I honestly don't mind paying what I pay now for Internet / power. It's everything else that I don't want, socialism being at the top of that list. Really wish that bunch of poor people with horrible work-ethic and mindset weren't voting for people to destroy the country.
Or stop being naive and thinking that if you tell criminals not to rob you blind that they will listen.
Here is a better alternative:
1. If it's free, it's stealing your data. Don't use it.
An example of this that I don't know how it works is Honey. Honey "freely" lets you save money on thousands of sites. All this is powered by servers that they have to pay for, and resources that aren't free. So they MUST be selling your data.
I don't use Honey because I'd rather pay a little extra for stuff, than let another "Whizz Bang Silicon Valley Circus - The Greatest Show on Earth" app that boasts that it will save the whales, and all sorts of other super cool things while enabling a nerd to get a super model girlfriend etc. etc. No. It steals your data.
This is how we got to where we are today by blindly using things that say they're free when what they take from you is more valuable than money.
Things were ethical when they were making money off ads alone. They got greedy when they started selling private data to the highest bidder. Stuff that they DON'T need to have, like where you are every 3 seconds on Earth.. like Google does on all Android phones.
That's like someone who has the gold of Fort Knoxx leaving his door wide open and gold in plain sight and then have a sign saying "Please don't rob me."
Your rebuttal pretty much proves that it is exactly what orev said it is. Microsoft didn't ruin anything, well besides their OS.
I don't understand why you are taking this tone with me sir. It's a joke.
I don't care to read articles like this because they're a waste of time. It's all the same. Apple made some boneheaded design decision because they are anorexic when it comes to their devices, and he always makes a video explaining about how stupid Apple is in their design.
I don't use Apple anymore except for an older MBP I already have for music. I got rid of my iphone and all everything.
So if you have a rapid heart rate right now chill out dude. I'm not just assuming you're bent out of shape like everyone else does on the Internet but if you are, no reason to be:)
$0.01 - A CEO of a chinese technology company saying they refuse to give data to the government is extremely ridiculous and obviously untrue. The Chinese government requires by law this, in at least other instances. For example, Tesla is required to have their cars over their constantly give data to the Chinese government or they're not allowed to be in the country.
$0.01 - Praising of Trump is good TR (Trump Relations). History has shown that Trump tends to favor people who praise him, as can be seen during the history of his Presidency and Candidacy with Putin, Kim Jon Un, etc.
He pretty much will play niceities with anyone who praises him. This could be a way of them trying to get Trump to play nicely with them.
Actually I would be willing to bet my ass you're wrong? Because first of all.. It's a partial government shutdown.. And government shutdowns anyway only affect non-essential services.
In the words of Michael Knowles "Begs the question why do non-essential government services even exist."
I looked through every comment here and no one writes anything about the sites actually NOT being down. Don't know if hey actually were or if they got someone to fix it.
Slashdot going on the anti-Trump train is just a death of a once great site that actually cared about freedom and censorship with their "your rights online"... Seem much evidence of that going by the wayside. pretty sad.
But anyway Nasa and DOJ website works. I didn't try the others.
Coz you know. actually goddamn facts matter? like.. or does/. also go with the way of liberals now that facts don't matter?
Collection of data is completely UNNECESSARY to literally the majority of the functionality of the things that do it.
Instead of spending so much time to develop some convoluted scheme to give people the impression that you give a crap about their privacy how about you STOP COLLECTING DATA ON THEM.
You do NOT need to collect data on location for driving directions. All location data can stay on the phone itself. It does not need to be saved by anything.
This is why I will never use Microsoft anything and I am moving to not use Google anything. I recently stopped using Apple anything so it's been very hard to stop using Google.
And just like with the socialism that Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders want to implement, they hide from you the reality that you will end up paying for it.
The premise of Net Neutrality is that all traffic should be treated the same. No fast lanes or slow lanes.
The problem with this is that when something comes out, I'm sure everyone whether it's the new content release for a major video game launch or anything else.. When everyone tries to access the content at once, there's a huge demand and it's a huge problem. ISPs have oversold their bandwidth, just like Internet hosts voersell their storage space. Because in that example, most customers might have 50gb space, or 10gb but they only maybe set up one landing page or something maybe 20mb in size.. etc.
