How should I cite stuff I learned when I found my company decades ago?
When you drone on and on about "the law says...", it's reasonable to ask "what law"? Your answer of "that one law that I remember from way back" isn't sufficient.
And in german even? I don't even know for what terms exactly to google.
The US, the EU, and the other "sane" countries have quite a few laws not written in German. Germany would qualify for my request for "any country", but are they the sole country where I'm prohibited from putting an age limit on my web site?
From your link (translated):
Age-related unequal treatment can be justified if it is objectively appropriate and has a legitimate aim...
The law doesn't say you have to be 25 to rent a car. The rental companies say you need to be 25 to rent a car. The law doesn't say you have to be 13 to use FB. FB says you have to be 13 to use FB. The law doesn't say that you have to be 21 to access my porn site. I say you have to be 21 to access my porn site. The porn involves drinking and it's important to me not to show videos of alcohol consumption to people too young to drink.
...you are too stupid to realize that Google, Apple, Microsoft, insert random company here, is doing it too. But you don't care...
Not "don't care" entirely, but willing to make the trade. I'm a FB user too. Having a handy platform for discussions with family and friends is valuable enough to me to volunteer some information. (FB is going to track you whether you're a user or not - I'm just making it one step simpler in exchange for utility.)
You seem very distressed by decisions that don't affect you. If somebody says, "I'll give you a cookie, but only if you tell me your favorite lunch spot," I may or may not go for the cookie. He could do ANYTHING with that piece of information. He could tell a marketer where I go in exchange for $$; he could target coupons trying to get me to combine my favorite meal with my movie-of-the-day; he could go there himself and make the wait 1 person longer. I may or may not care. The point of this is that I'm deciding what to do with my information. I'm not distributing info on you nor am I forcing you to disclose anything you don't want to.
Stupidity at a massive level affects the rest of us.
If by "stupidity" you mean "not treating personal info as holy" and by "affects us" you mean "doesn't affect us".
You guys are truly naive. No wonder we are in the situation we are now.
If you're that distressed by MoviePass knowing your habits around movie-going, maybe MoviePass isn't for you. I'm willing to disclose that I went to the movie from work and then went home in exchange for a $2 ticket. For you, apparently protecting that information is more important than cheap movies. That's fine. Why does it distress you that others of us are willing to make that trade?
If you are interested in that you have unfortunately to google for your self.
Yep, did that. Concluded that either you're full of shit or your mystery country has some very strange laws. It's telling that you can't cite one for ANY of the countries you've mentioned.
I'm not happy, but I'm not mad enough to stop using the app. I got a year's subscription as a Christmas present and have really been enjoying it. I've seen more than twice as many movies this year as I did in 2017. I'm curious how they plan to monetize this. They say they're not going to sell the data and the app currently doesn't include ads, but I assume this means ads are coming. I did RTFA, but it's light on details on MoviePass's intentions. Helping its users "create a whole movie night" sure sounds like ads, but they'd have to give me an incentive to change my behavior. Eating at home and going to the theater with a pre-paid ticket is a pretty economical night out right now. If I see no more movies this year, my brother paid about $11/ticket. If I keep up this pace, it works out to about $1.90.
Your country has peculiar laws where companies can't restrict business based on age. Would you mind sharing where you are so I can read up on it? Things are very different here in the US.
if the law says a 10 year old can use certain web sites, they can not raise it to 13.
WTF are you talking about? In the US, you have to be 18 to view porn. The law says that at 18, you can use pornographic web sites. That doesn't remotely stop me from making a porn site and restricting it to 21+. Is that an American privilege that doesn't exist overseas?
US pedophilia standards are prudish and mindlessly destructive. I most certainly would prefer a platform that does not enforce these standards.
If that's how you feel and FB isn't pedo-permissive enough for you, nobody's forcing you to use it. I hear 4chan has a pretty loose TOS. The reason I picked "American standards for pedophilia" is because FB is an American company and it seems natural to adopt those standards instead of picking another country's rules that it decided it prefers. Picking ANY set of rules seems preferable to me than NO rules. There are a million ways you can say just about whatever you want, but FB doesn't have to facilitate it.
FB can block messages for violating TOS whether they're violating laws or not.
You said:
Not in the EU and other sane countries...
