Google shouldn't have to make intelligent decisions as to what needs to be removed. It should all be automatic. Either everything is removed, or nothing is removed. Only by court orders otherwise.
Those people, who want to be forgotten, should go after those hosting the material, not the search engine pointing.
That's what has been tried first. But as a newspaper archive, the source is protected from removal. Then that guy decided to to so big time trolling and shoot the messenger (sue Google) instead.
Don't we have an expectation to know where things are when searching? The search engine should be neutral is discovering the information.
One of the biggest misconceptions ever. Altavista was neutral, going only by comparing the search keywords to the keywords on the websites. It got spammed and SEOed into oblivion. Google finally sent them into oblivion by showing search results that DID NOT try to be neutral, but tried to guess what the user was actually looking for. And they keep their position by filtering and reordering the results by so many factors, that it would be hard pressed calling it "neutral"
Like page loading speed. Is it "neutral" that slow sites take a penalty? Rank is definitly not connected to the actual content of the page here.
That's the great idea about that russion system. 3 years of all-year-round DST/summer time, then all back to Standard/Winter-Time, and in a few years, they'll be going for a few years of summer time again. Like Westeros.
Summary ommits that during soviet times, russian time was also DST all year round, so this is not a new idea from 2011. That was just the latest iteration.
According to this article here [slashdot.org], no messages were changed:
If ANYTHING about the message is altered including delivery schedule, mix of content, etc then they are altering the message.
Please define "message".
It may refer to an item in your facebook stream. In which case, nothing in the messages has been altered.
Or "message" may refer to the the facebook stream as a whole, made up of the smaller individual message items by your friends and/or advertisers.
In that case, facebook is the sender of the message and the "message" always has been subject to facebook picking news items. We basically had more than one algorithm (or parameter sets for the same alogrithm) that picked those messages. And as picking messages (or message items in this definition) out of all those potential messages sources (friends/groups/pages, whatever you're following) has always been the core of what facebook made to create its message (the stream you're seeing) there is not much new here either.
Not everything about a message is the simple content. When you send a message and the tone you use is every bit as important to correct interpretation by the recipient. Facebook altered the messages without actually changing the specific content. If the message was unaltered (including delivery, tone, timing, etc) then we would expect reactions to be identical.
i agree that context is essential for "messages". But when you're posting something on facebook to your friends, you never had control when, where and even if it will appear in other users stream. So the context in which your post may or may not appear is not under the senders control and therefor not part of the message.
Could you please give an example how facebook could have changed a message (and not the delivery context, which has always been under facebook control) without changing the content?
But this line is crossed thousandfold already.
Even if true (which I dispute) it is irrelevant. Just because others do it doesn't make it acceptable for Facebook.
I never said it was acceptable. I said it was widespread. And I put that line where you're manipulating someones emotions for commercial gain without their consent. (When I'm watching a comedy, I WANT my emotional state to be manipulated)
But intresting enough, according to one of those news articles I read about that issue today, one of the potential harm that was supposed to be subject of the experiment was feeling left out by too many positive news about their friends.(*)
May be BS, but may indeed be a valid and intresting theory, too.
(*) That statement should have at least 6 pairs of "quotes" around certain "words". I left them out for readability.
I'll reduce that claim to "commercial web design". But that's still the majority of pages out there. They want to SELL. And if it takes those dancing bears, there is no way they won't use dancing bears.
Quick: what toilet paper brand has dancing bears as mascots? And aren't they cute and funny and loveable.... See, it works.
So you don't want to create websites that people enjoy using?
That may explain the design of the average Linux user group website, but wold also explains why websites like facebook or even lolcats, that target emotions, have more commercial success.
The issue is clear; if a doctor or psychologist tried this, they would have to get IRB approval. You need informed consent; such laws were passed after psychologists had tried a LOT of experiments on the unwitting public; simluating muggings, imminent death scenarios, etc.
Yes. And I agree with you.
I never said it was or should be accepted, I said it was widespread. And that in marketing, emotional manipulation is even out of the experimental stage.
Because they aren't just throwing messages at people to see how they react. They were actively changing the messages and how they were received. HUGE difference and one that crosses an ethical line.
But according to/., not what happend here.
According to this article here, no messages were changed:
Facebook briefly conducted an experiment on a subset of its users, altering the mix of content shown to them to emphasize content sorted by tone
(emphasis mine).
I agree with you that changing the actual messages would not be acceptable by any standard.
Just in case you haven't noticed. I'm surprised about the number of people who are surprised.
