Makes sense to only allow ordinary citizens to make the trip the first few times to get the kinks out. Say the first 12 or so. Then Trump can give it a go for the 13th run!
While I am in the camp of those who would never filter out anything, I am not offended easily, I see this as the best possible solution to let those who find certain words or concepts "offensive" to opt out and stop trying to force their values on the rest of us. Putting the onus on the individual rather than the company to decide what she/he sees has to be the way forward if we are going to protect freedom of expression.
While I agree this may cause "bubble" syndrome and allow for self-imposed isolation of various groups from each other, I think it could also provide some interesting life lessons. Think of a person who does a heavy self-censor without realizing the consequences, then hearing from friends that she missed out on a fun post because of it. Might cause people to start to question why they don't want to hear certain things or think certain thoughts.
I can see the next big celebrity/athlete protest of intentionally using hashtags of broadly censored words just to draw attention to the fact that people shouldn't hide from realities they may disagree with or find scary.
I'm all for individual anonymity, but do you really think corporations and government organizations like PACs deserve anonymity protection?
In no way do I think individuals acting on their own behalf should have to disclose who they are, but once you're getting paid for services, that's a whole other ballgame.
This seems to be another example of the existing legal framework not keeping up with technology advances.
Outside of true campaign finance reform, even under existing laws, if a PAC buys a television ad spot, it has to disclose who paid for the ad.
Seems like a natural extension to this existing framework would be to require all paid-for posts to include a disclaimer that it was done for pay by a PAC.
The PACs would then be subject to audits and subjected to fines if examples were found where posts weren't properly disclaimed.
I'd extend this law to all paid-for postings. Make it $1,000 fine per non-disclaimed post and a lot of astroturf would dry up quickly.
And of course the post is immediately accompanied by the normal GS-bashing. Hate GS all you want, but this is a tangible example of the US losing its competitiveness to other jurisdictions due to its complex and outdated regulatory regime. Investment opportunities that could have been had by US investors will now go to foreigners. And yes many people think FB is overvalued, but that should be a personal investment decision, not something the government decides for you.
This trend will make it increasingly difficult for companies to raise capital in the US. Not a problem for FB as they can source from anywhere, but smaller shops should definitely be concerned by this.
And now back to the GS Is Evil channel...
Slashdot Mirror
Makes sense to only allow ordinary citizens to make the trip the first few times to get the kinks out. Say the first 12 or so. Then Trump can give it a go for the 13th run!
While I am in the camp of those who would never filter out anything, I am not offended easily, I see this as the best possible solution to let those who find certain words or concepts "offensive" to opt out and stop trying to force their values on the rest of us. Putting the onus on the individual rather than the company to decide what she/he sees has to be the way forward if we are going to protect freedom of expression.
While I agree this may cause "bubble" syndrome and allow for self-imposed isolation of various groups from each other, I think it could also provide some interesting life lessons. Think of a person who does a heavy self-censor without realizing the consequences, then hearing from friends that she missed out on a fun post because of it. Might cause people to start to question why they don't want to hear certain things or think certain thoughts.
I can see the next big celebrity/athlete protest of intentionally using hashtags of broadly censored words just to draw attention to the fact that people shouldn't hide from realities they may disagree with or find scary.
I'm all for individual anonymity, but do you really think corporations and government organizations like PACs deserve anonymity protection?
In no way do I think individuals acting on their own behalf should have to disclose who they are, but once you're getting paid for services, that's a whole other ballgame.
This seems to be another example of the existing legal framework not keeping up with technology advances.
Outside of true campaign finance reform, even under existing laws, if a PAC buys a television ad spot, it has to disclose who paid for the ad.
Seems like a natural extension to this existing framework would be to require all paid-for posts to include a disclaimer that it was done for pay by a PAC.
The PACs would then be subject to audits and subjected to fines if examples were found where posts weren't properly disclaimed.
I'd extend this law to all paid-for postings. Make it $1,000 fine per non-disclaimed post and a lot of astroturf would dry up quickly.
Diskstation has been a great user friendly alternative for someone not Linux literate (gasp). Very plug and play and intuitive software.
You can use Plex with it, or its own native phone apps / Roku channel.
Streaming everything both from the internet and our server through a Roku accounts for 90% of our TV now. The kids love it.
What is the actual risk here to those using cameras as baby monitors?
Step 1: Someone sees a baby sleeping
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit?
"Help! A stranger saw my baby turn over. Call the police!!!" ?
Your milage may vary.
If your head is separated from your body, I don't think your mileage is going to vary very much.
I get around the problem by not having any friends. Either online or in real life.
Nice try, but as we know, not participating in social networks also identifies you as a potential threat http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/29/1627203/facebook-abstainers-could-be-labeled-suspicious
And of course the post is immediately accompanied by the normal GS-bashing. Hate GS all you want, but this is a tangible example of the US losing its competitiveness to other jurisdictions due to its complex and outdated regulatory regime. Investment opportunities that could have been had by US investors will now go to foreigners. And yes many people think FB is overvalued, but that should be a personal investment decision, not something the government decides for you. This trend will make it increasingly difficult for companies to raise capital in the US. Not a problem for FB as they can source from anywhere, but smaller shops should definitely be concerned by this. And now back to the GS Is Evil channel...