making them.
Re:Youtube comments by Darkness404 · 2011-09-12 00:52 · Score: 1

Only if you friend request idiots.

That's the nice thing about Facebook, you can set your news feed only to the people who you actually care about.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:Youtube comments by Darkness404 · 2011-09-12 00:57 · Score: 1

There is a huge difference between government censorship and a corporation choosing what wants to do in regards to comments and voting. Freedom of expression is a natural right, being able to comment on X when X is a privately owned website is not.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:Youtube comments by captainproton1971 · 2011-09-12 01:03 · Score: 1

Maybe it's just nostalgia, but I can't remember geocities being that bad.
I think it's just nostalgia.
http://www.textfiles.com/underconstruction/
Re:Youtube comments by LordLimecat · 2011-09-12 01:06 · Score: 1

The problem with widespread internet take-up is that more and more idiots are finding their way onto the internet. With the decline of Myspace and Geocities the internet needed a new idiot-sink.
Honestly, I think we have a bigger problem with the number of people with superiority complexes on the internet, who assume that because someone doesnt understand technology or isnt a great typist, they must be utterly worthless as a person.
Its always fun dealing with (new) friends who constantly apologize for not knowing tech, because they assume that as a tech guy I will obviously look down on them for it. Thanks everyone for establishing that stereotype.
Re:Youtube comments by GameboyRMH · 2011-09-12 01:57 · Score: 1

Agreed. Geocities was full of bad design and lame fanfic, but it wasn't an idiot-sink. It was comparable to today's Blogger / Wordpress sites or Facebook pages (and make no mistake, if Facebook allowed it, most kids' pages would have a Matrix or Hello Kitty color scheme with auto-playing music just like the old Geocities pages. Up until about mid/late teens that is considered cool, I know, I was guilty of running such websites...). It took a little skill to get those sites up and running - not much, but beyond the skill level of Youtube/Reuters comment-grade stupid. Back in those days the idiot-sinks were just not as necessary, because the web wasn't so interactive. The idiots were only reading webpages, there was no means for their brains to take a shit all over them. AOL/Yahoo chat rooms & forums and MySpace had more than enough idiot-absorbing capacity (haha, like a diaper for the web).
Also, mod GP Insightful! Absolutely true, apart from that minor point.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Youtube comments by jellomizer · 2011-09-12 02:11 · Score: 1

No YouTube comments are idiotic not because of bad spelling, grammar, caps... The stuff they say is just stupid. I remembering one time I was watching some clips from an 80's TV show, for nostalgia and there was one sentence where the Bad Guy showed a little be of complexity to his character and said one sentence outside of what a Bad Guy would say and there was posts upon posts of people feeling sorry for the bad guys (who were otherwise quite evil) just from that one sentence.
No YouTube comments are not intelligent. Slashdot comments get a mix and although I may disagree with a lot of them they come with some thought behind it.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Youtube comments by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 05:15 · Score: 0

I'll take anonymity and free speech with idiots over thought repression any day. (By public shaming at best, by the government at worst.)
Re:Youtube comments by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 15:57 · Score: 0

THIS SECTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION (menatwork.gif)
this line is to mess with the slashdot capslock filter
SIGN MY GUEST BOOK
so is this line
ENJOY THIS LOOPING MIDI AT MAX VOLUME
filler filler filler filler
BEST VIEWED IN INTERNET EXPLORER
lol cocks
TRY MY NEW SHOCKWAVE GAME
It sucked.

Irony can be beautiful sometimes :) by youn · 2011-09-11 21:29 · Score: 1

Google takes strong stance against name collection after it says no to fake names on google+ :) haha... oh well, oops, things happen I guess

--
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p

G+, Anyone? by dsavi · 2011-09-11 21:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

I know this happened a while ago, but given the recent events about Google removing users from G+ that were using the service under a pseudonym, this feels really ironic.

Re:G+, Anyone? by Xest · 2011-09-11 22:26 · Score: 1

"this feels really ironic."
It shouldn't, because it's not.
Re:G+, Anyone? by Chris+Mattern · 2011-09-11 23:25 · Score: 0

"this feels really ironic."
It shouldn't, because it's not.
It's like rain on your wedding day.
Re:G+, Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:28 · Score: 0

I know this happened a while ago, but given the recent events about Google removing users from G+ that were using the service under a pseudonym, this feels really ironic.
Yeah! Bastards.
My bank does something similar. Fucking fascists.
Re:G+, Anyone? by Aldenissin · 2011-09-12 02:32 · Score: 1

Is this what a free ride feels like? (when I'm already late)
Really and honestly, it is edge on. Google has said that certain services will be full identity required, while others will not be. Youtube evidently will not be. However, I do remember them saying I would have to connect it to a Google/Gmail account awhile back...
Like 10,000 knives, when all I need is a spoon. Maybe, just maybe if I cut off my tongue, maybe I'll have one soon.