This is why when a new content release for a video game comes out, there are queues and people waiting hours to get in, because the network is flooded with traffic. And then people who have no clue complain about how the servers and all this and how they didn't anticipate this..
The way the ISP's want to solve this is by expanding their infrastructure and they wanted companies like Netflix, Google, YouTube, etc. to pay for this. These companies, don't want to pay for it, in the form of paying to have access to a fast lane. So they want Net Neutrality because that means no fast/slow lanes, and they don't have to pay money. They put out this huge marketing campaigns that say how Net Neutrality provides the same Internet access for everyone and no one is privileged or slowed down. (sound familiar? SOCIALISM.. ding ding ding).. and then they fear monger saying companies will start making piecemeal services for social media, email, etc.
Then smaller companies like Discord jump on the bandwagon believing the marketing and propaganda, thinking that NN repeal would hurt them when in reality Discord uses hardly any of the bandwidth compared to say Netflix.
So what's the truth about this? Well it's not that Net Neutrality is absolutely the correct way to go or that not having Net Neutrality is the right way to go. It's completely opinion based. However here's the low down: If Net Neutrality is in place, ISPs will still want to expand their infrastructure... and they aren't going to pay for it. They will pass it on to consumers.
So without Net Neutrality if Netflix and Google have to pay for fast lanes, then they will increase the price of their services. They are telling you that Net Neutrality protects against this, but in the end, just like with socialism.. You will end up having the tax burden, erm. I'm sorry. Higher Internet costs, as a result.
Truth is both big wig ISPs and big tech companies have MORE THAN ENOUGH MONEY to pay for this on their own, they are just battling out over who is going to pay for it.
However, the past has taught us this: Whenever you enact government to legislate an industry you effectively also implement corruption and government bribery in which lobbyists pretty much fund politicians' campaign funds to get the laws that they want passed, and then you have the corporations controlling the legislation.
This has been seen for the past hundred years in telecom. Stefan Molyneux has an incredibly thorough and factual video on this which cites all of the corruption in the telecom industry going back the past hundred or so years.
So the facts would lead to believe that not having Net Neutrality is a safer way to go, because any kind of government legislation is going to take power away from the consumer dollar, which is number one what should decide what happens.
Well I would say that your error would be in suggesting that someone who would be more leftist would be better. The left is ruining this country with their radicalism.
I'm not familiar with those alleged facts.
What I mean by the "Kavanaugh example" and what I thought you were talking about was the Christine Blasey Ford fiasco. In which there was absolutely no corroborating evidence to support Ford's claims of sexual assault. Then the democrats insane "Believe All Women" stance which comes right out of the radical feminism playbook. They've been using this on college campuses for years to bully campuses into expelling male students who they claimed raped or assaulted them, and in many cases this is simply untrue. There is a case right now where a woman is facing jail time because she accused to football players of rape and only after they were thrown out of the school said that she lied about it.
Another fact is that most women who did not report "incidents" that they claim happened to them said they did not report it because it was not serious enough to report.
On college campuses feminists are asserting that if a guy tells a woman she has a nice rack or nice legs he's committed a mini-rape. Insanity like this is what caused that whole fiasco.
This coupled with the identity politics nightmare that can be summed up as "Everybody can be racist except white people," and the reverse racism of affirmative action based on stereotypes, some of them which have negative pre-suppositions of blacks. For example: SAT scores of asian students are decreased by a certain amount, while the SAT scores of blacks are increased by a certain amount. This is due to I guess the typical over-achievement of asians and the under-achievement of blacks. It's unfair to asians and insulting to blacks. Blacks are not less intelligent than whites or any other race, and asians are not more intelligent. It's all in the upbringing and work ethic of the individual, which unfortunately the culture has implications. Asian culture is known to be hard working. African Americans are not seen to be not hardworking. The advantages to them are simply because of a perceived racial disadvantage.
