Oh noes, a content producer made a six figure lump sum for several years work - she must be criticized for not representing the games industry in its entirety, using a small set of unrepresentative examples to represent the whole - clearly she is open target for vicious criticism. The games industry aren't content producers, never make any money and so are definitely blameless in the content they produce and should not be subject to negative criticism of any kind because so doing makes you a hate-baiter who is insulting the people that consume the content.
Her videos aren't about how gamers hate women. They are how women are commonly portrayed as sexual targets or victims in the games industry, to the point that it has a whole forest of tropes associated with it. That isn't because women are hated, it's that game designers seem to think without sexual imagery that appeals to men, they wouldn't sell as many games. Which is usually true only because big games tend to actually suck and they need to be visually appealing. There are plenty of games which are neutral or otherwise fine - but there are too many (big sellers) in which women exist only for the aesthetic appeal of men.Do you have any evidence of her saying that gamers are haters? Or have you conflated criticism of people involved in making games you enjoy as criticism of your group and therefore of you? That would be a little foolish, I think, so I hope that's not the case.
Incidentally, there are plenty of other people tackling the news, film and religious groups - so you don't have to worry that Sarkeesian is alone. I'm going to be frank - some of the ugliness that comes out of the gaming and tech industry is pretty damned ugly. If you want to see what women get for criticizing men in a religious-based discussion then you might look to Jen McCreight,Greta Christina, Aayan Hirsi Ali, Maryam Namazie. They tend to get death and rape threats for pointing out that the religious (and irreligious) cultures are still too infused with misogyny. It's not all that different than with the game industry, only gamers have less excuse than religious people because Assassin's Creed 2 is not a central part of (most) gamers' identity.
Yes - everybody in the 21st Centry who makes death threats over the internet does that...because the police don't knock on doors in response to this, unless it gets to David Mabus levels.
I've not followed her a lot, but what I've seen is not misandrist - what has she done to be misandrist in your mind?
The reason this is a gender thing is that it's women writers and speakers who are receiving sexualized threats whenever they say something that a subset of men find objectionable. It's not often the other way around. If it was, this wouldn't be a 'fucking gender thing', but as it turns out, its almost exclusively women that face this experience and it's almost universally when they talk about the portrayal or men or women in movies or books or games or whatever.
People are trying to treat it as stupid and criminal, but unfortunately (predominantly men it seems) are trying hard to minimize it is as being serious or even suggesting it's all crafty witch's illusion (Burn her!)
How is Sarkeesian provoking minors? I thought she was criticizing game producers, in her latest video it seems to be about using them as background decoration (ie., women are often portrayed as near naked as sex workers and men are not even as dead bodies).
You're free not to care about certain discussions, but for decades there have been discussions about the power of media and how culture is employing it and whether this is actually a good idea.
Incidentally, it is possible, when millions of people are in communication with one another, to work together towards addressing several problems at once. So why don't you get on with solving murder while Sarkeesian focusses on the negative portrayal of women in various media such as computer games? You may even cooperate with one another at some point, but for now I suggest you work with whoever is fixing racism, or domestic violence.
No - in such an environment when they are producing reports they are not performing scientific studies, but a person that does this does not cease to be a scientist. There may be some people in the IPCC who have ceased original research and may not be regarded as a 'scientist' if you want to be exclusionary, but that is not true of all of them.
Your source does not say that IPCC members are not scientists, as that would be an obvious lie. They are scientists and associated academics. Also you should try finding better sources if you seek to be persuasive.
Yeah, I liked the MACHO idea many years ago, they may still account for some of the gravity yet, but the position is more or less untenable at this stage both empirically and theoretically.
They don't actually assert that the correlation was because of reward-seeking addict-like behaviour they actually said that, working on the assumption that pornography consumption shares characteristics of 'reward-seeking behavior, novelty-seeking behavior, and addictive behavior' they decided to see if the two variables in question correlated. They were r{64}=0.432, P.001. It might be because their assumptions were right, but it is likely it isn't the exclusive reason for pornography consumption, nor am I aware are they claiming this and I would be surprised if they did.
If it hasn't already been done, you can correlate porn usage with lack of access to sexual partners or something, but that is way beyond the scope of this study.
I'm not willing to comment too much on the alcohol/drug aspect of the study, as I don't have access to it, but I'm not sure how strong a conclusion they can draw from the subset of 64 people that have the addiction problems they looked at. You only reported r to me so I can't really say anything based just on that, can I?
Consumption of pornography is typically a term used to denote the viewing of pornography. This was a relatively simple correlational study of a set of individuals reporting their typical porn consumption in the context of their private lives. I see no evidence in their figures or conclusions that indicate they made any effort to separate out what people might be doing while consuming pornography. Therefore it can be either and more.
