> Because every website that has a Facebook Like button on it is > sending information about you back to Facebook. > Because every website that loads Facebook Javascript is > sending information about you back to Facebook.
Most sites now have Facebook tracking without the Like buttons as the Like button is acquiring a negative connotation. There are facebook.net and connect.facebook.net facebook user and facebook non-users data collection beacons all over the internet on sites many visit regularly.
The collection of data from every interaction is at scale. Every interaction is recorded, while manipulation and testing for effective manipulation is constant.
If you are using Facebook and *think* you are cognizant of the manipulation, you are being effectively manipulated.
If you provide 300 Likes to Facebook, or just visit sites with Like buttons they know about how you'll react to given stimuli (an article, news post, ad, pitch) than your spouse or family.
Newsfeed is particularly manipulative. It watches every click all the time and quickly builds an interest and personality profile on users.
All salespeople, grifters and conmen know that the more they know about the mark, the easier it is to manipulate them. You give Facebook and anyone they rent the data they've collected on you tremendous power over you in exchange just for connecting with other people. Something you can easily do on the Internet without using Facebook.
It's clear that Facebook is everyone's enemy. So why would anyone use them just so they can manipulate you for their own purposes or just rent that manipulation information about you for profit?
Think of the creepiest entity ever watching and listening in on everything you do on their platform then using all the info you provide against you for profit. That is what Facebook is!
Seems to make the most sense to me: phone + high-quality KVM experience = what 99% of the population wants.
This *almost* exists now just leave a bluetooth mouse/keyboard and Chromecast with hdmi monitor where ever you want to use your phone "full screen." It's the Apps and GUI that aren't there.
It certainly makes sense to just use your phone. But the platforms that be (iOS and Android) have not evolved there yet.
A phone with a SnapDragon 845, 8G RAM and 128GB of storage certainly has the necessary horsepower.
The two most popular IoT wireless protocols (Zigbee & ZWave) are proprietary requiring 20k+ licensing fee's to make your own devices. There are some emulation libraries for WiFi devices (Like the Phillips Hue & WeMo) but are not 100% compatible with smart home hubs (Like Amazons ECHO V2 for example). There are open source wireless protocols that use the same frequencies as Zigbee but none of the smart home hubs support them unfortunately.
Z-Wave is proprietary, but Zigbee has open source software and hardware options.
You can use a Z-wave/Zigbee/WiFi controller hub like the VeraPlus and cut off it's ability to "phone home." While built on OpenWRT Barrier Breaker it's still proprietary, but more hackable and controllable than the others.
There is also work being done Rasberry Pi replacements for the Vera using projects projects like OpenLuup:
Maybe on CNN with their readers. But on Slashdot I think going assumption is outfits like Facebook try manipulating every piece of info on a user to target stupid ads.
The point is that even CNN readers still don't understand the power they give a walled garden site that controls all you see and hear and can continiously test your reactions to their generated content. Facebook has built this ability at scale.
If you've clicked a 100 Like buttons Facebook likely knows more about you than your immediate family.
So people should now trust Instagram because NOW after Facebook has been found out because Instagram started limited some of the extensive data gathering they've been doing on "users" for years?
What this tells me is that *ANY* Zuckerberg production is completely untrustworthy with carefully crafted terms of service designed to keep "the product" from running away.
Cattlemen, like Zuckerberg, are very fond of their herds right up to and particularly after the cattle are sold at market.
There is nothing wrong with your phone or computer. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. Sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear while building troves data about your location, contacts, personality, religion, politics, interests and most important your trigger points while testing all your reactions. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your phone or computer set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches in to your inner mind and feeds it to us - The Facebook.
Particularly given, that if you were in charge of security that you could easily compartmentlize any moral quams about how the entire system works as "not my job."
It's almost as if it would be better to make a much larger device...
Or maybe reformat the content. If we can solve that problem, soon we might see newspapers with their own websites.
