I almost never heard anyone say good things about the real name policy (except Google themselves of course, when forced to), and can't imagine anyone who would, except marketing drones. If you want me to participate in an online community in a lasting and meaningful way, there's no way in hell I'm using my real name.
Even worse, Google tried to confuse the issue (i.e. talk out of both sides of its mouth) by drawing a practically meaningless distinction between your "real" name and your "common" name. See, your common name is "the name that you commonly go by in daily life," as opposed to your real name which is . . . fuck if I know. IMO, it was intentional double speak so they could claim "it's not actually a real name policy" whenever convenient.
Add to that at least one false start of rescinding the policy (is this one for real? Who knows?), and it's no wonder most of the internet judged them no more trustworthy (and of course potentially more dangerous) than Facebook.
It's also telling that in numerous Google+ post mortem pieces, you never hear the execs and PR people address the real name policy as a root cause, despite the widespread criticism and rejection of it. They wouldn't feign rescinsion of the real name policy if they didn't know everyone hated it, and they wouldn't fail to acknowledge it as a problem if they really intended to fix it.
This is not about "important" tweets any more than the "Trust and Safety Council" is about "harrassment" or "trolling." It's about controlling which content everyone is allowed to see (i.e. making it more like television).
There's a reason people dismiss claims of IRL "harm" the from Tipper Gores or Jack Thompsons or Anita Sarkeesians of the world. The burden of proof is always squarely on them, they almost always fail to meet it, and years later we (as often as not) get scientific evidence showing the opposite.
I know of very few people in my social circle who have a Facebook account. I'm sure people who use Facebook will know few people who don't.
And "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" applied only to actors and actresses, so that's fair enough. On the other hand, the six was not (as I understood it) supposed to be an average, but a maximum without exceptions, so Facebook is probably falling short in that regard.
Microsoft is sick and tired of customers resisting their latest shiny upgrade, and downright pissed off when they resist successfully, as with Vista and 8. So they are going all-in on establishing the capability to push any and all code/UI they want, for any purpose they want (DRM/adware/spyware/forced account login/whatever), to your machine at any time. If the current Windows 10 updates are this evil, imagine what they'll be like when users have no alternative.
There was a successful kickstarter for something similar, which IMO gets ripped to shreds in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you love solar panels, then why not put them, well, anywhere else instead of on a road surface where they will be under constant, severe assault by heavy vehicles with tires that can leave light-blocking rubber on them.
Doing this would be expensive and ineffective, if not impossible. It seems good for nothing but a scam to bilk investors or as another vacuous Green PR campaign.
You're right; it was my fault. I had the page zoomed to a point that it adjusted by omitting the time. And I thought it started happening earlier today because earlier articles didn't seem to be affected, but that's only because "Soulskill" is shorter than "samzenpus."
And that Mozilla gave in on DRM and continues to make inexpicable blunders and lose market share.
After such a relentless campaign to ensure all available browsers contain DRM, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see DRM used to protect ads, particularly in video. Stopping you from reading/recording a video stream necessarily stops you from altering it.
Damn, am I ever so happy (as always) that the proven tech leader was ousted as Mozilla's CEO in favor of the former head of marketing.
For a moment I was hoping the "malware" just removed the manufacturers cruddy adware/malware, transforming the device into an old-fashioned "dumb" just-works television.
"Watch Us Try to Spin as Many Science Fiction Works as Possible into Supporting All the Progressive Talking Points We Were Planning to Cram Down Your Throat Anyway"
Getting repeatedly called out on thinly-veiled, agenda-driven clickbait like this is exactly why Motherboard Vice censored its comment sections.
Hacktivists just annoy people briefly. It's the SJWs getting their brand of censorship baked into the terms of service of popular social media and blogging sites that have me worried. They're the ones who are really going to block freedom of speech by making it so that anyone who exercises their freedom of speech faces the possibility of being effectively blacklisted from ever working again. (See Trump being fired from his own reality TV show for telling the truth about immigration in the US. Now imagine that same thing used against someone without the resources to shrug it off.)
Spot on. Bit of a red flag in the summary:
As New World Hackers demonstrate, attacks can target the wrong people and restrict free speech.
I'd like to give this phrasing the benefit of the doubt, but after seeing countless anti-Gamergate types behave according to the mantra "No bad tactics--only bad targets," I really can't. You're part of the problem if you don't understand that Trump is as much the "wrong" person as the BBC, and those who act to silence him also "restrict free speech."