It's a technical paper in a medical journal. The intended audience doesn't need to be taught the fundamentals of statistics. That's why it was 'left out'.
2. It wasn't an experiment it was a correlational study, so no control is needed.
3. Out of scope
Fortunately you didn't need to get beyond the paywall to answer them. And although I don't have access to the JAMA network, having read a lot of psych papers I'm confident a phrase such as 'suggests further research is required' is in there.
Bear in mind that there were two courts in operation. The AEPD and the EU court. The AEPD essentially did not pass the case for removing the data from the original website to the EU court, basically deciding for them that it was legal. They just didn't know what to do about the search engine, so the EU court decided it.
Google processes data and it discloses it. (it wasn't bankruptcy, and he did ask them to remove it from the internet).
The newspaper, however, legally published it and have no legal obligation to delete that data.
You don't think the people involved in this decision understand search engines? This is evidence you haven't read the ruling. Why are so many people so confident about something they haven't read? What is this, Slashdot?
He didn't attack Google. He requested they stop processing his personal data and disclosing it to anyone who knows how to spell his name.
It wasn't bankrupcy but the auction of his house to pay for some debts. The European court was not given the opportunity to rule on this, as the AEPD ruled it was lawfully published to maximise exposure to potential buyers so the European court didn't consider it any further.
I see no evidence that he is a businessman, but maybe you know better.
Europe is saying that you have a right to free speech, but that personal data belongs to the individual it concerns who has rights over the manner in which that data is processed. Google never acquired his permission to process that data, and are obligated to remove it. This is not about being offended by someone's speech, but about the treatment of data you own by third party's that collect that data indiscriminately.
No - I wasn't talking about the public record. ANY company in Europe that has ANY personal data about me MUST reveal what that data is if I request, and delete or amend it if I so demand and the request is reasonable and possible (there's a lot of legal background, but since you don't seem to know the basics I'll just have to point you at google and hope you can find out yourself)
This isn't about me demanding the public record is changed when it is incorrect. Even if a company NEVER publishes my data in any context whatsover and they only use it for building marketing campaigns....I get to have it deleted if I don't want them to do that.
It is about my rights regarding the processing of MY personal data. The ruling simply says that Google is a Data Controller and is therefore subject to the same rules other Data Controllers must follow.
Actually he did dispute that it should be a matter of public record, but that failed.
However, Google still processes the information about him, and they are still responsible for doing that correctly. Just because one website can legally present information, that doesn't mean all websites can present that information. Each website must handle personal data for some specific purpose that is timely. There is little need for google to serve up information about a person's personal financial situation from 15 years ago, even if there is a need for that information to be available on the original site. It is out of date and no longer relevant to this person's current situation, but it is presented in a way that prejudices against him.
So, if your medical board sends data overseas, and the overseas company puts some medical information online, they may refuse to take it down because it is legal in their country, and it may take weeks to force the issue and depending on country it may never be possible. Maybe a similar thing happens with your cousin's records, and your cable bill details etc.
All the while, every human on the planet can search your name and find this stuff out on Google, and build a profile about how your family has a predisposition towards one illness or another, that finances are uncertain and whatever. Information that would have required they visit a serious of different websites with no obvious link to one another and to find the details by trawling yourself rather than have Google do it.
So as I said - this is nothing to do with altering historical facts, and it isn't all that new. It's just that the same rules for data handling that every other single Data Controller in Europe has to abide by, now also includes companies like Google. I've not seen any 'tremendous abuse' of this over the past 25 years, I fail to see why legally defining Google as a Data Controller would suddenly make a long standing law subject to tremendous abuse.
The only way to find it would be for you to read the judgement yourself, its freely available and all your questions are answered there.
Yes, the source still exists. The judges understood this and it was a key part of the whole case (the plaintiff wanted it removed from the source as well, but this was declined).
There are lots of search engines. I'm not sure why the number of businesses affected by the ruling has any bearing on the ruling.
The jurisdiction is based on where the information is gathered from. If Google are processing and controlling data about a British citizen they need to conform to British or European laws regarding the handling of this data.
Actually - financial institutions do use facebook and google to run checks on people. I've done it myself as part of a financial institution on a regular basis. It's kind of fun when people brag on facebook about committing fraud:)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh noes, a content producer made a six figure lump sum for several years work - she must be criticized for not representing the games industry in its entirety, using a small set of unrepresentative examples to represent the whole - clearly she is open target for vicious criticism.