Texture does reformat many magazine articles for viewing on phones. They don't do it for all the mags they carry though probably because of licensing issues. They also have a topical "Highlights" area where articles are re-formatted for phones. There is also a search function to search through the current and back catalog for articles by keyword.
Though reading long format articles on your phone is always a bit of pain in my opinion. But that is an issue of the delivery device: The phone. And I would not want to lose access to long articles, because short 'click bait' articles are the only thing that fits on a phone screen.
Many newspapers do have their own websites where you can read their daily offerings (if you have a subscription) either graphically OR as more phone friendly HTML text. Most of them seem to be running software hosted on newsmemory.com.
Also Texture has quite a lot of magazines if anyone in your home is into more than 3 Texture is a much less expensive alternative than the check out counter or magazine rack.
Linux itself, given its deep penetration into device and Internet infrastructure with it's lack of licensing fees is "safe" from Microsoft. But Microsoft could "tame" Linux that runs on top of the "Windows kernel" and slow or limit it in ways over time to keep it caged and within their control.
They also may just make Linux on Windows 10 spy and watch users and then turn that info to their own strategy based on what is popular on any installed Linux on top of Windows.
This combined with the difficulty of buying any turn-key PC without Windows pre-installed gives them tremendous leverage.
Microsoft has always leveraged being at the bottom of the platform stack to their advantage. And as long as they are perceived by their customers to be a REQUIRED platform install below Linux they may not care. After all, their existing customers still want TurboTax and MS Office and all the other Windows only applications.
What Microsoft is working to prevent is that Windows is run virtually on top of a Linux platform. That would be very bad for them. As they'd lose a huge amount of leverage. data collection and control likely leading to an acceleration of lost market share and eventual obsolescence.
Jut because something hasn't been updated in a long time doesn't mean it's abandonware.... it could just be stable and feature complete.
Until the internet connected platform you are running it on REQUIRES a security or other update that breaks it forever. Old software that is not open source is always one upgrade away from useless. You just won't know which upgrade... but you do know it is coming....
Why invest your time and data in software that is guaranteed to fail? Probably, at that most inconvenient time.
Its "Restoring Internet Freedom" order entirely revokes the strong net neutrality regulations put in place back in 2015 and replaces them with basically nothing. Internet providers can now block, throttle, and prioritize content if they want to. The only real rule here is that they have to disclose if they're doing any of this.
And the FCC's intention is disclosed in the document title, we're just reading it wrong. They're restoring freedom to the ISPs and corporations, not consumers. Bribes, kickbacks and revolving-door jobs for the people in charge of the FCC are more valuable than their tax-payer funded jobs./cynical
Correct. It's just like the mislabeling of the term "Free Market." Which is held up as wonderful by the naive and gullible.
In reality this is a mythical (though less every day) place from the past where there are no regulations, anything goes, and there are no regulators to stop pollution, theft, graft, unfair marketing practices, customer harm, fraud, pollution, etc. And negative externalities have no consequence to parties causing them. A land where profits are private and consequences/externalities are social.
Basically, its a call for the nostalgia of the good ol' 19th century.
Without near realtime measurement and feedback of the ongoing externality damage created with ongoing real costs calculated such a tax scheme is really just a bribe to allow the damage created to be legal. It does not halt the damage. It likely won't fix the damage. And there are myriad ways for the damaging entity to "game" such a system to make sure they never pay the real costs of their externalities.
An entity can generate bad externalties. It just needs to be 100% responsible for cleaning them up. However, if it can't clean them up or it's economic activity would not be profitable if it was forced to do so it should not proceed with those methods of production.
A producer who makes $1000 per widget will happily pay a $100 tax when the production of that widge actually creates $300 in damage. Particularly, if that "tax" also blocks potential competitors from competing with them.
Pigovian Taxes do not fix externalities. The party responsible for creating the externality should be preventing it. If they have no profits because preventing the externalities costs too much perhaps they should change their business processes.