By using the term "SJW", you have outed yourself as someone who has had to deal with annoying, attention-seeking, dishonest, power-hungry, hypocritcal SJWs.
Want to muscle your way into an OSS project, despite lacking the talent or skill (or willingness) to contribute anything other than drama, identity politics, and an insatiable urge control others (or remove them if they don't fall in line)? Force a Code of Conduct (which is often explicitly racist and/or sexist, dismissive of merit, and vague enough to be selectively enforced) down its throat! It even works on the largest projects!
Her motivation was in the right place. She is trying to protect black men from being constantly killed by the Republican's thugs in blue.
Nice troll.
Isn't it though.
In my experience, if there's one tenet that reliably and consistently predicts (if not drives) an SJW's opinions and behavior, it's the one that tells them "It's OK when we do it."
Twitter is private, not a government so it technically can't be censoring. They have a right to delete whatever they want from their site.
Whoever told you that, make sure you never trust anything they say ever again. When it comes to the Bill of Rights, the ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment wide, but even it knows better than to say what you just did: https://www.aclu.org/what-cens...
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
Remember when Reddit (and Google and most of the internet) stood up and actively, officially, and effectively opposed SOPA and PIPA? Well, CISA just passed without a peep from them, while they instead actively censor discussion of similar things like the TPP.
Do you see yet why private censorship shouldn't be ignored?
Why didn't the earlier story about internet freedom make any mention of this Twitter banfest, Slashdot? Why was there never a/. story about Vice (where the internet freedom story came from) itself hypocritically silencing the masses by wiping out its own comments section, ensuring that only themselves and approved plebians will have a voice on their site?
Why was there never a/. story about the ridiculous UN Women/Broadband propaganda report that tried to promote the idea of "cyber-violence" (an awkardly obvious pretense to a desired government crackdown) which proved so embarassing that they had to pull it from public view (and no/. story when that happened either).
It's abundantly clear that there's an activist arm of the tech news media (which Slashdot, sadly, clearly wants to be part of) that isn't anti-censorship or anti-bullying at all, as long as they get to be (or choose) the approved bullies and censors.
There's a third evil force (which I'm sure government and corporations are overjoyed about) pushing as hard as they can for censorship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
A huge activist arm of the tech news media has, especially over the last year and a half, been to happy portay criticism and disagreement as "harassment" and "threats" as an excuse to censor and stifle discussion of the "wrong" opinions, especially about politics or lapses in their own journalistic ethics.
Motherboard Vice (the site linked in the summary) itself hypocritically silenced the masses by wiping out its own comments section, ensuring only themselves and approved plebians will have a voice on their site. Mad about too many readers fact-checking your insulting, baseless, click-bait articles? Problem solved. And now they have the gall to bemoan a loss of internet freedom? How come we didn't get a story posted about that, Slashdot?
Of course government and corporations want to control and censor the internet, but lately they've found support and allies among righteous authoritarians who pass themselves off as activists for the oppressed (when all they're really after is power).
If you ever encounter someone who thinks that only government censorship matters, show them how Reddit once actively opposed things like SOPA and PIPA. Then point out how CISA recently passed without a blip from them, and how they now actively shut down discussion of things like TPP.
Note that when Gamergate happened, it took several months and the threat of FTC involvement (in response to direct GG pressure) to force Gawker to change its tune and start updating old articles with disclosures. So this is good news.
It's worse than inane. From what I can see, Cybersmile peddles the anti-gamer "abuse and harrassment" narrative and supports an end to online anonymity. They were also one of the orgs lined up for the $300M Intel forked out in PR protection money a while back. Hopefully Cybersmile's not actually run by known harrassers and doxxers like Crash Override and the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative, which were also (both) embarrassingly promoted by Slashdot.
I can't blame Cuban for falling for this, since he was just told "It's for charity" rather than for propaganda and activism.
Slashdot Mirror
This, 100 times.
I almost never heard anyone say good things about the real name policy (except Google themselves of course, when forced to), and can't imagine anyone who would, except marketing drones. If you want me to participate in an online community in a lasting and meaningful way, there's no way in hell I'm using my real name.
