What you raise, is an often raised response to discussions about free-speech and censorship.
What is often left out of these discussions, however, is the pervasive nature of corporate control over speech in the 'real' world (as well as the virtual). Corporations (and rich individuals) own newspapers (which trumpet *their* voice) TV stations (which do the same). The space for the mass dissemination of people's voices is small, and relegated to small groups, public meetings and protests (often barely tolerated by our democratic representatives).
When it comes to the mass dissemination of individuals voices, the internet is similarly coralled. Get a blog, people scream, on your own website! And there, the footfall is often small in scope. On sites where many people come together, those sites are owned by corporations and businesses, often merely looking for a proft..
The stark fact is, there are no public spaces on the internet. It's all owned by someone.
Why are we letting this hypothetical employer off the hook for basing their hiring decision on this non-issue? That's my question.
The narrative that you pose is one where people must be protected from the unreasonable views and actions of third parties as a result of finding information out efficiently. Is that feasible, practical, reasonable? And how are we to ascertain if it is worthwhile? By what metric?
Ad blocking was born in response to the arms race advertisers launched (and lets be fair here, also the websites that hosted them) where their ads became increasingly intolerable, obnoxious, disturbing and disruptive (to simple reading comprehension, never mind anything else). This behaviour *necessitated* a response; intitially simple pop-up blockers (now integrated into browsers AS STANDARD!) and gradually moving forward.
If anything, we've seen a lull in hostilities for the past few years as ad blockers have proved very successful, limited only by their install base.
The next round will probably involve websites refusing to show content until adblocking software is disabled (seen here and there already) and if/as this becomes more prevalent, ad blockers responding with stealthing mechanisms.
Since users ultimately own the rendering device, I'm not certain the advertisers can ever win. And god knows, they lost the moral argument long, long ago.
Can't companies be fined for spamming in the USA? The statement that Uber wants the "ability to send special offers to riders' friends or family" is a clear declaration to spam, since a person *cannot* opt someone else into recieving marketing emails. Seems like any activity based on exploiting such contacts in said manner would clearly land Uber with not insignificant fines and/or criminal prosecution. (IANAL etc.)
Or just click the cog and choose 'classic' to have tiles without participating in the 'enhanced' version they're talking about (or 'blank' for nothing)!
Tiles are easily pinned, moved around or removed using simple drag-and-drop and close interfaces. If you do not want to see any Tiles, you can deactivate them completely in two clicks through the new tab gear control. Respects your privacy
What data is being collected?
Mozilla collects Tiles related data such as number of clicks, impressions and Tile specific data (e.g. position and size of grid) to help Mozilla determine how frequently the Tile has been seen or interacted with, as well as your IP address (collected by Firefox, quickly translated into a region code and then deleted). What data is collected when I opt out?
No data is collected when a user deactivates the Enhanced Tiles experience.
Unlike the desktop version of Firefox, though, mobile Firefox downloads the ads and merely hides them, meaning that on a platform where you really don't want to waste unnecessary data, FF mobile's adblock is merely an exercise in aesthetics.
>If I own a newspaper I can decide what I publish in the paper. If you own a newspaper, you pay people to write FOR you. These people are your employees. If you host a *public* blogging platform, you can certainly disallow what people are allowed to publish there, but you don't get to not call it censorship.
Oh please. Why do people (mostly American) trot out this narrow, legalistic, definition of "censorship"?
Blogger is a site where the public can post their communications. If Blogger is deciding certain communications are unacceptable and is either hiding them or disallowing them entirely, it's still censorship.
Just because Google isn't a government, doesn't mean it can't engage in censorship.
Strange, I have a Nexus 7 (2012) with Lollipop 5.0.2 and it's fine for the most part, wiht the only niggle being the occasional lag that occurrs shortly after unlocking it when it polls online services like gmail.
It's almost as if France, instead of capitulating to whichever corporation throws the most money at them, instead listens to ordinary people who exercise their democratic voice.
Yes, France's public transport system, for example is an example of the sort of failure that we, for instance in the UK, shudder at.
Cheap fares, efficient operation, a boon to the country and its people.
Ours in the UK, meanwhile engages in double-dipping (making shareholder profits while receiving public subsidy), has terrible roling stock and fucking high ticket prices that rise regardless of the economics of the country, all along with local monopolies(!!!!)
Those bloody French socialists and their incompetence!
Again, I find myself agreeing with you largely, and would merely add that the President is mostly a figurehead (albeit one with *some* clout) and there are a body of people behind the scenes, who are not elected that run the show. And that includes corporate and wealthy power outside but with access. The US isn't a dictatorship, but the people who control what happens are just as unconcerned with the little people as any dictator.
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that if the places that exist to be heard are so small that they are barely noticed, that is an effective stifling of free speech.
What you raise, is an often raised response to discussions about free-speech and censorship.
What is often left out of these discussions, however, is the pervasive nature of corporate control over speech in the 'real' world (as well as the virtual). Corporations (and rich individuals) own newspapers (which trumpet *their* voice) TV stations (which do the same). The space for the mass dissemination of people's voices is small, and relegated to small groups, public meetings and protests (often barely tolerated by our democratic representatives).