In most cases, taxing for an externality, collects tax revenue... but does not fix the ongoing damage created by the externality. Creating a tax that actually balances the harm caused is also not simple and changes with the number of firms and the processes they use. Externality creators will also lobby to lower any compensating taxes without correcting the externalities.
What is the externality? How is it's damage measured? What happens with the collected taxes? Is the externality actually completely mitigated within a reasonable timeframe?
Pigovian Taxes that are not priced to the ongoing damage produced and used to reverse that damage are not solving the problem. The firms involved are simply paying a bribe to continuie to cause damage that likely costs more to remedy than the tax.
Actually, acting like "free markets" or tending toward free markets legally in this reality is a huge mistake.
This reality does not allow them to exist and trending toward the fantasy just makes those who believe vulnerable to those who use the lack regulation to "win" via socializing externalities etc. After all, its legal and there is no penalty for doing so.
The idea of "free markets" is an intellectual exercise for entry level econ students that simplifies the basic ideas of economics and makes the exercises easier to solve. But they don't reflect reality. Simplfying assumptions rarely do.
How do you prevent the socializing of externalities in a "free market" without regulation that actually works?
The "Free Market" does not exist in the real world. It's a thought exercise. A fairy tale.
"Perfect Competition" does not exist. Market players except in the smallest mostly short term historic local examples always have different competitive advantages and deficits.
"Perfect Information" disappears first. It is in the interest of market players to distort information available to customers and competitors for competitive advantage. Without government regulation this happens almost instantly.
"Externalities" are part of the real world. All actions have benefits and consequences. Externalities are simply the consequences that are not handled by the party profiting from their creation.
Capitalism: Privatize profit. Socialize externalities. Screw everyone except shareholders and maybe your customers.
Umm. Only the receipients pay taxes on the income *they* recieve when someone who dies leaves them assets that should be treated as income just like all income is. The *dead* pay no taxes only the recipients who receive income. Just like they would any other income!
The "Death Tax Lie" is an attempt to eliminate the income tax that is applied to all other types of income. Parents cannot "gift" more than $10K tax free per year per child during their lifetimes. So why should the same assets be transferable "tax free" to receipients at death?
It makes ZERO logical sense. Except for a small group of families who want to create intergenerational dynasties.
The term "death tax" is marketing to designed to confuse and eliminate the "income tax" in a special case to create legal pathway to monied dynasties.
It's not your money. It's likely your parents money. So you have to pay income tax on it if they give it to you.
All income is taxed when it moves between parties including family members when the amount is over $10K. Anytime that money moves from one party to another where that money is income to the receiving party it should be taxed at rates similar to income.
The "double tax" talking point is false. Income is to be taxed. That *supposedly* includes all income to an entity.
Being born of rich parents is just like winning a lottery. It is luck. And we tax lottery winnings at full income tax rates. An inheritance is just lottery income to the receiving party that should be taxed exactly the same way.
Or are you really arguing that there should be no income tax? Because that is the only way your argument makes in any sense.
Living parents cannot give more than $10K per child per year tax free. Why should they be able to give it all after death. The children didn't earn it. And EVERY other form of regular income is taxed.
The "death tax" is a disingenous lie! It's just the standard income tax and another *huge* loophole that benefits the very few extremely rich and allows the creation of family dynastys where great-great-grandpa did something once upon a time.
Slashdot Mirror
> Because every website that has a Facebook Like button on it is
> sending information about you back to Facebook.
> Because every website that loads Facebook Javascript is
> sending information about you back to Facebook.
Most sites now have Facebook tracking without the Like buttons as the Like button is acquiring a negative connotation. There are facebook.net and connect.facebook.net facebook user and facebook non-users data collection beacons all over the internet on sites many visit regularly.
The collection of data from every interaction is at scale. Every interaction is recorded, while manipulation and testing for effective manipulation is constant.
If you are using Facebook and *think* you are cognizant of the manipulation, you are being effectively manipulated.