Even worse, Google tried to confuse the issue (i.e. talk out of both sides of its mouth) by drawing a practically meaningless distinction between your "real" name and your "common" name. See, your common name is "the name that you commonly go by in daily life," as opposed to your real name which is . . . fuck if I know. IMO, it was intentional double speak so they could claim "it's not actually a real name policy" whenever convenient.
Add to that at least one false start of rescinding the policy (is this one for real? Who knows?), and it's no wonder most of the internet judged them no more trustworthy (and of course potentially more dangerous) than Facebook.
It's also telling that in numerous Google+ post mortem pieces, you never hear the execs and PR people address the real name policy as a root cause, despite the widespread criticism and rejection of it. They wouldn't feign rescinsion of the real name policy if they didn't know everyone hated it, and they wouldn't fail to acknowledge it as a problem if they really intended to fix it.
This is not about "important" tweets any more than the "Trust and Safety Council" is about "harrassment" or "trolling." It's about controlling which content everyone is allowed to see (i.e. making it more like television).
There's a reason people dismiss claims of IRL "harm" the from Tipper Gores or Jack Thompsons or Anita Sarkeesians of the world. The burden of proof is always squarely on them, they almost always fail to meet it, and years later we (as often as not) get scientific evidence showing the opposite.
I know of very few people in my social circle who have a Facebook account. I'm sure people who use Facebook will know few people who don't.
And "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" applied only to actors and actresses, so that's fair enough. On the other hand, the six was not (as I understood it) supposed to be an average, but a maximum without exceptions, so Facebook is probably falling short in that regard.
Microsoft is sick and tired of customers resisting their latest shiny upgrade, and downright pissed off when they resist successfully, as with Vista and 8. So they are going all-in on establishing the capability to push any and all code/UI they want, for any purpose they want (DRM/adware/spyware/forced account login/whatever), to your machine at any time. If the current Windows 10 updates are this evil, imagine what they'll be like when users have no alternative.
There was a successful kickstarter for something similar, which IMO gets ripped to shreds in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you love solar panels, then why not put them, well, anywhere else instead of on a road surface where they will be under constant, severe assault by heavy vehicles with tires that can leave light-blocking rubber on them.
Doing this would be expensive and ineffective, if not impossible. It seems good for nothing but a scam to bilk investors or as another vacuous Green PR campaign.
n/t
You're right; it was my fault. I had the page zoomed to a point that it adjusted by omitting the time. And I thought it started happening earlier today because earlier articles didn't seem to be affected, but that's only because "Soulskill" is shorter than "samzenpus."
The time is missing from the articles posted on the front page.
Note that browser makers Google, Microsoft, and Apple have continually pushed for DRM to become part of web standards.
And that they obtained considerable financial influence over the browser maker thought most likely to resist (Mozilla).
And that Mozilla gave in on DRM and continues to make inexpicable blunders and lose market share.
After such a relentless campaign to ensure all available browsers contain DRM, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see DRM used to protect ads, particularly in video. Stopping you from reading/recording a video stream necessarily stops you from altering it.
Damn, am I ever so happy (as always) that the proven tech leader was ousted as Mozilla's CEO in favor of the former head of marketing.
For a moment I was hoping the "malware" just removed the manufacturers cruddy adware/malware, transforming the device into an old-fashioned "dumb" just-works television.
"Watch Us Try to Spin as Many Science Fiction Works as Possible into Supporting All the Progressive Talking Points We Were Planning to Cram Down Your Throat Anyway"
Getting repeatedly called out on thinly-veiled, agenda-driven clickbait like this is exactly why Motherboard Vice censored its comment sections.
Hacktivists just annoy people briefly. It's the SJWs getting their brand of censorship baked into the terms of service of popular social media and blogging sites that have me worried. They're the ones who are really going to block freedom of speech by making it so that anyone who exercises their freedom of speech faces the possibility of being effectively blacklisted from ever working again. (See Trump being fired from his own reality TV show for telling the truth about immigration in the US. Now imagine that same thing used against someone without the resources to shrug it off.)
Spot on. Bit of a red flag in the summary:
As New World Hackers demonstrate, attacks can target the wrong people and restrict free speech.
I'd like to give this phrasing the benefit of the doubt, but after seeing countless anti-Gamergate types behave according to the mantra "No bad tactics--only bad targets," I really can't. You're part of the problem if you don't understand that Trump is as much the "wrong" person as the BBC, and those who act to silence him also "restrict free speech."
It is might sound confusions, but does try of connotations can vaguely the meaningness.