It sure as hell sounds like you're saying that companies can't block legal content based on TOS. If that's not what you're saying, then WTF are you saying? I'd love to get a handle on your point; please make one.
...they can not restrict freedoms of customers based on a tos when the law says otherwise.
When and where does the law say otherwise? In what country does the law say that companies can't filter what messages go through their site based on their TOS? What law in particular is overriding the TOS forcing companies to post content they don't want to? You say "LAW > TOS". Great. What fucking absurd law are you referring to that's disallowing companies from filtering messages?
FB can block messages for violating TOS whether they're violating laws or not.
Not in the EU and other sane countries, when do you guys finally understand: LAW > TOS
Bullshit. In "the EU and other sane countries" private companies that allow users to post comments have to allow ANY post as long as it doesn't violate the law? I'd really appreciate it if you could show me that law for ANY one of these "sane" countries./. might be in trouble - They filter out things that aren't illegal and operate all over the world.
There is a lot of fake porn out there to satisfy that fetish, doesn't mean it's real.
And just because it's a fetish doesn't mean it's all fake. The existence of commercial schoolgirl-themed porn does not negate the existence of genuine kiddie porn. I said "sexual exploitation of young women" has become a genre. I know TFA's focus is age, but I was more focused on the exploitation. Whether or not a person is being "exploited" part has no effect on legality but is important to me personally. I can't enjoy porn where a participant is clearly being manipulated into doing something they object to because they're too desperate or insecure to object to being dominated and abused. Slapping, choking, crying, screaming... That's what I was referring to. There's a LOT of that. Some of it's probably fake; a lot is likely real. It's not illegal; it's just fucked up. If that shit turns you on, seek help. I like enthusiasts (Asa Akira comes to mind); I find that attractive.
Is it because they can nag their parents until the parents give in...
Yes. It is exactly because of that. If that was not the case, we'd no longer see ads targeting children. Do you think parents' spending is unaffected by "input" from their children?
Just because it may be legal doesn't mean FB has to allow it.
At the end of the day, nobody wants laws which don't apply to them because some moralizing douchbag "has no problem" doing so.
FB can censor just about anything they want for just about any reason. Live somewhere that allows public stonings? Fine, but FB doesn't have to let you use their tools to schedule one. Say FB wants to take a stand against smoking. Nothing's stopping them from disallowing pics of people with cigarettes. Live somewhere where it's just fine to ask a 14 year-old for nudes? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on; FB doesn't have to play ball. Where are you that a private company has to allow any and all activity that isn't specifically illegal?
Automatically blocking both would once again prompt EU nations to complain. Some where asking for such imagery isn't a crime, and many others where even an automated word-pattern-block is a crime to perform on a private "direct" message.
So let them complain. There MIGHT be complaints, but complaining is as far as it'll go. FB can block messages for violating TOS whether they're violating laws or not.
What's not legal in the US may be perfectly allowed, and even considered normal, in other parts of the world.
I have no problem with enforcing US pedophilia standards on all FB users regardless of the laws where they're located. Just because it may be legal doesn't mean FB has to allow it.
They dicked around with him for like 45 minutes before they finally loaded him into the ambulance...
I wasn't there for your incident, but a lot of the "dicking around with the patient before loading him" is the reason you call EMTs instead of Uber. Getting the patient to the hospital as quickly as possible isn't necessarily as important as getting the patient stabilized before transport.
Thank you. It would have been more useful to say, "weighing less than a 5 lb bag of sugar" or "a 20 lb bag of sugar", but then why do we need the sugar? Google's top hits tell me that a bag of sugar "weighs" 1 kg, but I don't think that's common for bags of sugar sold in the US or on the moon. Is the moon on metric?
Slashdot Mirror
How should I cite stuff I learned when I found my company decades ago?
When you drone on and on about "the law says...", it's reasonable to ask "what law"? Your answer of "that one law that I remember from way back" isn't sufficient.
And in german even? I don't even know for what terms exactly to google.
The US, the EU, and the other "sane" countries have quite a few laws not written in German. Germany would qualify for my request for "any country", but are they the sole country where I'm prohibited from putting an age limit on my web site?
From your link (translated):
Age-related unequal treatment can be justified if it is objectively appropriate and has a legitimate aim...