If you provide 300 Likes to Facebook, or just visit sites with Like buttons they know about how you'll react to given stimuli (an article, news post, ad, pitch) than your spouse or family.
Newsfeed is particularly manipulative. It watches every click all the time and quickly builds an interest and personality profile on users.
All salespeople, grifters and conmen know that the more they know about the mark, the easier it is to manipulate them. You give Facebook and anyone they rent the data they've collected on you tremendous power over you in exchange just for connecting with other people. Something you can easily do on the Internet without using Facebook.
The 2 night Frontline documentary covers many of the issues with Facebook:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/front...
It's clear that Facebook is everyone's enemy. So why would anyone use them just so they can manipulate you for their own purposes or just rent that manipulation information about you for profit?
Think of the creepiest entity ever watching and listening in on everything you do on their platform then using all the info you provide against you for profit. That is what Facebook is!
Yup. Note: the slogan was NOT our stuff works or it will get the job done! Only that "you won't get fired" even if it NEVER works.
Today's bit of truth: Trump lies more often than a cat licks its paws.
Seems to make the most sense to me: phone + high-quality KVM experience = what 99% of the population wants.
This *almost* exists now just leave a bluetooth mouse/keyboard and Chromecast with hdmi monitor where ever you want to use your phone "full screen." It's the Apps and GUI that aren't there.
It certainly makes sense to just use your phone. But the platforms that be (iOS and Android) have not evolved there yet.
A phone with a SnapDragon 845, 8G RAM and 128GB of storage certainly has the necessary horsepower.
The two most popular IoT wireless protocols (Zigbee & ZWave) are proprietary requiring 20k+ licensing fee's to make your own devices. There are some emulation libraries for WiFi devices (Like the Phillips Hue & WeMo) but are not 100% compatible with smart home hubs (Like Amazons ECHO V2 for example). There are open source wireless protocols that use the same frequencies as Zigbee but none of the smart home hubs support them unfortunately.
Z-Wave is proprietary, but Zigbee has open source software and hardware options.
You can use a Z-wave/Zigbee/WiFi controller hub like the VeraPlus and cut off it's ability to "phone home." While built on OpenWRT Barrier Breaker it's still proprietary, but more hackable and controllable than the others.
There is also work being done Rasberry Pi replacements for the Vera using projects projects like OpenLuup:
https://github.com/akbooer/ope...
Maybe on CNN with their readers. But on Slashdot I think going assumption is outfits like Facebook try manipulating every piece of info on a user to target stupid ads.
The point is that even CNN readers still don't understand the power they give a walled garden site that controls all you see and hear and can continiously test your reactions to their generated content. Facebook has built this ability at scale.
If you've clicked a 100 Like buttons Facebook likely knows more about you than your immediate family.
So people should now trust Instagram because NOW after Facebook has been found out because Instagram started limited some of the extensive data gathering they've been doing on "users" for years?
What this tells me is that *ANY* Zuckerberg production is completely untrustworthy with carefully crafted terms of service designed to keep "the product" from running away.
Cattlemen, like Zuckerberg, are very fond of their herds right up to and particularly after the cattle are sold at market.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...
At least Mr. Zuckerberg was candid enough to say right at the beginning, "they actually trust me with their data? Those stupid fucks."
Great quote. Do you have a citation?
There are lot's of citations of that quote by Zuck all over the Internet. Here is just one of them:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
Simply search for "Zuckerberg dumb fucks quote" to find tons of them.
Except Instagram, you can trust them over Facebook!
Really? Instagram is just Facebook with more images. And Instagram is OWNED by Facebook.
Idiots deleting their Facebook accounts and running to Instagram does seem to be in fashion though.
Think of all the cool experiments Facebook can do with real life people in real world boxes?
with just a few edits:
There is nothing wrong with your phone or computer. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. Sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear while building troves data about your location, contacts, personality, religion, politics, interests and most important your trigger points while testing all your reactions. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your phone or computer set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches in to your inner mind and feeds it to us - The Facebook.