The most obvious thing to those of us who are evolved/enlightened (for lack of a better term) know that success lies mostly in avoiding the victim mentality. Avoiding blaming others when you're in a poor state of affairs or when bad things happen. Because if you take responsibility for it, you can change your actions and work harder/continue working towards your goals realizing that sometimes shit just happens, you fail, and there's nothing wrong with that. Victim mentality causes you to constantly look for someone to blame. With the left's identity politics and gender feminism the person doesn't even have to look for someone to blame: They are given the group to blame by that culture: white males / white people.
The left's lack of integrity shows when they attack minorities or women who denounce the leftist ideals.
Then don't even get me started on the danger of Muslims and Sharia Law, where someone literally called into a radio show saying that he will work extremely hard with all his Muslim brothers and sisters to enact Sharia law in the US so that gays can be beheaded. (Video is easy to find)
but this is why I didn't want to get into this here, as it's incredibly off-topic and political.
Now, if you disagree with Kavanaugh as a candidate for SCOTUS I may actually agree with you or share your concerns possibly. The fact that he was the one who created the PATRIOT act is a bit of a concern, but he's a way better candidate than any leftist. Because SCOTUS is not supposed to be political anyway. I believe that it is absolutely impossible to any member of the left to be impartial and this shows in the media, Hollywood, academia and everywhere else they populate.
Kavanaugh shows his ethics by refusing the $600,000 raised by a GoFundMe in his name that he had nothing to do with, vs. Christine Blasey Ford putting expensive additions to her house after taking the $800,000+ that was donated to her GoFundMe under the reasoning of supporting her due to her trauma from sexual assault. The money that was donated to Kavanaugh is being donated to charity.
I have to say I disagree about the Kavanaugh thing, but on the notion of "Don't be evil" I agree. But the problem is that "evil" is a subjective notion.
On that though I think part of what allowed the current situation to exist is the notion of honor in IT.
I can't speak for everyone only myself and everyone I have encountered in the IT world. We always had this kind of honor. You have access to peoples' home directories, all their files, all their personal information. You do not look at that information, you do not look at anyone else's information you don't spread their information around. With passwords too, we look away when our peers type in their password.
In the case of myself, I never questioned Google having automated processes read our email, or anything of the sort because of what I said above. I argued with critics saying that "oh it's just a computer doing that. They aren't really reading your email. This enables more personalized results, it improves your quality of life, etc." The only problem is that I was saying that with my code of ethics above in place.
But obviously Facebook (and Google also) do not share that code of ethics, and many companies now seem keen on sharing peoples' personal information with the highest bidder.
This is the problem. This and also violation of the first amendment.
I think the current Supreme Court case that concerns whether consumers should be able to claim first amendment rights for what they post on the social networks in context with said social networks not being able to ban them. Or to ban / delete content that does not agree with biased points of view which is clearly happening.
I forgot to explain the thing I said about group forums and stuff.
So let's say you tell someone switch from FB to something else.. Well I follow XYZ fashion YouTuber or tech YouTuber or tech influencer whatever. I belong to XYZ gym. All these places use FB Groups to communicate with each other.
If someone deletes their FB account they cannot use those groups. But if they keep it and join another social network, it becomes like IM in the pioneer era of the Internet where there were like 1217174987 different IM apps and it's annoying to have crap tons of them.
We need to accept that Facebook is where people are going to stay for the time being. We need to take action to prevent Facebook, the company, from doing bad things. Not break them up.
Breaking up the tech companies isn't going to help because they're not a monopoly in the sense that they're the only game around. You have a freedom to use ANY social network you wish. There's alternatives to Facebook, there's alternatives to Twitter, there's alternatives to YouTube. The problem here is kind of a reverse monopoly.
Instead of a traditional monopoly where there is one company and everyone is forced to use that one. You have one company that everybody uses, to the exclusion of everything else.
For example: Facebook offers social networking timeline, keeping in touch with family/friends, group forums.