--
Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Re:G+, Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 08:31 · Score: 0

Er... yes, it is? I know it's cool these days to point out someone's mistake when they misuse the word "irony", but dsavi used it in a perfectly correct manner. Since Google has a policy of requiring people on G+ to use their real identities, you probably wouldn't expect them to care about something like this (or even support it!). But they do care, so it's ironic.
Re:G+, Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 15:50 · Score: 0

Yeah, complying with local laws is *SUCH* a buzzkill. Damn that evil Google, for doing what the government requires.
Re:G+, Anyone? by Xest · 2011-09-12 20:09 · Score: 1

Oh it's ironic that Google let's me search the web anonymously without using my real name!
Oh it's ironic that Google let me have a GMail account with a fake name!
Oh it's ironic that Google let me use Google docs without my real name!
No, it's not. To be ironic it has to go against Google's general intentions, and in the general case they clearly are supportive of anonymity. Google have been pretty clear G+ is a special case, and that real name isn't a global company policy, so there's no irony in their honesty. You only think it is because you've jumped to conclusions which is why you've had to use words with a get out clause like "probably" and, terms that are arbitrary and impossible to place a measure to like "care".
Re:G+, Anyone? by Slash.research_Kat · 2011-09-15 09:10 · Score: 1

G+ is a special case
How many G+ accounts can a person have?

--
This is a research account for studying online commenting so we can create tools to improve moderation.

Who cares about the crazy north koreans by 7-Vodka · 2011-09-11 21:33 · Score: 1

Seriously, who cares about the crazy North Korean dictatorship. I'm sure they're doing other outlandish things to like blacking out half the internet with their not-so-great-firewall and..

Oh.Shit. It's not the North Koreans...

Fuck. Well, I never knew the South Koreans were supposedly so bad at internet that they need to be tracked and punished.

I guess now when they whomp me at Starcraft I'll at least have their real names so I can know who beat me IRL.

--

Liberty.

Re:Who cares about the crazy north koreans by toriver · 2011-09-12 05:53 · Score: 1

Looking at their history, even the South Koreans are relatively new to this democracy thingamabob...

This is not new, nor a surprise by addie · 2011-09-11 21:34 · Score: 4, Informative

This comes as no surprise to me, having worked and studied in Korea for over five years. There was virtually no way to access any online services - buying tickets, posting comments on news sites and the ubiquitous online cyber-cafes, online gaming - without a government ID number. As foreigners, we are issued an Alien Registration Card (ARC) which ostensibly does the same thing, however in my experience this never worked. Perhaps that was a blessing in disguise, as it meant I didn't put myself in a position to be easily tracked.

That all aside, the mad cow protests of 2008 exemplify why the government wants to do this. Inflammatory comments on cyber-cafes fueled a ridiculous campaign of misinformation that led to the shutting down of downtown Seoul for months on end (not to mention riot police, water cannons, abuse of foreigners, etc). This all stems from the National Security Law, designed to prevent discussion of communist ideals, and support for the DPRK. The acceptance of that law has led to gradual acceptance of further but unrelated restrictions on free speech.

The most depressing aspect of this is that most South Koreans who I know don't see this as a problem. As long as they continue to achieve economic progress, lack of civil liberties is little more than an inconvenience. I hope the attitudes of this generation will change, but only time will tell.

Re:This is not new, nor a surprise by recrudescence · 2011-09-11 22:10 · Score: 1

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin
Re:This is not new, nor a surprise by nine932038 · 2011-09-12 02:21 · Score: 2

I'm not sure that this is necessarily a bad thing. If you've been keeping up with the Chosun Ilbo, you may have noticed that there are an increasing number of crimes being routed over the 'net. For example, there've been a lot of cases of online bullying leading to suicides, and unsavoury stories of middle school students being blackmailed into prostitution via online means. Not to mention all the cases of internet addiction.
I admit that this may not be the best idea. Ideally, the police would investigate online crimes like any other crimes. But given that they don't seem very interested in investigating things (unless they're related to foreigner crimes, of course), this might be a valid way to target crimes from another angle.
Re:This is not new, nor a surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 04:24 · Score: 0