When it comes to the mass dissemination of individuals voices, the internet is similarly coralled. Get a blog, people scream, on your own website! And there, the footfall is often small in scope. On sites where many people come together, those sites are owned by corporations and businesses, often merely looking for a proft..
The stark fact is, there are no public spaces on the internet. It's all owned by someone.
Why are we letting this hypothetical employer off the hook for basing their hiring decision on this non-issue? That's my question.
The narrative that you pose is one where people must be protected from the unreasonable views and actions of third parties as a result of finding information out efficiently. Is that feasible, practical, reasonable? And how are we to ascertain if it is worthwhile? By what metric?
Ad blocking was born in response to the arms race advertisers launched (and lets be fair here, also the websites that hosted them) where their ads became increasingly intolerable, obnoxious, disturbing and disruptive (to simple reading comprehension, never mind anything else). This behaviour *necessitated* a response; intitially simple pop-up blockers (now integrated into browsers AS STANDARD!) and gradually moving forward.
If anything, we've seen a lull in hostilities for the past few years as ad blockers have proved very successful, limited only by their install base.
The next round will probably involve websites refusing to show content until adblocking software is disabled (seen here and there already) and if/as this becomes more prevalent, ad blockers responding with stealthing mechanisms.
Since users ultimately own the rendering device, I'm not certain the advertisers can ever win. And god knows, they lost the moral argument long, long ago.
I wonder if anyone will accuse them of putting American lives in danger and having "blood on their hands"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That's the link. Just replace the "watch?" with a "/" and then the "=" after the v with a "/" also.
ie. https://www.youtube.com/v/NteA...
Gives you full-screen 'embeddable' link that bypasses the censorship.
Can't companies be fined for spamming in the USA?
The statement that Uber wants the "ability to send special offers to riders' friends or family" is a clear declaration to spam, since a person *cannot* opt someone else into recieving marketing emails.
Seems like any activity based on exploiting such contacts in said manner would clearly land Uber with not insignificant fines and/or criminal prosecution.
(IANAL etc.)
Or just turn it off, you raving, hysterical lunatic.
Or just click the cog and choose 'classic' to have tiles without participating in the 'enhanced' version they're talking about (or 'blank' for nothing)!
Also on the top right of a new tab is a settings 'cog' where you can choose "Enhanced", "Classic" or "Blank" so you can easily turn this off.
The details are fairly straightforward and are laid out on this page.
Some choice exerpts to soothe the paniced minds:
Unlike the desktop version of Firefox, though, mobile Firefox downloads the ads and merely hides them, meaning that on a platform where you really don't want to waste unnecessary data, FF mobile's adblock is merely an exercise in aesthetics.
If an unvaccinated child dies, can the parent who has denied their child a vaccination be prosecuted for child endangerment?
Maybe that's what it'll take to end this virus of ignorance.
I like the fact that they really acknowledge the fatiguing aspect of fighting. Makes it seem so much more real.
>"Parallel Construction" [wikipedia.org] is a fundamental part of police work now.
So true and yet an utterly chilling sentence.
Where the state is engaging in perjury, openly and without shame, what justice can there be?
The video: after about six minutes of pointless waffle, the video shows some kids playing with this, for about five seconds. Then back to the waffle.
>If I own a newspaper I can decide what I publish in the paper.
If you own a newspaper, you pay people to write FOR you. These people are your employees.
If you host a *public* blogging platform, you can certainly disallow what people are allowed to publish there, but you don't get to not call it censorship.
Oh please. Why do people (mostly American) trot out this narrow, legalistic, definition of "censorship"?
Blogger is a site where the public can post their communications. If Blogger is deciding certain communications are unacceptable and is either hiding them or disallowing them entirely, it's still censorship.
Just because Google isn't a government, doesn't mean it can't engage in censorship.
Never mind parental controls, how about user controls over app permissions? (ie. putting the user and their privacy/security first.)
Strange, I have a Nexus 7 (2012) with Lollipop 5.0.2 and it's fine for the most part, wiht the only niggle being the occasional lag that occurrs shortly after unlocking it when it polls online services like gmail.
Essentially, they have a prophylactic to protect them from the virus that is vaccination denialism?
Well said.
It's almost as if France, instead of capitulating to whichever corporation throws the most money at them, instead listens to ordinary people who exercise their democratic voice.
Also (I know, going for the jugular a bit here) do you want me to talk about Comcast? Cos I can talk about Comcast.
Yes, France's public transport system, for example is an example of the sort of failure that we, for instance in the UK, shudder at.
Cheap fares, efficient operation, a boon to the country and its people.
Ours in the UK, meanwhile engages in double-dipping (making shareholder profits while receiving public subsidy), has terrible roling stock and fucking high ticket prices that rise regardless of the economics of the country, all along with local monopolies(!!!!)
Those bloody French socialists and their incompetence!
Again, I find myself agreeing with you largely, and would merely add that the President is mostly a figurehead (albeit one with *some* clout) and there are a body of people behind the scenes, who are not elected that run the show. And that includes corporate and wealthy power outside but with access. The US isn't a dictatorship, but the people who control what happens are just as unconcerned with the little people as any dictator.