And having someone "like" a company means the opportunity to get them to read several bits of advertisement a day - voluntarily, without the popups that so annoy.
Not saying it's a good thing, just that it's the way things are at this time.
Ermmmm... no. Sorry. You can have a folder on your computer named Disney; you cannot put up a billboard on your own property using the name Disney to advertise something.
Oh, I'm sure that Facebook stuck to the letter of the EULA, which, without doubt, says that Facebook can do whatever they want now, and if you argue about it, they can change the EULA retroactively at will such that there's no question at all about the matter.
I was lucky; my dad taught me BASIC and algebra in grade school. I was too young to realize that math was supposed to be hard and un-fun; as a partial result, all these years later, I make a good living off both.
Whatever. Your mockery aside, when people know that something can be done, they're far more apt to try to do it than they are if they don't know if it can be done.
Remember that knowing something can be done is often 90% of the battle.
So, while your assumption that they don't have it now may well be valid, it won't be in 5-10 years. Thus, probably a good idea to get the white hats working on counter measures now, which means (by your own logic) that it should be published.
The question at hand was whether corporate based censorship was on par with Government censorship. My (round about) answer is, yes to that question.
In answer to your followup question, no in the manner you phrased it, yes when a consortium of corporations and retailers effectively destroy any entity that doesn't follow their rules.
The point a lot of folks who are so anti-government seem to miss is that the private sector is equally capable of the evils so often attributed to governments when there is no government to counterbalance them. The main difference is that when corporations get out of hand, you cannot vote them out, nor can you stop doing business with them, as by then, they tend to be effective monopolies.
Disclaimer: Free Speech valid only in participating areas and Free Speech Zones. May be revoked at will for reasons of fear, political power, religious, ethnic or economic sensibilities. Not valid in airports or theaters. Subject to taxation and regulation. Can be exercised only with permission of media owners when applicable. Not for use afte 9:00 PM local time in town squares, plazas or Wall Street. Identification required. May not be used in the face of law enforcement. May not be used to express politically embarrassing information in wiki form in front of the world at large. Penalties will be incurred if anyone considers said free speech to be promoting of terrorism, or is considered annoying to monied interests, or is enacted by too many people in a public place. Does not apply in the context of an employer/employee relationship. Free speech may not be encrypted in certain areas; check your local laws. Subject to revocation at will by government and corporate interests. Additional fees may apply.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.
What do you do with the population that is no longer able to find work, then, when the factories and farms are automated, and there's only so many people needed to produce?
Seems you then can either have people digging ditches with spoons, or embrace socialism or euthanasia.
But the damage is already done, neh? Switch banks, after they release your data, or email providers after they do? At some point, shouldn't there be legal protections that don't allow these entities to break what amounts to a contract?
And - I'd note that there's not a lot of point in using a "social networking" site that no one uses. Diaspora looks to be a really cool idea - but people have to use it if it's going to be anything other than a cool idea about distributed communication. Without users, it lacks the social part of social networking.
Just as socialism can lead to totalitarianism, so can capitalism.
Totalitarianism is the result of the concentration of power. If this is at the hands of a socialist government, you get the USSR. If at the hands of a corporate state, you get Germany in 1938.
It's about balance. And those who oppose all government in the US (sometimes for good reasons) never seem to have another counterbalance to growing corporate power. Remember, the second part of the famous quote about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is that "men form governments to ensure these rights".
No, I'm not arguing that Facebook == the internet. However, if you're going to use the internet for anything other than getting docs, if you're going to use it for personal communication, then there has to be an element of trust with the entity that carries and stores your data.
Would you say, "don't use email" if a bunch of providers out there started making the contents of your email public? Or how about if your bank started to publish your account balance - would it be your fault for having used on-line banking?
Problem is, the end result of an unregulated free market is a monopoly, and without the counterbalance of government, corporations fill the role of government, and acquire the powers accorded to governments by the people. However, with this end result, there is no voting them out of office, and no one left to make laws to reign them in.
... steps are taken to ensure that Big Brother doesn't get too big.
While here in the US, those who most love to cite Orwell also tend to want there to be no limits to what corporations can do, even when it's the corporations (far more so than the government) that are filling the power niches.
Slashdot Mirror
And in this day and age, when a lot of people effectively think of the web as being equivalent to Facebook, I'd say that this infringes.
But - it'll be the lawyers who figure it out in the end; whoever throws the most money at the problem will wind up with it.
(PS: Go ahead and try putting up a billboard with the Disney name on it on your own property, and see what happens...)
For a lot of people, Facebook is the web.
And having someone "like" a company means the opportunity to get them to read several bits of advertisement a day - voluntarily, without the popups that so annoy.
Not saying it's a good thing, just that it's the way things are at this time.