Particularly given, that if you were in charge of security that you could easily compartmentlize any moral quams about how the entire system works as "not my job."
Good for him!
It's almost as if it would be better to make a much larger device...
Or maybe reformat the content. If we can solve that problem, soon we might see newspapers with their own websites.
Texture does reformat many magazine articles for viewing on phones. They don't do it for all the mags they carry though probably because of licensing issues. They also have a topical "Highlights" area where articles are re-formatted for phones. There is also a search function to search through the current and back catalog for articles by keyword.
Though reading long format articles on your phone is always a bit of pain in my opinion. But that is an issue of the delivery device: The phone. And I would not want to lose access to long articles, because short 'click bait' articles are the only thing that fits on a phone screen.
Many newspapers do have their own websites where you can read their daily offerings (if you have a subscription) either graphically OR as more phone friendly HTML text. Most of them seem to be running software hosted on newsmemory.com.
Also Texture has quite a lot of magazines if anyone in your home is into more than 3 Texture is a much less expensive alternative than the check out counter or magazine rack.
Linux itself, given its deep penetration into device and Internet infrastructure with it's lack of licensing fees is "safe" from Microsoft. But Microsoft could "tame" Linux that runs on top of the "Windows kernel" and slow or limit it in ways over time to keep it caged and within their control.
They also may just make Linux on Windows 10 spy and watch users and then turn that info to their own strategy based on what is popular on any installed Linux on top of Windows.
This combined with the difficulty of buying any turn-key PC without Windows pre-installed gives them tremendous leverage.
Microsoft has always leveraged being at the bottom of the platform stack to their advantage. And as long as they are perceived by their customers to be a REQUIRED platform install below Linux they may not care. After all, their existing customers still want TurboTax and MS Office and all the other Windows only applications.
What Microsoft is working to prevent is that Windows is run virtually on top of a Linux platform. That would be very bad for them. As they'd lose a huge amount of leverage. data collection and control likely leading to an acceleration of lost market share and eventual obsolescence.
Jut because something hasn't been updated in a long time doesn't mean it's abandonware.... it could just be stable and feature complete.
Until the internet connected platform you are running it on REQUIRES a security or other update that breaks it forever. Old software that is not open source is always one upgrade away from useless. You just won't know which upgrade... but you do know it is coming....
Why invest your time and data in software that is guaranteed to fail? Probably, at that most inconvenient time.
Its "Restoring Internet Freedom" order entirely revokes the strong net neutrality regulations put in place back in 2015 and replaces them with basically nothing. Internet providers can now block, throttle, and prioritize content if they want to. The only real rule here is that they have to disclose if they're doing any of this.
And the FCC's intention is disclosed in the document title, we're just reading it wrong. They're restoring freedom to the ISPs and corporations, not consumers. Bribes, kickbacks and revolving-door jobs for the people in charge of the FCC are more valuable than their tax-payer funded jobs. /cynical
Correct. It's just like the mislabeling of the term "Free Market." Which is held up as wonderful by the naive and gullible.
In reality this is a mythical (though less every day) place from the past where there are no regulations, anything goes, and there are no regulators to stop pollution, theft, graft, unfair marketing practices, customer harm, fraud, pollution, etc. And negative externalities have no consequence to parties causing them. A land where profits are private and consequences/externalities are social.
Basically, its a call for the nostalgia of the good ol' 19th century.
What could you do with your own orbiting weapons platform?
It's not NASA is going to be able police you. And does any world military have the ability to the shoot it down with currently online weapons?
Hmmmm.
Without near realtime measurement and feedback of the ongoing externality damage created with ongoing real costs calculated such a tax scheme is really just a bribe to allow the damage created to be legal. It does not halt the damage. It likely won't fix the damage. And there are myriad ways for the damaging entity to "game" such a system to make sure they never pay the real costs of their externalities.