Facebook has 3.5 billion users. So if you have a brand and want to get noticed, or you want to reach folks, you DO have a choice, but it's a bad one:
A. Use Facebook, reach 3.5 billion users B. Use unknown social network X, and like maybe 300, and spend all your time trying to get your Facebook friends to switch to that other network.
The solution is not to break up Facebook. Who cares. So you break up Facebook how? Break up FB, Instagram, and Whats App?
It doesn't matter. You still have one network that has the largest user base and dominates social media. Two really, big guys are Facebook and Twitter. Instagram is a different animal. And actually Instagram works amazingly well, but I digress.
The problem is that Facebook and Twitter are public forums where there should not be ANY hindrance of free speech, and here's why:
Moderation of speech on all social networks is done at the user level. You can block people or in the case of Twitter, mute them. Muting them does not prevent you from following them or even DM'ing them, it just means you don't see their tweets. It's like unfollowing someone on Facebook, kind of.
The whole "hate speech" narrative by the left is ridiculous. Now if you go around calling black people the N word and promoting white supremacy that should be smacked down. But again, that can be handled by block/mute. And I think most of us agree that kind of speech and behavior is atrocious and we won't accept it.
That said I see no reason to break apart social networks, it's not going to fix the problem or enable smaller companies to succeed, because ultimately you have to pry away users from Facebook and Twitter. Which is dumb anyway.
Google, Facebook and Twitter provide wonderful things to the world. They need to be kept in check, not split up. Because you can't split up a social network. What are you gonna do, say 1 billion users go to company A and 1 billion go to company B? It's stupid. And it's going to create more problems because now you have the userbase divided in two different places.
So let's say you break up FB so that Instagram and WhatsApp are two different companies. That COULD be good for Instagram or Whatsapp, but FB is still FB. And it still has the majority of users.
Ultimately I think as usual this is the result of legislators not understanding technology.
Unfortunately man they will do the opposite: Raise SMS service prices or remove unlimited SMS service altogether.
See, this is precisely why they took away unlimited data service, because of apps like MyWi and other things. I will be the first to say that I have used it in the past, but that's a more reasonable thing. I totally agree that this is one of the worst hacks I've read about this year.
It's my official stance that people need to stop trying to circumvent paying for stuff. If you don't like a service or think it's too expensive, no one is forcing you to use it. And yes, I saw an article about something where someone said that's not a fair argument because it's something like Facebook.
Seriously, people need to get a grip on reality. Get off of Facebook and f$$kin LIVE. There is a whole world out there, just waiting...
Case in point: If all outraged Netflix subscribers cancelled their plans COMPLETELY because of the price hike, Netflix would have two options: find another way to make the money they need, or go out of business.
Ultimately the consumer has all the power, but they're too busy "consuming" to wield it.
ok so I goofed. this guy isn't a so called security expert. I am no longer as scared, but still kind of scared, considering that people often listen to people like this.
The fact that he's a so-called security expert REALLY scares me.
I hate it when products/software don't mask passwords. like the Wii. Type in your credit card number or wi-fi password so everyone looking through your window or over your shoulder can see it SWEET.
This guy must be related to the guys who allow web developers to develop web apps that send you your password to you in plain text through e-mail when you sign up, or worse, once a month in a newsletter.
This is why I severely dislike the current technique used by the majority of people to explain technical things to lay people.
It's the same goofy shit that made masses of people think of computer cases as hard drives and actual hard drives as memory. Or worse, they think the case is the CPU.
Facebook does this. Myspace does this. WAYN does this.
It's the new way to "invite" your friends to the great new service.
I mean if you're gonna post it here at least inform people that it's practically every social networking site out there, it's not just Flixster.
and whatever the site's may SAY that they are, they're still at their core just another way for people who have no lives to interact with other people who have no lives. Some of the sites just simply have content that appeals to the masses, like Youtube.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Nice to see we still have rational folks on /.
I honestly don't mind paying what I pay now for Internet / power. It's everything else that I don't want, socialism being at the top of that list. Really wish that bunch of poor people with horrible work-ethic and mindset weren't voting for people to destroy the country.
Or stop being naive and thinking that if you tell criminals not to rob you blind that they will listen.