Ermmmm... no. Sorry. You can have a folder on your computer named Disney; you cannot put up a billboard on your own property using the name Disney to advertise something.
Oh, I'm sure that Facebook stuck to the letter of the EULA, which, without doubt, says that Facebook can do whatever they want now, and if you argue about it, they can change the EULA retroactively at will such that there's no question at all about the matter.
It's how the tool is used.
Letting the bidding begin!
Especially if paired with more math.
I was lucky; my dad taught me BASIC and algebra in grade school. I was too young to realize that math was supposed to be hard and un-fun; as a partial result, all these years later, I make a good living off both.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?pagewanted=all
Whatever. Your mockery aside, when people know that something can be done, they're far more apt to try to do it than they are if they don't know if it can be done.
Remember that knowing something can be done is often 90% of the battle.
So, while your assumption that they don't have it now may well be valid, it won't be in 5-10 years. Thus, probably a good idea to get the white hats working on counter measures now, which means (by your own logic) that it should be published.
I always find comments like this posted on the internet to have a certain delicious flavor of irony.
The question at hand was whether corporate based censorship was on par with Government censorship. My (round about) answer is, yes to that question.
In answer to your followup question, no in the manner you phrased it, yes when a consortium of corporations and retailers effectively destroy any entity that doesn't follow their rules.
The point a lot of folks who are so anti-government seem to miss is that the private sector is equally capable of the evils so often attributed to governments when there is no government to counterbalance them. The main difference is that when corporations get out of hand, you cannot vote them out, nor can you stop doing business with them, as by then, they tend to be effective monopolies.
When socialist based government power goes awry, it's a form of totalitarianism.
When corporate power gets out of hand, and bends government to its will, that's fascism, and it too is a form of totalitarianism.
Either extreme is dangerous and destructive to the citizens.
Disclaimer: Free Speech valid only in participating areas and Free Speech Zones. May be revoked at will for reasons of fear, political power, religious, ethnic or economic sensibilities. Not valid in airports or theaters. Subject to taxation and regulation. Can be exercised only with permission of media owners when applicable. Not for use afte 9:00 PM local time in town squares, plazas or Wall Street. Identification required. May not be used in the face of law enforcement. May not be used to express politically embarrassing information in wiki form in front of the world at large. Penalties will be incurred if anyone considers said free speech to be promoting of terrorism, or is considered annoying to monied interests, or is enacted by too many people in a public place. Does not apply in the context of an employer/employee relationship. Free speech may not be encrypted in certain areas; check your local laws. Subject to revocation at will by government and corporate interests. Additional fees may apply.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.
You prove the irony, especially with your sig line.
What if the soul is actually the sum of all the branches, and the purpose of the exercise is to learn?
What do you do with the population that is no longer able to find work, then, when the factories and farms are automated, and there's only so many people needed to produce?
Seems you then can either have people digging ditches with spoons, or embrace socialism or euthanasia.
But the damage is already done, neh? Switch banks, after they release your data, or email providers after they do? At some point, shouldn't there be legal protections that don't allow these entities to break what amounts to a contract?
And - I'd note that there's not a lot of point in using a "social networking" site that no one uses. Diaspora looks to be a really cool idea - but people have to use it if it's going to be anything other than a cool idea about distributed communication. Without users, it lacks the social part of social networking.
Just as socialism can lead to totalitarianism, so can capitalism.
Totalitarianism is the result of the concentration of power. If this is at the hands of a socialist government, you get the USSR. If at the hands of a corporate state, you get Germany in 1938.
It's about balance. And those who oppose all government in the US (sometimes for good reasons) never seem to have another counterbalance to growing corporate power. Remember, the second part of the famous quote about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is that "men form governments to ensure these rights".
But that's like saying, "Don't use the web".
No, I'm not arguing that Facebook == the internet. However, if you're going to use the internet for anything other than getting docs, if you're going to use it for personal communication, then there has to be an element of trust with the entity that carries and stores your data.
Would you say, "don't use email" if a bunch of providers out there started making the contents of your email public? Or how about if your bank started to publish your account balance - would it be your fault for having used on-line banking?
Problem is, the end result of an unregulated free market is a monopoly, and without the counterbalance of government, corporations fill the role of government, and acquire the powers accorded to governments by the people. However, with this end result, there is no voting them out of office, and no one left to make laws to reign them in.
Ah - were you going to give me this week's Newspeak definition, then?
What about Facebook's constantly morphing privacy and security policies? How can the user protect their data from that?
... steps are taken to ensure that Big Brother doesn't get too big.
While here in the US, those who most love to cite Orwell also tend to want there to be no limits to what corporations can do, even when it's the corporations (far more so than the government) that are filling the power niches.