By using the term "SJW", you have outed yourself as someone who has had to deal with annoying, attention-seeking, dishonest, power-hungry, hypocritcal SJWs.
Want to muscle your way into an OSS project, despite lacking the talent or skill (or willingness) to contribute anything other than drama, identity politics, and an insatiable urge control others (or remove them if they don't fall in line)? Force a Code of Conduct (which is often explicitly racist and/or sexist, dismissive of merit, and vague enough to be selectively enforced) down its throat! It even works on the largest projects!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
http://todogroup.org/opencodeo...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
http://contributor-covenant.or...
http://developers.slashdot.org...
https://www.reddit.com/r/freeb...
Her motivation was in the right place. She is trying to protect black men from being constantly killed by the Republican's thugs in blue.
Nice troll.
Isn't it though.
In my experience, if there's one tenet that reliably and consistently predicts (if not drives) an SJW's opinions and behavior, it's the one that tells them "It's OK when we do it."
Twitter is private, not a government so it technically can't be censoring. They have a right to delete whatever they want from their site.
Whoever told you that, make sure you never trust anything they say ever again. When it comes to the Bill of Rights, the ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment wide, but even it knows better than to say what you just did:
https://www.aclu.org/what-cens...
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
Remember when Reddit (and Google and most of the internet) stood up and actively, officially, and effectively opposed SOPA and PIPA? Well, CISA just passed without a peep from them, while they instead actively censor discussion of similar things like the TPP.
Do you see yet why private censorship shouldn't be ignored?
Why didn't the earlier story about internet freedom make any mention of this Twitter banfest, Slashdot? Why was there never a /. story about Vice (where the internet freedom story came from) itself hypocritically silencing the masses by wiping out its own comments section, ensuring that only themselves and approved plebians will have a voice on their site?
/. story about the ridiculous UN Women/Broadband propaganda report that tried to promote the idea of "cyber-violence" (an awkardly obvious pretense to a desired government crackdown) which proved so embarassing that they had to pull it from public view (and no /. story when that happened either).
Why was there never a
It's abundantly clear that there's an activist arm of the tech news media (which Slashdot, sadly, clearly wants to be part of) that isn't anti-censorship or anti-bullying at all, as long as they get to be (or choose) the approved bullies and censors.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
Vice are Grade-A hypocrites, perfectly happy to support internet censorship as long as they get to be the censors.
There's a third evil force (which I'm sure government and corporations are overjoyed about) pushing as hard as they can for censorship:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
A huge activist arm of the tech news media has, especially over the last year and a half, been to happy portay criticism and disagreement as "harassment" and "threats" as an excuse to censor and stifle discussion of the "wrong" opinions, especially about politics or lapses in their own journalistic ethics.
Motherboard Vice (the site linked in the summary) itself hypocritically silenced the masses by wiping out its own comments section, ensuring only themselves and approved plebians will have a voice on their site. Mad about too many readers fact-checking your insulting, baseless, click-bait articles? Problem solved. And now they have the gall to bemoan a loss of internet freedom? How come we didn't get a story posted about that, Slashdot?
Yep, this vid is best explanation I've seen of what's going on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Of course government and corporations want to control and censor the internet, but lately they've found support and allies among righteous authoritarians who pass themselves off as activists for the oppressed (when all they're really after is power).
If you ever encounter someone who thinks that only government censorship matters, show them how Reddit once actively opposed things like SOPA and PIPA. Then point out how CISA recently passed without a blip from them, and how they now actively shut down discussion of things like TPP.
Note that when Gamergate happened, it took several months and the threat of FTC involvement (in response to direct GG pressure) to force Gawker to change its tune and start updating old articles with disclosures. So this is good news.
I hope Cox isn't dealing with another setback.
I hope Cox isn't dealing with another setback.
Indeed. Hopefully the insurer will agree to cover Cox's legal fees and potential piracy damages.
It's worse than inane. From what I can see, Cybersmile peddles the anti-gamer "abuse and harrassment" narrative and supports an end to online anonymity. They were also one of the orgs lined up for the $300M Intel forked out in PR protection money a while back. Hopefully Cybersmile's not actually run by known harrassers and doxxers like Crash Override and the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative, which were also (both) embarrassingly promoted by Slashdot.
I can't blame Cuban for falling for this, since he was just told "It's for charity" rather than for propaganda and activism.