Here is a better alternative:
1. If it's free, it's stealing your data. Don't use it.
An example of this that I don't know how it works is Honey. Honey "freely" lets you save money on thousands of sites. All this is powered by servers that they have to pay for, and resources that aren't free. So they MUST be selling your data.
I don't use Honey because I'd rather pay a little extra for stuff, than let another "Whizz Bang Silicon Valley Circus - The Greatest Show on Earth" app that boasts that it will save the whales, and all sorts of other super cool things while enabling a nerd to get a super model girlfriend etc. etc. No. It steals your data.
This is how we got to where we are today by blindly using things that say they're free when what they take from you is more valuable than money.
Things were ethical when they were making money off ads alone. They got greedy when they started selling private data to the highest bidder. Stuff that they DON'T need to have, like where you are every 3 seconds on Earth.. like Google does on all Android phones.
That's like someone who has the gold of Fort Knoxx leaving his door wide open and gold in plain sight and then have a sign saying "Please don't rob me."
Your rebuttal pretty much proves that it is exactly what orev said it is. Microsoft didn't ruin anything, well besides their OS.
I don't understand why you are taking this tone with me sir. It's a joke.
I don't care to read articles like this because they're a waste of time. It's all the same. Apple made some boneheaded design decision because they are anorexic when it comes to their devices, and he always makes a video explaining about how stupid Apple is in their design.
I don't use Apple anymore except for an older MBP I already have for music. I got rid of my iphone and all everything.
So if you have a rapid heart rate right now chill out dude. I'm not just assuming you're bent out of shape like everyone else does on the Internet but if you are, no reason to be :)
3.... 2.... 1....
$0.01 - A CEO of a chinese technology company saying they refuse to give data to the government is extremely ridiculous and obviously untrue. The Chinese government requires by law this, in at least other instances. For example, Tesla is required to have their cars over their constantly give data to the Chinese government or they're not allowed to be in the country.
$0.01 - Praising of Trump is good TR (Trump Relations). History has shown that Trump tends to favor people who praise him, as can be seen during the history of his Presidency and Candidacy with Putin, Kim Jon Un, etc.
He pretty much will play niceities with anyone who praises him. This could be a way of them trying to get Trump to play nicely with them.
Actually I would be willing to bet my ass you're wrong? Because first of all.. It's a partial government shutdown.. And government shutdowns anyway only affect non-essential services.
In the words of Michael Knowles "Begs the question why do non-essential government services even exist."
I looked through every comment here and no one writes anything about the sites actually NOT being down. Don't know if hey actually were or if they got someone to fix it.
Slashdot going on the anti-Trump train is just a death of a once great site that actually cared about freedom and censorship with their "your rights online" ... Seem much evidence of that going by the wayside. pretty sad.
But anyway Nasa and DOJ website works. I didn't try the others.
Coz you know. actually goddamn facts matter? like.. or does /. also go with the way of liberals now that facts don't matter?
Growing boobs is the least of your problems from eating soy products in excess. #soyboy
While this is interesting, BuzzFeed is complete journalistic garbage.
I wouldn't trust anything even remotely connected to them.
Collection of data is completely UNNECESSARY to literally the majority of the functionality of the things that do it.
Instead of spending so much time to develop some convoluted scheme to give people the impression that you give a crap about their privacy how about you STOP COLLECTING DATA ON THEM.
You do NOT need to collect data on location for driving directions. All location data can stay on the phone itself. It does not need to be saved by anything.
This is why I will never use Microsoft anything and I am moving to not use Google anything. I recently stopped using Apple anything so it's been very hard to stop using Google.
:)
Then they never abide by it, and in fact do things that seem far more sinister than what they're claiming to prevent others from doing:
https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users-locations-even-when-location-services-are-disabled/
And just like with the socialism that Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders want to implement, they hide from you the reality that you will end up paying for it.
The premise of Net Neutrality is that all traffic should be treated the same. No fast lanes or slow lanes.