An entity can generate bad externalties. It just needs to be 100% responsible for cleaning them up. However, if it can't clean them up or it's economic activity would not be profitable if it was forced to do so it should not proceed with those methods of production.
A producer who makes $1000 per widget will happily pay a $100 tax when the production of that widge actually creates $300 in damage. Particularly, if that "tax" also blocks potential competitors from competing with them.
Pigovian Taxes do not fix externalities. The party responsible for creating the externality should be preventing it. If they have no profits because preventing the externalities costs too much perhaps they should change their business processes.
In most cases, taxing for an externality, collects tax revenue... but does not fix the ongoing damage created by the externality. Creating a tax that actually balances the harm caused is also not simple and changes with the number of firms and the processes they use. Externality creators will also lobby to lower any compensating taxes without correcting the externalities.
What is the externality?
How is it's damage measured?
What happens with the collected taxes?
Is the externality actually completely mitigated within a reasonable timeframe?
Pigovian Taxes that are not priced to the ongoing damage produced and used to reverse that damage are not solving the problem. The firms involved are simply paying a bribe to continuie to cause damage that likely costs more to remedy than the tax.
Actually, acting like "free markets" or tending toward free markets legally in this reality is a huge mistake.
This reality does not allow them to exist and trending toward the fantasy just makes those who believe vulnerable to those who use the lack regulation to "win" via socializing externalities etc. After all, its legal and there is no penalty for doing so.
The idea of "free markets" is an intellectual exercise for entry level econ students that simplifies the basic ideas of economics and makes the exercises easier to solve. But they don't reflect reality. Simplfying assumptions rarely do.
How do you prevent the socializing of externalities in a "free market" without regulation that actually works?
The "Free Market" does not exist in the real world. It's a thought exercise. A fairy tale.
"Perfect Competition" does not exist. Market players except in the smallest mostly short term historic local examples always have different competitive advantages and deficits.
"Perfect Information" disappears first. It is in the interest of market players to distort information available to customers and competitors for competitive advantage. Without government regulation this happens almost instantly.
"Externalities" are part of the real world. All actions have benefits and consequences. Externalities are simply the consequences that are not handled by the party profiting from their creation.
Capitalism: Privatize profit. Socialize externalities. Screw everyone except shareholders and maybe your customers.
Umm. Only the receipients pay taxes on the income *they* recieve when someone who dies leaves them assets that should be treated as income just like all income is. The *dead* pay no taxes only the recipients who receive income. Just like they would any other income!
The "Death Tax Lie" is an attempt to eliminate the income tax that is applied to all other types of income. Parents cannot "gift" more than $10K tax free per year per child during their lifetimes. So why should the same assets be transferable "tax free" to receipients at death?
It makes ZERO logical sense. Except for a small group of families who want to create intergenerational dynasties.
The term "death tax" is marketing to designed to confuse and eliminate the "income tax" in a special case to create legal pathway to monied dynasties.
It's not your money. It's likely your parents money. So you have to pay income tax on it if they give it to you.
Your argument is complete BS.
All income is taxed when it moves between parties including family members when the amount is over $10K. Anytime that money moves from one party to another where that money is income to the receiving party it should be taxed at rates similar to income.
The "double tax" talking point is false. Income is to be taxed. That *supposedly* includes all income to an entity.
Being born of rich parents is just like winning a lottery. It is luck. And we tax lottery winnings at full income tax rates. An inheritance is just lottery income to the receiving party that should be taxed exactly the same way.
Or are you really arguing that there should be no income tax? Because that is the only way your argument makes in any sense.
Living parents cannot give more than $10K per child per year tax free. Why should they be able to give it all after death. The children didn't earn it. And EVERY other form of regular income is taxed.
The "death tax" is a disingenous lie! It's just the standard income tax and another *huge* loophole that benefits the very few extremely rich and allows the creation of family dynastys where great-great-grandpa did something once upon a time.