I'll play devil's advocate here, defending the action of Korean gov't. Korea is not a big country. A large mob of people can gather at a certain spot for some specific of action, good or bad. This means someone with a wrong information can easily destroy someone else's life, as recently demonstrated with a wrong identification of a guy on an online video who physically and verbally abused an elder man. There were other instances where some postings incited a flash mob to do some real injury on some people. These people who move to action based on these videos or sob-story postings do not normally check the fact behind the story, and usually, it's the police who comes after the fact to clean up the scene. Koreans are, generally speaking, impatient people, and this types of social action through online postings are too volatile and often violent. I hope you start to see some rationale behind gov't policy of utilizing real names.
Re:This is not new, nor a surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 01:12 · Score: 0

Sounds like Amerika today. As long as Amerikans are "safe", fat and stupid, they seem to be happy! But that is all changing isn't it? They are not going to be so fat for so much longer as the jobs evaporate, prices rise and they have to choose between heat (or in many cases, a home) and food. Pursuit of safety is all an illusion used to control, degrade and subjugate the citizenry. Loss of civil liberties in Amerika has only just begun. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Which Korea ? by Pascal+Sartoretti · 2011-09-11 21:35 · Score: 0

Maybe Americans should learn that there are two Koreas, and that they are very different countries in terms of human rights....

Re:Which Korea ? by Vinegar+Joe · 2011-09-11 22:22 · Score: 2

And maybe South Korea should stop acting like North Korea.

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Re:Which Korea ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 23:37 · Score: 1

Generally we don't talk about North Korea unless it's about their shenanigans. So when we say Korean, we mean South Korea.
Stop being dense.
Re:Which Korea ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 00:33 · Score: 1

There are two Koreas, the one full of crazy militaristic bastards and the one ruled by Kim Jong Il.
Re:Which Korea ? by LordLimecat · 2011-09-12 01:09 · Score: 1

While we're using inflationary language, someone should just go ahead and call them Nazi Germany and get it over with. I mean, clearly censoring the internet is the same as being Hitler, right?
Re:Which Korea ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:35 · Score: 0

Overly exaggerated comparisons are worse than Hitler.
Re:Which Korea ? by Aldenissin · 2011-09-12 02:40 · Score: 1

He just well, effectively "closed off" this thread. (not really, he doesn't have that much cred.; illus. purposes only.)

--
Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.

freedom of speech? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 21:38 · Score: 0

actually the need of a nickname to use in the internet to say what you REALLY feel and think instead of your real name and ID just because you are afraid of being isolated from the society may be claimed as a contradiction in not-so-easily-defined land of freedom of speech, or not?

What a terrible law . . . by Cyberllama · 2011-09-11 21:38 · Score: 1

There are a lot of people elsewhere who think this sort of crap makes sense--mostly people sick of cleaning up forums full of trolls. Even some major sites, like Techcrunch, have made the mistake of switching to Facebook for their blog comment system. It really makes me sad to see that kind of thing happen.

Sure, you cut back on trolling but you cut back on a lot of good stuff too when people don't feel free to speak honestly. I'm not willing to make a political statement of any sort attached to my real name on the internet. It's not that I don't have political views, I'm just afraid someday that I'll be at a job interview and somebody with opposite views will have Google'd me and I'll end up not getting the job.

Re:What a terrible law . . . by crossmr · 2011-09-11 21:56 · Score: 3, Informative

That's not how it works. The real name is only attached to the back-end, not what people see. Even then, this story is 2 years old and the government here is moving away from it in a sense. They're now encouraging the use of the real name system through a proxy. Your first create an ID at another site, you then use that ID to sign-up at the target site. At some point your ID is verified, but not on the main site. They won't have your identity to reveal, but it still allows them to permanently ban trolls.

HYPOCRITES! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 21:42 · Score: 0

Enforcing Real Name Only on Google+, and they pulled this crap? (a few years back at that! So old, strangely never heard about it then though)
Yeah, they are two different sections under Google and it probably would have been a non-issue, IF THEY NEVER DELETED ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.

Seriously Google, you are making it so much easier for me to hate you these days. I'm beginning to lose all faith in you.
Killing projects left, right and center, killing off Labs and all that comes with it (Google Research essentially), real name nonsense.
What next? Kill Google Sites? Code? Usenet Access? Groups in their entirety? WHAT NEXT, GOOGLE?!

Re:HYPOCRITES! by 91degrees · 2011-09-11 21:45 · Score: 1

Don't think it's a morality issue so much as practicality.

Not that I'd encourage anyone to trust Google more than any other company,

Effing Korea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 21:53 · Score: 0

Which effing Korea are you talking about? Or are you not sure?

Re:Effing Korea by toriver · 2011-09-12 06:00 · Score: 1

The former military dictatorship south of the Demilitarized Zone.

Google gone too far. New search engines, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 21:55 · Score: 0

Ironic? It feels like part of the same wider issue to me.