The law doesn't say you have to be 25 to rent a car. The rental companies say you need to be 25 to rent a car. The law doesn't say you have to be 13 to use FB. FB says you have to be 13 to use FB. The law doesn't say that you have to be 21 to access my porn site. I say you have to be 21 to access my porn site. The porn involves drinking and it's important to me not to show videos of alcohol consumption to people too young to drink.
...you are too stupid to realize that Google, Apple, Microsoft, insert random company here, is doing it too. But you don't care...
Not "don't care" entirely, but willing to make the trade. I'm a FB user too. Having a handy platform for discussions with family and friends is valuable enough to me to volunteer some information. (FB is going to track you whether you're a user or not - I'm just making it one step simpler in exchange for utility.)
You seem very distressed by decisions that don't affect you. If somebody says, "I'll give you a cookie, but only if you tell me your favorite lunch spot," I may or may not go for the cookie. He could do ANYTHING with that piece of information. He could tell a marketer where I go in exchange for $$; he could target coupons trying to get me to combine my favorite meal with my movie-of-the-day; he could go there himself and make the wait 1 person longer. I may or may not care. The point of this is that I'm deciding what to do with my information. I'm not distributing info on you nor am I forcing you to disclose anything you don't want to.
Stupidity at a massive level affects the rest of us.
If by "stupidity" you mean "not treating personal info as holy" and by "affects us" you mean "doesn't affect us".
You guys are truly naive. No wonder we are in the situation we are now.
If you're that distressed by MoviePass knowing your habits around movie-going, maybe MoviePass isn't for you. I'm willing to disclose that I went to the movie from work and then went home in exchange for a $2 ticket. For you, apparently protecting that information is more important than cheap movies. That's fine. Why does it distress you that others of us are willing to make that trade?
If you are interested in that you have unfortunately to google for your self.
Yep, did that. Concluded that either you're full of shit or your mystery country has some very strange laws. It's telling that you can't cite one for ANY of the countries you've mentioned.
I'm not even mad...
I'm not happy, but I'm not mad enough to stop using the app. I got a year's subscription as a Christmas present and have really been enjoying it. I've seen more than twice as many movies this year as I did in 2017. I'm curious how they plan to monetize this. They say they're not going to sell the data and the app currently doesn't include ads, but I assume this means ads are coming. I did RTFA, but it's light on details on MoviePass's intentions. Helping its users "create a whole movie night" sure sounds like ads, but they'd have to give me an incentive to change my behavior. Eating at home and going to the theater with a pre-paid ticket is a pretty economical night out right now. If I see no more movies this year, my brother paid about $11/ticket. If I keep up this pace, it works out to about $1.90.
In my country ... no idea about yours.
Your country has peculiar laws where companies can't restrict business based on age. Would you mind sharing where you are so I can read up on it? Things are very different here in the US.
...company that is providing a messaging service, telecommunication etc. has to make sure that every message arrives.
You've yet to cite anything to back that up. For the US, the EU, or the other "sane" countries. Pretty sure the virus I emailed my boss never arrived.
The legal age for accessing porn is 18, so no, you can not raise it to 21.
I really think you're mistaken. Just because you're 19 and legally allowed to view porn, I'm not obligated to sell you a subscription.
What is next? A Bank with online banking that restricts access to people above 21?
I don't know of anything preventing them from doing that but common sense. Do you? You have a lot to say about the laws but have yet to cite one.
American company must operate by American standards at the bare minimum, no matter where they operate.
Golly that sounds sensible. It's unfortunate that you have to point out the obvious.
if the law says a 10 year old can use certain web sites, they can not raise it to 13.
WTF are you talking about? In the US, you have to be 18 to view porn. The law says that at 18, you can use pornographic web sites. That doesn't remotely stop me from making a porn site and restricting it to 21+. Is that an American privilege that doesn't exist overseas?
US pedophilia standards are prudish and mindlessly destructive. I most certainly would prefer a platform that does not enforce these standards.
If that's how you feel and FB isn't pedo-permissive enough for you, nobody's forcing you to use it. I hear 4chan has a pretty loose TOS. The reason I picked "American standards for pedophilia" is because FB is an American company and it seems natural to adopt those standards instead of picking another country's rules that it decided it prefers. Picking ANY set of rules seems preferable to me than NO rules. There are a million ways you can say just about whatever you want, but FB doesn't have to facilitate it.
I said:
FB can block messages for violating TOS whether they're violating laws or not.