The problem with this is that when something comes out, I'm sure everyone whether it's the new content release for a major video game launch or anything else.. When everyone tries to access the content at once, there's a huge demand and it's a huge problem. ISPs have oversold their bandwidth, just like Internet hosts voersell their storage space. Because in that example, most customers might have 50gb space, or 10gb but they only maybe set up one landing page or something maybe 20mb in size.. etc.
This is why when a new content release for a video game comes out, there are queues and people waiting hours to get in, because the network is flooded with traffic. And then people who have no clue complain about how the servers and all this and how they didn't anticipate this..
The way the ISP's want to solve this is by expanding their infrastructure and they wanted companies like Netflix, Google, YouTube, etc. to pay for this. These companies, don't want to pay for it, in the form of paying to have access to a fast lane. So they want Net Neutrality because that means no fast/slow lanes, and they don't have to pay money. They put out this huge marketing campaigns that say how Net Neutrality provides the same Internet access for everyone and no one is privileged or slowed down. (sound familiar? SOCIALISM .. ding ding ding).. and then they fear monger saying companies will start making piecemeal services for social media, email, etc.
Then smaller companies like Discord jump on the bandwagon believing the marketing and propaganda, thinking that NN repeal would hurt them when in reality Discord uses hardly any of the bandwidth compared to say Netflix.
So what's the truth about this? Well it's not that Net Neutrality is absolutely the correct way to go or that not having Net Neutrality is the right way to go. It's completely opinion based. However here's the low down: If Net Neutrality is in place, ISPs will still want to expand their infrastructure... and they aren't going to pay for it. They will pass it on to consumers.
So without Net Neutrality if Netflix and Google have to pay for fast lanes, then they will increase the price of their services. They are telling you that Net Neutrality protects against this, but in the end, just like with socialism.. You will end up having the tax burden, erm. I'm sorry. Higher Internet costs, as a result.
Truth is both big wig ISPs and big tech companies have MORE THAN ENOUGH MONEY to pay for this on their own, they are just battling out over who is going to pay for it.
However, the past has taught us this: Whenever you enact government to legislate an industry you effectively also implement corruption and government bribery in which lobbyists pretty much fund politicians' campaign funds to get the laws that they want passed, and then you have the corporations controlling the legislation.
This has been seen for the past hundred years in telecom. Stefan Molyneux has an incredibly thorough and factual video on this which cites all of the corruption in the telecom industry going back the past hundred or so years.
So the facts would lead to believe that not having Net Neutrality is a safer way to go, because any kind of government legislation is going to take power away from the consumer dollar, which is number one what should decide what happens.
Well I would say that your error would be in suggesting that someone who would be more leftist would be better. The left is ruining this country with their radicalism.
I'm not familiar with those alleged facts.
What I mean by the "Kavanaugh example" and what I thought you were talking about was the Christine Blasey Ford fiasco. In which there was absolutely no corroborating evidence to support Ford's claims of sexual assault. Then the democrats insane "Believe All Women" stance which comes right out of the radical feminism playbook. They've been using this on college campuses for years to bully campuses into expelling male students who they claimed raped or assaulted them, and in many cases this is simply untrue. There is a case right now where a woman is facing jail time because she accused to football players of rape and only after they were thrown out of the school said that she lied about it.
Another fact is that most women who did not report "incidents" that they claim happened to them said they did not report it because it was not serious enough to report.
On college campuses feminists are asserting that if a guy tells a woman she has a nice rack or nice legs he's committed a mini-rape. Insanity like this is what caused that whole fiasco.
This coupled with the identity politics nightmare that can be summed up as "Everybody can be racist except white people," and the reverse racism of affirmative action based on stereotypes, some of them which have negative pre-suppositions of blacks. For example: SAT scores of asian students are decreased by a certain amount, while the SAT scores of blacks are increased by a certain amount. This is due to I guess the typical over-achievement of asians and the under-achievement of blacks. It's unfair to asians and insulting to blacks. Blacks are not less intelligent than whites or any other race, and asians are not more intelligent. It's all in the upbringing and work ethic of the individual, which unfortunately the culture has implications. Asian culture is known to be hard working. African Americans are not seen to be not hardworking. The advantages to them are simply because of a perceived racial disadvantage.