Anyway, google are really going too far now. I can live without GMail etc., but are there any proper alternatives to Google's search engine yet? No, bing / yahoo are not substitutes, and they have the same problems with censorship / results manipulation.

I mean, have any new search engines with good motives and a good database size showed up yet? What about the p2p web search efforts?

Yet another tool for control and suppression? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 22:07 · Score: 1

Maybe we should drop the Internet alltogether. We were fine without it. We are losing touch of reality and each other. Real people are way cooler than a stupid app on your "smart" phone.
The Internet is no longer the useful tool it was designed to be, but a weapon and a channel to gather intelligence and profile individuals. Just like nuclear energy, the governments find a way to use and exploit the desctructive nature of an invention or discovery.

Re:Yet another tool for control and suppression? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 23:49 · Score: 0

Man, have you got it backwards. It is more of a weapon for us than it is for them. Governments have been controlling people forever, with every tool available. Now we have tools to see them doing it. We weren't fine without it. It is like we were blind and didn't know it.
Re:Yet another tool for control and suppression? by peragrin · 2011-09-12 00:12 · Score: 1

Anything can be a weapon. Old lady church gossip has been used to spread more lies and hurt more people than every stalker who used google.
This is what most people dont realize. Nothing changes in human interactions, merely the tools used is what changes.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.

Congradulations!! by thegarbz · 2011-09-11 22:12 · Score: 1

Congrats first time accepted submitter Pseudonym Authority, your presence has made Slashdot even worse. Seriously though, who thought it would be a good idea to accept a submitter for the first time for posting an article FROM FUCKING APR 13, 2009!!!!!!!

Are we trying to set the bar so stupidly low that a cat on a keyboard can become a Slashdot submitter, and then not only accept the submission but announce it in glory and praise?

Remember when they rolled out the Idle tag, at least we could block that! Maybe Slashdot needs a feature to block first time submitters. ... Though then there'd be nothing left to read right?

Re:Congradulations!! by qwertyatwork · 2011-09-11 22:30 · Score: 2

...Are we trying to set the bar so stupidly low that a cat on a keyboard

dfhjdsg...dsdgjku8io8nss555%%%

Sincerely Fluffy
Re:Congradulations!! by WinstonWolfIT · 2011-09-11 22:31 · Score: 1

Congrats first time accepted submitter Pseudonym Authority, your presence has made Slashdot even worse. Seriously though, who thought it would be a good idea to accept a submitter for the first time for posting an article FROM FUCKING APR 13, 2009!!!!!!!
Are we trying to set the bar so stupidly low that a cat on a keyboard can become a Slashdot submitter, and then not only accept the submission but announce it in glory and praise?
Remember when they rolled out the Idle tag, at least we could block that! Maybe Slashdot needs a feature to block first time submitters. ... Though then there'd be nothing left to read right?
This.
Re:Congradulations!! by WinstonWolfIT · 2011-09-11 22:33 · Score: 1

This
Re:Congradulations!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 23:12 · Score: 0

... a cat on a keyboard ...
Re:Congradulations!! by jovius · 2011-09-12 02:03 · Score: 1

And, as first-time accepted submitter.... The process seems to take about two years.
Re:Congradulations!! by Pseudonym+Authority · 2011-09-13 10:29 · Score: 1

Why are you flaming me? ;_;
Re:Congradulations!! by thegarbz · 2011-09-13 20:33 · Score: 1

Because you made an accident, but don't take it personally, I mean no offense. The people who should really be the subject of my negativity are the horrendously worthless editors Slashdot allegedly employes who can't do something as simple as check a news story to see if it even comes from the correct decade.
Re:Congradulations!! by Pseudonym+Authority · 2011-09-14 09:18 · Score: 1

I actually read the story on Yahoo! News Japan, but I didn't figure anyone else could read Japanese, so I just googled up a similar story in English and used that. The one I read was new though. Their story has since been removed though, so I don't know what to think.
Re:Congradulations!! by thegarbz · 2011-09-14 21:01 · Score: 1

To your credit the article didn't have the date printed in it, but if you clicked on print view it would come up with 2009.
But check out this, you can be forgiven for picking the first result from a google search, but Timothy our most worthless editor can definitely not be forgiven for missing this piece of work: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/04/14/1226259/YouTube-Halts-Uploads-and-Comments-In-Korea

Geez, what next? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 22:24 · Score: 0

Next thing you'll be telling me the Beatles are breaking up, or some cockamamie story that we'll have an actor in the White House soon! Kids these days...

Would that stops the bloggers? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 22:50 · Score: 0

Don't all the savvy bloggers use proxy's?