The games industry aren't content producers, never make any money and so are definitely blameless in the content they produce and should not be subject to negative criticism of any kind because so doing makes you a hate-baiter who is insulting the people that consume the content.
Her videos aren't about how gamers hate women. They are how women are commonly portrayed as sexual targets or victims in the games industry, to the point that it has a whole forest of tropes associated with it. That isn't because women are hated, it's that game designers seem to think without sexual imagery that appeals to men, they wouldn't sell as many games. Which is usually true only because big games tend to actually suck and they need to be visually appealing. There are plenty of games which are neutral or otherwise fine - but there are too many (big sellers) in which women exist only for the aesthetic appeal of men.Do you have any evidence of her saying that gamers are haters? Or have you conflated criticism of people involved in making games you enjoy as criticism of your group and therefore of you? That would be a little foolish, I think, so I hope that's not the case.
Incidentally, there are plenty of other people tackling the news, film and religious groups - so you don't have to worry that Sarkeesian is alone. I'm going to be frank - some of the ugliness that comes out of the gaming and tech industry is pretty damned ugly. If you want to see what women get for criticizing men in a religious-based discussion then you might look to Jen McCreight,Greta Christina, Aayan Hirsi Ali, Maryam Namazie. They tend to get death and rape threats for pointing out that the religious (and irreligious) cultures are still too infused with misogyny. It's not all that different than with the game industry, only gamers have less excuse than religious people because Assassin's Creed 2 is not a central part of (most) gamers' identity.
Yes - everybody in the 21st Centry who makes death threats over the internet does that...because the police don't knock on doors in response to this, unless it gets to David Mabus levels.
I've not followed her a lot, but what I've seen is not misandrist - what has she done to be misandrist in your mind?
The reason this is a gender thing is that it's women writers and speakers who are receiving sexualized threats whenever they say something that a subset of men find objectionable. It's not often the other way around. If it was, this wouldn't be a 'fucking gender thing', but as it turns out, its almost exclusively women that face this experience and it's almost universally when they talk about the portrayal or men or women in movies or books or games or whatever.
People are trying to treat it as stupid and criminal, but unfortunately (predominantly men it seems) are trying hard to minimize it is as being serious or even suggesting it's all crafty witch's illusion (Burn her!)
How is Sarkeesian provoking minors? I thought she was criticizing game producers, in her latest video it seems to be about using them as background decoration (ie., women are often portrayed as near naked as sex workers and men are not even as dead bodies).
You're free not to care about certain discussions, but for decades there have been discussions about the power of media and how culture is employing it and whether this is actually a good idea.
Incidentally, it is possible, when millions of people are in communication with one another, to work together towards addressing several problems at once. So why don't you get on with solving murder while Sarkeesian focusses on the negative portrayal of women in various media such as computer games? You may even cooperate with one another at some point, but for now I suggest you work with whoever is fixing racism, or domestic violence.
No - in such an environment when they are producing reports they are not performing scientific studies, but a person that does this does not cease to be a scientist. There may be some people in the IPCC who have ceased original research and may not be regarded as a 'scientist' if you want to be exclusionary, but that is not true of all of them.
Your source does not say that IPCC members are not scientists, as that would be an obvious lie. They are scientists and associated academics. Also you should try finding better sources if you seek to be persuasive.
Yeah, I liked the MACHO idea many years ago, they may still account for some of the gravity yet, but the position is more or less untenable at this stage both empirically and theoretically.
Thanks, that's totally awesome of you!
They don't actually assert that the correlation was because of reward-seeking addict-like behaviour they actually said that, working on the assumption that pornography consumption shares characteristics of 'reward-seeking behavior, novelty-seeking behavior, and addictive behavior' they decided to see if the two variables in question correlated. They were r{64}=0.432, P.001. It might be because their assumptions were right, but it is likely it isn't the exclusive reason for pornography consumption, nor am I aware are they claiming this and I would be surprised if they did.
If it hasn't already been done, you can correlate porn usage with lack of access to sexual partners or something, but that is way beyond the scope of this study.
I'm not willing to comment too much on the alcohol/drug aspect of the study, as I don't have access to it, but I'm not sure how strong a conclusion they can draw from the subset of 64 people that have the addiction problems they looked at. You only reported r to me so I can't really say anything based just on that, can I?
But the striatum interacts with other brain structures such as the frontostriatal circuit, which does mediate behaviour.
Consumption of pornography is typically a term used to denote the viewing of pornography. This was a relatively simple correlational study of a set of individuals reporting their typical porn consumption in the context of their private lives. I see no evidence in their figures or conclusions that indicate they made any effort to separate out what people might be doing while consuming pornography. Therefore it can be either and more.