The most obvious thing to those of us who are evolved/enlightened (for lack of a better term) know that success lies mostly in avoiding the victim mentality. Avoiding blaming others when you're in a poor state of affairs or when bad things happen. Because if you take responsibility for it, you can change your actions and work harder/continue working towards your goals realizing that sometimes shit just happens, you fail, and there's nothing wrong with that. Victim mentality causes you to constantly look for someone to blame. With the left's identity politics and gender feminism the person doesn't even have to look for someone to blame: They are given the group to blame by that culture: white males / white people.
The left's lack of integrity shows when they attack minorities or women who denounce the leftist ideals.
Then don't even get me started on the danger of Muslims and Sharia Law, where someone literally called into a radio show saying that he will work extremely hard with all his Muslim brothers and sisters to enact Sharia law in the US so that gays can be beheaded. (Video is easy to find)
but this is why I didn't want to get into this here, as it's incredibly off-topic and political.
Now, if you disagree with Kavanaugh as a candidate for SCOTUS I may actually agree with you or share your concerns possibly. The fact that he was the one who created the PATRIOT act is a bit of a concern, but he's a way better candidate than any leftist. Because SCOTUS is not supposed to be political anyway. I believe that it is absolutely impossible to any member of the left to be impartial and this shows in the media, Hollywood, academia and everywhere else they populate.
Kavanaugh shows his ethics by refusing the $600,000 raised by a GoFundMe in his name that he had nothing to do with, vs. Christine Blasey Ford putting expensive additions to her house after taking the $800,000+ that was donated to her GoFundMe under the reasoning of supporting her due to her trauma from sexual assault. The money that was donated to Kavanaugh is being donated to charity.
I have to say I disagree about the Kavanaugh thing, but on the notion of "Don't be evil" I agree. But the problem is that "evil" is a subjective notion.
On that though I think part of what allowed the current situation to exist is the notion of honor in IT.
I can't speak for everyone only myself and everyone I have encountered in the IT world. We always had this kind of honor. You have access to peoples' home directories, all their files, all their personal information. You do not look at that information, you do not look at anyone else's information you don't spread their information around. With passwords too, we look away when our peers type in their password.
In the case of myself, I never questioned Google having automated processes read our email, or anything of the sort because of what I said above. I argued with critics saying that "oh it's just a computer doing that. They aren't really reading your email. This enables more personalized results, it improves your quality of life, etc." The only problem is that I was saying that with my code of ethics above in place.
But obviously Facebook (and Google also) do not share that code of ethics, and many companies now seem keen on sharing peoples' personal information with the highest bidder.
This is the problem. This and also violation of the first amendment.
I think the current Supreme Court case that concerns whether consumers should be able to claim first amendment rights for what they post on the social networks in context with said social networks not being able to ban them. Or to ban / delete content that does not agree with biased points of view which is clearly happening.
I forgot to explain the thing I said about group forums and stuff.
So let's say you tell someone switch from FB to something else.. Well I follow XYZ fashion YouTuber or tech YouTuber or tech influencer whatever. I belong to XYZ gym. All these places use FB Groups to communicate with each other.
If someone deletes their FB account they cannot use those groups. But if they keep it and join another social network, it becomes like IM in the pioneer era of the Internet where there were like 1217174987 different IM apps and it's annoying to have crap tons of them.
We need to accept that Facebook is where people are going to stay for the time being. We need to take action to prevent Facebook, the company, from doing bad things. Not break them up.
Breaking up the tech companies isn't going to help because they're not a monopoly in the sense that they're the only game around. You have a freedom to use ANY social network you wish. There's alternatives to Facebook, there's alternatives to Twitter, there's alternatives to YouTube. The problem here is kind of a reverse monopoly.
Instead of a traditional monopoly where there is one company and everyone is forced to use that one. You have one company that everybody uses, to the exclusion of everything else.
For example: Facebook offers social networking timeline, keeping in touch with family/friends, group forums.