It turns out S.Korea now wants to scrap this act! by psiXaos · 2011-09-11 23:15 · Score: 5, Informative

Read it here: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-08/11/content_13095102.htm

FTA: "The Ministry of Public Administration and Security is set to report to ruling party lawmakers about comprehensive measures to protect personal information online, including abolishing the real-name registration system, Yonhap news agency said."

Also, this says the system was in effect since 2007 :)

--
"Beauty is the ultimate defense against complexity" - Machine Beauty

How do they tell for sure? by davidbrit2 · 2011-09-11 23:21 · Score: 1

Do they just block anybody whose view history is more than 80% Starcraft?

Stupid law is stupid by DrXym · 2011-09-11 23:23 · Score: 1

You have to wonder what was going on in politicians heads to pass this stupid law. It's so easy to bypass and so draconian that it stifles free speech and does nothing to protect against what it is supposed to exist for.

I'm quite certain that Korea could have implemented a national OpenID server (perhaps operated privately and under strict rules about information disclosure) where people could register and create aliases but still be accountable should someone pay a large deposit and file the legal paperwork to reveal who they were.

Timothy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 23:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

Timothy,

There is simply no way that a community of this caliber can maintain its readership with such a sudden and significant drop in quality. We used to have something very special here--something that made you want to get out of bed in the middle of the night just to read. Please reconsider your recent shift in editorial oversight, or else gracefully step down from your position. I mean, seriously, please, while there's still a core community here.

Sincerely,
Anonymous Coward

Does any of the admins RTFA? by Hamsterdan · 2011-09-11 23:39 · Score: 1

Or the submitters?

From TFA:

"By Martyn Williams, IDG News Apr 13, 2009 3:50 am "

2 and a half years late is not exactly news. What next, Apple inc hires back Jobs and fires Scully?

--
I've got better things to do tonight than die.

Re:Does any of the admins RTFA? by toriver · 2011-09-12 06:02 · Score: 1

Or: IBM buys unproven hack of an OS from smallish compiler maker Microsoft instead of industry standard CP/M for their expensive desktop computer line - failure is guaranteed.

why not just post from google+? by sl4shd0rk · 2011-09-11 23:42 · Score: 1

all you need to do is have google verify the person opening the account is who they say they are... oh wait..

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!

Re:Google gone too far. New search engines, anyone by TheRaven64 · 2011-09-12 00:05 · Score: 2

I switched to DuckDuckGo a while ago. It uses Yahoo's BYOSS, which uses Bing on the back end, but it doesn't record any user-identifiable information (even preferences are stored in a cookie that is just a string of preference flags, so two uses with the same preferences will have the same cookie). It uses HTTPS by default, and it (optionally) bounces you via a redirect page to strip out referrer information if you're really paranoid. The search results are okay. It has a link to send you to Google if you don't find the results you want, and the only times I've clicked on it, Google hasn't found anything useful either. Oh, and the UI is a lot nicer than Google.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Google, my love, I think you're missing something. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 00:09 · Score: 0

Well Google, don't get me wrong. When we first started out, I loved you. It was passionate and all, and hell, it still is sometimes. But I mean, you're turning a bit bipolar on me. I think you might need to seek some professional help.

Google blocks comments from an entire country because of a real-name law.
--->
Google deletes Google+ Accounts because of their own real-name law.

Am I missing something somewhere, or is this just off?

What's the big problem? by stevencbrown · 2011-09-12 00:22 · Score: 1

before I even read the comments on this story, I knew that Slashdot group think would be squarely against it.

I would usually say I'm quite aligned with the group think, but in this case, I'm not so sure.

I've been thinking for quite a while that the internet would be improved if everyone had to post things under their real identity. It's easy to go for a knee jerk omg, what about people's privacy. But to me, privacy on the net generally (and increasingly) seems to be a cover for posting abuse/rubbish, and it significantly lowers the value of the internet.

Maybe real names isn't the way to fix it, but I think the quality of the net would improve if we could find a way to prevent people positing without the slightest thought.

Re:What's the big problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 00:59 · Score: 1

I like anonymous posting because it's one less username/password combo to remember, one less account to potentially be hacked that I have to do damage control for, and my comments are one less regret I have in life to worry about (hopefully).
Even with real names attached, you're still going to have the Internet Tough Guys who will go around saying the racist/terrible/ignorant things they were willing to say before. In fact, some may even go out of their way to do so just to prove how tough they are and how little they care. You can still have reasonably intelligent people that are using their real names having offensive conversations. Just check the religious/political/skepticism forums on usenet going 20 years back.
Your name is pretty generic (even with the middle initial). Would you feel the same way if your name was Regeanaldinho Ferquerarsonson and a google search was a unique timeline of your posting history?
I feel bad for the kids today who are growing up with YouTube and posting all their mistakes of childhood online. You have a window of maybe a couple of minutes or hours before you realize the mistake you've made and pull your video, otherwise anything notable gets swallowed up, reposted, and remixed.