It's a technical paper in a medical journal. The intended audience doesn't need to be taught the fundamentals of statistics. That's why it was 'left out'.
Less than 5% of the men reported approximate 0/hours week consumption.
1. It is 'consuming porn' which can be either
2. It wasn't an experiment it was a correlational study, so no control is needed.
3. Out of scope
Fortunately you didn't need to get beyond the paywall to answer them. And although I don't have access to the JAMA network, having read a lot of psych papers I'm confident a phrase such as 'suggests further research is required' is in there.
Bear in mind that there were two courts in operation. The AEPD and the EU court. The AEPD essentially did not pass the case for removing the data from the original website to the EU court, basically deciding for them that it was legal. They just didn't know what to do about the search engine, so the EU court decided it.
They would lose 100s of millions of users, and with it all that marketing cash. Not likely.
Google processes data and it discloses it. (it wasn't bankruptcy, and he did ask them to remove it from the internet).
The newspaper, however, legally published it and have no legal obligation to delete that data.
You don't think the people involved in this decision understand search engines? This is evidence you haven't read the ruling. Why are so many people so confident about something they haven't read? What is this, Slashdot?
He didn't attack Google. He requested they stop processing his personal data and disclosing it to anyone who knows how to spell his name.
It wasn't bankrupcy but the auction of his house to pay for some debts. The European court was not given the opportunity to rule on this, as the AEPD ruled it was lawfully published to maximise exposure to potential buyers so the European court didn't consider it any further.
I see no evidence that he is a businessman, but maybe you know better.
Europe is saying that you have a right to free speech, but that personal data belongs to the individual it concerns who has rights over the manner in which that data is processed. Google never acquired his permission to process that data, and are obligated to remove it. This is not about being offended by someone's speech, but about the treatment of data you own by third party's that collect that data indiscriminately.
No - I wasn't talking about the public record. ANY company in Europe that has ANY personal data about me MUST reveal what that data is if I request, and delete or amend it if I so demand and the request is reasonable and possible (there's a lot of legal background, but since you don't seem to know the basics I'll just have to point you at google and hope you can find out yourself)
This isn't about me demanding the public record is changed when it is incorrect. Even if a company NEVER publishes my data in any context whatsover and they only use it for building marketing campaigns....I get to have it deleted if I don't want them to do that.
It is about my rights regarding the processing of MY personal data. The ruling simply says that Google is a Data Controller and is therefore subject to the same rules other Data Controllers must follow.
Actually he did dispute that it should be a matter of public record, but that failed.
However, Google still processes the information about him, and they are still responsible for doing that correctly. Just because one website can legally present information, that doesn't mean all websites can present that information. Each website must handle personal data for some specific purpose that is timely. There is little need for google to serve up information about a person's personal financial situation from 15 years ago, even if there is a need for that information to be available on the original site. It is out of date and no longer relevant to this person's current situation, but it is presented in a way that prejudices against him.
So, if your medical board sends data overseas, and the overseas company puts some medical information online, they may refuse to take it down because it is legal in their country, and it may take weeks to force the issue and depending on country it may never be possible. Maybe a similar thing happens with your cousin's records, and your cable bill details etc.
All the while, every human on the planet can search your name and find this stuff out on Google, and build a profile about how your family has a predisposition towards one illness or another, that finances are uncertain and whatever. Information that would have required they visit a serious of different websites with no obvious link to one another and to find the details by trawling yourself rather than have Google do it.
So as I said - this is nothing to do with altering historical facts, and it isn't all that new. It's just that the same rules for data handling that every other single Data Controller in Europe has to abide by, now also includes companies like Google. I've not seen any 'tremendous abuse' of this over the past 25 years, I fail to see why legally defining Google as a Data Controller would suddenly make a long standing law subject to tremendous abuse.
That is Scientology (ab)using copyright law, not Data Protection laws.
The only way to find it would be for you to read the judgement yourself, its freely available and all your questions are answered there.
Yes, the source still exists. The judges understood this and it was a key part of the whole case (the plaintiff wanted it removed from the source as well, but this was declined).
There are lots of search engines. I'm not sure why the number of businesses affected by the ruling has any bearing on the ruling.
The jurisdiction is based on where the information is gathered from. If Google are processing and controlling data about a British citizen they need to conform to British or European laws regarding the handling of this data.
Actually - financial institutions do use facebook and google to run checks on people. I've done it myself as part of a financial institution on a regular basis. It's kind of fun when people brag on facebook about committing fraud :)
The right to be forgotten is a trite media interpretation, not a legal right.