You said:
Not in the EU and other sane countries...
It sure as hell sounds like you're saying that companies can't block legal content based on TOS. If that's not what you're saying, then WTF are you saying? I'd love to get a handle on your point; please make one.
...they can not restrict freedoms of customers based on a tos when the law says otherwise.
When and where does the law say otherwise? In what country does the law say that companies can't filter what messages go through their site based on their TOS? What law in particular is overriding the TOS forcing companies to post content they don't want to? You say "LAW > TOS". Great. What fucking absurd law are you referring to that's disallowing companies from filtering messages?
FB can block messages for violating TOS whether they're violating laws or not.
Not in the EU and other sane countries, when do you guys finally understand: LAW > TOS
Bullshit. In "the EU and other sane countries" private companies that allow users to post comments have to allow ANY post as long as it doesn't violate the law? I'd really appreciate it if you could show me that law for ANY one of these "sane" countries. /. might be in trouble - They filter out things that aren't illegal and operate all over the world.
There is a lot of fake porn out there to satisfy that fetish, doesn't mean it's real.
And just because it's a fetish doesn't mean it's all fake. The existence of commercial schoolgirl-themed porn does not negate the existence of genuine kiddie porn. I said "sexual exploitation of young women" has become a genre. I know TFA's focus is age, but I was more focused on the exploitation. Whether or not a person is being "exploited" part has no effect on legality but is important to me personally. I can't enjoy porn where a participant is clearly being manipulated into doing something they object to because they're too desperate or insecure to object to being dominated and abused. Slapping, choking, crying, screaming... That's what I was referring to. There's a LOT of that. Some of it's probably fake; a lot is likely real. It's not illegal; it's just fucked up. If that shit turns you on, seek help. I like enthusiasts (Asa Akira comes to mind); I find that attractive.
Is it because they can nag their parents until the parents give in...
Yes. It is exactly because of that. If that was not the case, we'd no longer see ads targeting children. Do you think parents' spending is unaffected by "input" from their children?
At the end of the day, nobody wants laws which don't apply to them because some moralizing douchbag "has no problem" doing so.
FB can censor just about anything they want for just about any reason. Live somewhere that allows public stonings? Fine, but FB doesn't have to let you use their tools to schedule one. Say FB wants to take a stand against smoking. Nothing's stopping them from disallowing pics of people with cigarettes. Live somewhere where it's just fine to ask a 14 year-old for nudes? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on; FB doesn't have to play ball. Where are you that a private company has to allow any and all activity that isn't specifically illegal?
Automatically blocking both would once again prompt EU nations to complain. Some where asking for such imagery isn't a crime, and many others where even an automated word-pattern-block is a crime to perform on a private "direct" message.
So let them complain. There MIGHT be complaints, but complaining is as far as it'll go. FB can block messages for violating TOS whether they're violating laws or not.
Why are children allowed on Facebook?
Because marketing to children is profitable.
Sexual exploitation of _anyone_ is a crime.
Sexual exploitation of children is a crime. Sexual exploitation of young women is practically its own porn genre.
What's not legal in the US may be perfectly allowed, and even considered normal, in other parts of the world.
I have no problem with enforcing US pedophilia standards on all FB users regardless of the laws where they're located. Just because it may be legal doesn't mean FB has to allow it.
TFA doesn't give any detail around this. How does one generate that much traffic without the need of a botnet?
That would be fine if so much of the "dicking around" wasn't obtaining all the personal details and insurance cards, ensuring they get paid.
Your experience is different than mine. The few times I was transported by ambulance the EMTs made no mention of insurance or payment.
TFA has zero to do with DJT. Let's keep it that way. Nobody's accusing DJT of being "worse than this" except you.
They dicked around with him for like 45 minutes before they finally loaded him into the ambulance...
I wasn't there for your incident, but a lot of the "dicking around with the patient before loading him" is the reason you call EMTs instead of Uber. Getting the patient to the hospital as quickly as possible isn't necessarily as important as getting the patient stabilized before transport.
Thank you. It would have been more useful to say, "weighing less than a 5 lb bag of sugar" or "a 20 lb bag of sugar", but then why do we need the sugar? Google's top hits tell me that a bag of sugar "weighs" 1 kg, but I don't think that's common for bags of sugar sold in the US or on the moon. Is the moon on metric?