Shouldn't Be A Problem... by mlauzon · 2011-09-12 00:24 · Score: 1

For Google, seeing as how they want your real name anyway....

--
Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163

Re:Google, my love, I think you're missing somethi by borrel · 2011-09-12 00:28 · Score: 1

mmm, because not giving you real name or posting a comment with political statements not supporting the government can result in death or punishment and because a social network have to be trusted and with varius governments trying to impersonate the public. not doing 1 of them endangers peaple's freedom or securety

Dear Google+ by Denogh · 2011-09-12 00:29 · Score: 1

Take a lesson from your YouTube division.

"We have a bias in favor of freedom of expression and are committed to openness," said Lucinda Barlow, a spokeswoman for YouTube in Asia. "It's very important that if users want to be anonymous that they have that chance."

Re:Google gone too far. New search engines, anyone by countertrolling · 2011-09-12 00:50 · Score: 1

...it doesn't record any user-identifiable information...

You actually believe that?

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

DPRK already has enough trouble with lighting by tepples · 2011-09-12 01:28 · Score: 1

Maybe the other Korea should start making home Internet access available to the majority of citizens. They already have enough trouble with lighting (scroll down).

Brain melt by Zamphatta · 2011-09-12 01:32 · Score: 1

Wait a minute, Google forces people to use their real name on G+, but they refuse to allow Koreans to use their real name on Youtube. Ummm...

Sounds more like North Korea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:33 · Score: 0

I do think this is a rather sad state of affairs. I've just come back from a couple of weeks in DPRK (North Korea) - this is the sort of thing you'd expect from there, not South Korea.

Incidentally, I wore a North Korean tshirt to a "Korean" festival here in London a couple of days ago. They were taking publicity photos of those attending but asked me to turn sideways so my tshirt wouldn't be visible in the photograph. It is illegal to publicise the DPRK in South Korea - but I didn't realise this irrational fear extended to the UK too.

South Korea have even blocked websites of British companies like http://www.koryotours.com/ (who offer tours to North Korea).

If you have some spare cash then I thoroughly recommend a trip to North Korea - it's worth it alone for the annual Mass Games performances, with 100,000 performers plus 20,000 school children holding picture cards -- truly incredible. Anyone can go including Americans, but sadly not South Koreans.

They only have about 2000 Western tourists a year. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese also visit as it's the only country they can visit without having to pay the government a bond guaranteeing that they will return - I imagine they wouldn't want to stay in the DPRK. I'm glad I went - apparently it's changing gradually as the government loosen controls on markets and increase trade with China. There are loads of blogs on visiting as a western tourist. You do have to go on a tour with guides, but our group was very mixed with American ex-military officers, school teachers, IT geeks and so on - made for some interesting debates.

Dear Slashdot: First-time submitters by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:48 · Score: 1

First-time article submitters don't need a special shout out. Simply giving them credit for submitting the article is sufficient. Why am I complaining? Two of Slashdot's founders have departed in the past year or so... Slashdot is dying; I am trying to save it.

HALLELUJAH!!!!11 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:58 · Score: 0

Finally, someone with enough GUTS, God, and Glory to speak the politically incorrect TRUTH!!!

I have just emerged from the re-education camp. I now know that 2 + 2 = 5, freedom is slavery, and everything the parent AC said is true! Now where is my commander Adolf?

Re:HALLELUJAH!!!!11 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:31 · Score: 0

heh, more like an opportunistic viper sitting under your bed (or police sniper, waiting for a shot around a human shield).
Sooo fun, so much good news, brings joy to my heart thinking this 'rule' may come to a soon and unexpected end, that'll be the time for dancing and singing praises. For now it's sending bereaved and well armed parents into news room to compensate our failed courts.

Coward! by formfeed · 2011-09-12 02:26 · Score: 1

You anonymous Coward!

If you have nothing to hide there is no reason for anonymity. Just use your real name.

Yours,
formfeed

Read that wrong. by justin12345 · 2011-09-12 02:32 · Score: 1

When a saw the header I stopped at "Youtube Disables Comments" and thought for an instance that the world was improving for once. I should have known better.

--
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.

Can they do it for the US too? by assertation · 2011-09-12 02:42 · Score: 1

Seriously, about 83% of the comments on youtube are adolescent and ignorant.

Re:Can they do it for the US too? by RogerWilco · 2011-09-12 03:16 · Score: 1

lol wut?