Facebook has 3.5 billion users. So if you have a brand and want to get noticed, or you want to reach folks, you DO have a choice, but it's a bad one:
A. Use Facebook, reach 3.5 billion users
B. Use unknown social network X, and like maybe 300, and spend all your time trying to get your Facebook friends to switch to that other network.
The solution is not to break up Facebook. Who cares. So you break up Facebook how? Break up FB, Instagram, and Whats App?
It doesn't matter. You still have one network that has the largest user base and dominates social media. Two really, big guys are Facebook and Twitter. Instagram is a different animal. And actually Instagram works amazingly well, but I digress.
The problem is that Facebook and Twitter are public forums where there should not be ANY hindrance of free speech, and here's why:
Moderation of speech on all social networks is done at the user level. You can block people or in the case of Twitter, mute them. Muting them does not prevent you from following them or even DM'ing them, it just means you don't see their tweets. It's like unfollowing someone on Facebook, kind of.
The whole "hate speech" narrative by the left is ridiculous. Now if you go around calling black people the N word and promoting white supremacy that should be smacked down. But again, that can be handled by block/mute. And I think most of us agree that kind of speech and behavior is atrocious and we won't accept it.
That said I see no reason to break apart social networks, it's not going to fix the problem or enable smaller companies to succeed, because ultimately you have to pry away users from Facebook and Twitter. Which is dumb anyway.
Google, Facebook and Twitter provide wonderful things to the world. They need to be kept in check, not split up. Because you can't split up a social network. What are you gonna do, say 1 billion users go to company A and 1 billion go to company B? It's stupid. And it's going to create more problems because now you have the userbase divided in two different places.
So let's say you break up FB so that Instagram and WhatsApp are two different companies. That COULD be good for Instagram or Whatsapp, but FB is still FB. And it still has the majority of users.
Ultimately I think as usual this is the result of legislators not understanding technology.
pretty much :)
Unfortunately man they will do the opposite: Raise SMS service prices or remove unlimited SMS service altogether.
See, this is precisely why they took away unlimited data service, because of apps like MyWi and other things. I will be the first to say that I have used it in the past, but that's a more reasonable thing. I totally agree that this is one of the worst hacks I've read about this year.
It's my official stance that people need to stop trying to circumvent paying for stuff. If you don't like a service or think it's too expensive, no one is forcing you to use it. And yes, I saw an article about something where someone said that's not a fair argument because it's something like Facebook.
Seriously, people need to get a grip on reality. Get off of Facebook and f$$kin LIVE. There is a whole world out there, just waiting...
Case in point: If all outraged Netflix subscribers cancelled their plans COMPLETELY because of the price hike, Netflix would have two options: find another way to make the money they need, or go out of business.
Ultimately the consumer has all the power, but they're too busy "consuming" to wield it.
ok so I goofed. this guy isn't a so called security expert. I am no longer as scared, but still kind of scared, considering that people often listen to people like this.
The fact that he's a so-called security expert REALLY scares me.
I hate it when products/software don't mask passwords. like the Wii. Type in your credit card number or wi-fi password so everyone looking through your window or over your shoulder can see it SWEET.
This guy must be related to the guys who allow web developers to develop web apps that send you your password to you in plain text through e-mail when you sign up, or worse, once a month in a newsletter.
Uhhh. How is the "failing" auto industry related to this transformation? Last I checked you could not get "beamed" to your job.
Yeaahhhhhh...
This is why I severely dislike the current technique used by the majority of people to explain technical things to lay people.
It's the same goofy shit that made masses of people think of computer cases as hard drives and actual hard drives as memory. Or worse, they think the case is the CPU.
Facebook does this.
:-)
Myspace does this.
WAYN does this.
It's the new way to "invite" your friends to the great new service.
I mean if you're gonna post it here at least inform people that it's practically every social networking site out there, it's not just Flixster.
and whatever the site's may SAY that they are, they're still at their core just another way for people who have no lives to interact with other people who have no lives. Some of the sites just simply have content that appeals to the masses, like Youtube.
Just my $0.02