--
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor

Re:Google, my love, I think you're missing somethi by fyngyrz · 2011-09-12 02:53 · Score: 1

Whooosh

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Censorship? by tenco · 2011-09-12 02:59 · Score: 1

How's that censorship? You still can say whatever you want to say. You just have to stand by your word now - like, before the internet.

Re:Censorship? by crossmr · 2011-09-12 03:13 · Score: 1

Actually in Korea they have a history of wearing special masks while criticizing the government..

Could have been worse by RogerWilco · 2011-09-12 03:15 · Score: 1

It could have been worse. The article could have been from APR 1, 2009.

--
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor

The Constitution doesn't mean that. by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-09-12 03:22 · Score: 1

Actually, no. The privileges and immunities clause has pretty much been written out of the constitution--it refers only to a very few things, such as the right to petition the government. In the MacDonald case (Chicago 2nd amendment case a few years back) there was an effort to make it mean something, but SCOTUS decided the only reason they wanted it to was to write law review articles--they used the due process clause instead, IIRC, but they certainly didn't use the PI clause.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Constitutional free speech is a "due process" protection--and even that was not clear until long after the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. Look up the incorporation doctrine.

The federal government guaranteed it as against the federal government at first, and it was only later that it applied to the states. Some states also give free speech rights in their constitutions. It still doesn't apply to private actors.

The fourth amendment, likewise, was not incorporated to apply against state agents until Mapp v. Ohio in 1961. It too was incorporated not under the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!

Re:The Constitution doesn't mean that. by fyngyrz · 2011-09-12 10:45 · Score: 1

The privileges and immunities clause has pretty much been written out of the constitution
No, it hasn't. No such amendment exists; and there's no other way to legitimately remove it. What you're referring to is illegitimate action of the judiciary, usurping article 5 powers that were never authorized via article 3. You're talking about the actions of traitors who are in violation of their solemn oaths.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:The Constitution doesn't mean that. by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-09-12 11:54 · Score: 1

"pretty much." It does still mean something.
Someone has to decide what it means. The people whom our society has decided to let decide what it means have decided it has a pretty narrow meaning.
That interpretation is not "illegitimate." Two centuries of precedent makes it legitimate. The fact that it is accepted as legitimate by our lawmakers makes it legitimate. It is not an act of treason for a court which judges a case or controversy arising from the laws of the United States, including the Constitution, to decide that the Constitution should be interpreted in a certain way--at least not where the meaning is not plain from the face of the document.
Originalists would note that at least some of the Founding fathers considered the power of judicial review key--didn't Hamilton write about it in one of the Federalist papers?

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Re:The Constitution doesn't mean that. by fyngyrz · 2011-09-21 04:22 · Score: 1

The federalist papers are not the constitution. The constitution says what it says, not what some judge (or you) *want* it to say. It doesn't include many of the ideas of those who crafted it; significant numbers of those ideas didn't make it through the selection process. And what it actually says is that the only way to mod the constitution is via article five.
Precedent in the sense you mean it is argument from false justification, without regard for correctness or authorization. For instance, there was precedent for slavery. Legal and otherwise. Slavery is still completely lacking in justification start to finish. Law is likewise: For (US) law not to be bullshit, it has to comply 100% with the constitution. Just because legislation is produced, that doesn't mean it's right, justified, or authorized -- or that it should be obeyed.
The government is FORBIDDEN from doing certain things by the HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND, which law was set in place by the government's employers, the citizens; therefore, when the government does those things, it is acting CRIMINALLY. No judge, congressperson, or member of the executive can change that by any action legitimately available to them. The fact that they even try is just more evidence that they are the very worst sort of criminals. Only action in accordance with article five can *legitimately* change the constitution.
You -- and anyone else who thinks congress, the executive, or judges can change the constitution -- have been duped.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:The Constitution doesn't mean that. by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-09-21 06:56 · Score: 1

Did you see the part about "not plain from the face of the document?"
You have the right to bare arms. But "arms" might include only the arms invented when the Constitution was passed, since those are the arms the founders had in mind when they wrote "arms," and giving the word any other meaning would be an undemocratic restriction in the power of the state. "Arms" might include everything from machine guns to atomic bombs to a knife. Or "arms" might mean something in the middle. It's not always obvious what something means.
It's not always obvious what "interstate commerce" means. What if you walk to the store through a shortcut that takes you through a neighboring state? What if your goods don't move to another state, but they influence goods that do?
When I, as a citizen, tell my representative that I want a law prohibiting murder, someone may have to come along twenty years later and decide whether murder includes, for example, the deliberate assault on a pregnant girl made in order to kill the fetus. (I read a case like this recently.) Someone has to decide whether that is legitimately an act that the law punishes.
Everything is not black and white. The Constitution is not some universally dogmatic truth that has a single meaning that works across every case where it comes up. What does "Due Process" mean? What process is due? What is unreasonable search and seizure? What makes it unreasonable?
You can decide not to obey the interpretations people give, but this isn't like the notes in the back of old Protestant family bibles, given by a church--this is there because not to interpret the language consistently would be unjust. Suppose Alice lives somewhere where people think "arms" include machine guns, but Bob lives in a place where people think "arms" only includes handguns. Now Alice has a constitutional right that Bob lacks, and that lack of uniformity--the lack of a body of precedent to establish meaning in the face of potential ambiguity--is unjust.
I agree that there is argument from "false justification," as you put it, but that is certainly not the only argument or basis for common law.
And if you think they are the worst sort of criminals... that you're wrong about. You may even hate them, but they are by no means the worst sort of criminals. Even if we were to take as a given that their action were crime. We live in a world where slavery, rape, and murder are exceedingly common. The Members of the judiciary, for the most part, are simply not that bad. Some of them may be arrogant, some of them may rule unjustly or unwisely, and most of them will do something pretty stupid at least once in their careers that has serious consequences for people. But I will not say that someone who sits on a bench and makes rulings for society as he was taught to do and as his society considers just is in any way a worse criminal than the men who routinely rape and arrange for the rape of sixteen-year-old girls. And that is even sticking to the common crimes, and leaving out things like genocide and war crimes.

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!

South Korea is the free Korea by br00tus · 2011-09-12 03:31 · Score: 2

South Korea is the free Korea. You know it is free because it has military bases of a foreign nation (the US) which is blessed by God scattered all over it. This law is good because it protects South Korea from the evil North Korea, whose military bases are only staffed by Koreans - they have no foreign military bases protecting their freedom. If South Koreans can go online and criticize the government without entering their national ID number, this might hurt freedom. Some South Korean freedom-haters tried to have elections in 1980. Thankfully, the military government went in and massacred all of these freedom-hating communists. Thankfully, US Ambassador Gleysteen and General Wickham authorized martial law in Gwangju after the massacre, for humanitarian reasons as they put it back then. I know North Korea is the evil Korea and South Korea is the great, freedom loving Korea, with US troops backing it. In fact five years ago, soldiers from the US air base were making friends with the local people in Gwangju. Keep showing those pictures on US TV of North Korean tanks and Kim Jong-Il whenever North Korea is mentioned, propaganda in the GDR was a little more subtle.

It has nothing to do with this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 03:38 · Score: 0

This is the real story (seriously): http://omonatheydidnt.livejournal.com/7471799.html

Youtube is free, Plus is not...?? by charityanne · 2011-09-12 03:46 · Score: 1

What about all the mess with Google Plus and denying people their professed identities? Hypocritical much??

Part of me likes this. by Petersko · 2011-09-12 03:58 · Score: 1

Most of me rejects the idea of forcing people to disclose who they are online for many reasons. There is a small part of me that thinks that the anonymity of the internet allows assholes to be assholes at a whole other level, and it wouldn't be a terrible idea for somebody to show up at their door with a crowbar once in a while.

Re:Google gone too far. New search engines, anyone by Larryish · 2011-09-12 04:02 · Score: 1

I use Scroogle SSL through Privoxy on the local machine.

Scrubbing FTW.

Anything grey-area goes through a foreign proxy.

South Korea? Yup by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 05:35 · Score: 0

This is nothing new, you need to have a Korean SSN just to play MMO's out there. Good luck visiting the country and posting to your blog.

This is old news by D+H+NG · 2011-09-12 05:43 · Score: 2

This happened 2 years ago, and the Korean government already caputulated and gave YouTube an exemption.

Two year old article. by Weedhopper · 2011-09-12 06:33 · Score: 2

Look at the date of the article! It's two years old.

Protection V/s Privacy by vishal+dogra · 2011-09-12 22:16 · Score: 1

Everyone needs privacy even on the open forums where they can burst out what they feel. But sometimes privacy is leading to cyber crimes. The law passed by korean Government is to avoid misuse of internet and to avoid posting of adult and videos related to the security of the nation. You tube is a wonderful website for posting and commenting on the content. Korea should have access to the ID of the video uploader but there should be a line of secrecy somewhere.

--
vishal dogra

so the country has unified again? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-14 06:24 · Score: 0

maybe now the usa will get out

Outdated! Korean Gov't will abandon system by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 08:45 · Score: 0

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/technology/naming-names-on-the-internet.html?_r=1

Slashdot Mirror

YouTube Disables Comments and User Uploads For Korean Users

237 comments