Then you do not understand what is going on. Facebook stepped over an ethical line in their "research". No, nobody got (badly) hurt but that doesn't make it acceptable. Screwing around with people's emotions in a controlled experiment should require at minimum review by a genuinely independent ethical review board and probably genuine informed consent. Facebook could be bothered with neither one. They seem to regard their users as insects to be manipulated and dissected.
And again I agree with you that you're stepping over a line when you're consciously manipulating people's feelings for economic reasons. But this line is crossed thousandfold already. The type of environment is secondary. A/B-tests take place in controlled environments, too.
I find it pretty shocking that so many people are having difficulty understanding the difference between A/B testing and intentional emotional manipulation where a significant negative (or positive) result was the data point the study strove to measure.
Creating an emotional response is part of marketing and therefore webdesign.
Of course you're not directly monitoring emotions as a data point during A/B-Tests. You measure e.g. the clicks, pages read or the time spent on the website. But every marketing guy worth its money could tell you that you can increase all of that by "making the user feel at home".
I understand why this should be considered wrong and fully understand users who don't want to have someone (less some company!) playing with their feelings.
But on the other hand, considering that creating an emotional response has been a standard marketing tool for the last 20 years, how is this different from regular A/B-Testing? 50% of your website users will see a slightly altered version of your website, and you compare response rates to the users receiving the "old" or "original" website.
Advertisers are manipulating our feelings for decades.News outlets have been doing it to an extent it became part of the news format itself (I guess anyone who was watching tv news last night saw that light-hearted, cozy, human-intrest or slightly oddball or cute item concluding the broadcast, right?) While creating negative feelings toward someone else has always been used in political campaigns.
It even becomes less spectacular if you consider, that on facebook, there always has been a selection algorithm in place, that tried to select those items from all your facebook-sources, that might keep your intrest focused onto facebook. Without selection, your facebook would scroll past like the Star Wars end titles. Only the parameters of the selection have been fine tuned, as they probably are at each facebook server update. It would be some new quality if that selection had been "objective" before, but being "personal" and emotional instead, is what kept us at facebook already.
So this is old news. But it should be a wake-up call: WAKE UP, THIS IS OLD NEWS! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO MANIPULATE YOUR FEELINGS FOR AGES!
Just in case you haven't noticed. I'm surprised about the number of people who are surprised.
It doesn't seem far fetched at all that we don't fully understand the physics behind the Higgs boson. I'd rather say it's OBVIOUS that we don't understand the physics behind it.
A non-crushed universe should be proof enough that our current theories are missing something.
That's why the OP and me explicitly talked about actual physical goods and not physical tokens for entertainment services. But then again, 10 years ago, no one would have expected concert tickets to be handled differently from other physical goods. After all, as you said, tickets have been invented to have a convinient way to buy sell that right like you would buy and sell a gallon of milk.
And yes, of course contracts have to be fulfilled legaly. But that doesn't change my point that a contract, after its fulfilment is fulfilled and done with and a fulfilled contract can't be broken (read: NOT be fulfilled) as it has been already fulfilled.
I thought of your remark as an intresting and valid(!) point. Intresting because they are usually NOT privately but public owned, as communism would require.
Banning scalping would be like banning retail. Buy goods for less, sell them for more. None of government's business except when the ticket says "not for resale" in which case it's a breach of contract.
I call BS. Or rather First Sales doctrine.
You can't break a contract that has already been fulfilled. Money has changed hands, a physical good has changed hands. The contract is fulfilled.
No. The problem without net neutrality would be that a provider charges on both sides.
Or to pick up your restaurant analogy. Everyone is paying for their internet access already. Different prices, according to a free market. Dialup custumers pay $5 for their cornbread internet connection, Cable/Dsl customers pay Lobster prices for fast internet connection, and companies like Google and Netflix pay several complete buffets at a dozen restaurants to connect directly to each of the restaurants internet backbones.
The proposed anti-neutrality would make it legal for corn farming assosications to pay a restaurant money for serving cornbread to anyone, no matter if they ordered and payed for cornbread or lobster. Or in internet terms again: artificially slow down delivery to customers who already paid more for a faster internet connection.
Somewhere inbetween the web-app and the local app we had the dreaded ActiveX.
And didn't both Firefox and chrome offer, but fail to establish some container format to add mostly local HTML&Javascript archives to the start menu and work similar to local apps?
HTML5 at least put a standard onto local storage.
And I'm completly leaving out Silverlight-Apps as I can't exactly remember their intended purpose. (But I'm pretty sure it was something along the lines of uniting local and web apps, too)
While the idea of a 360 virtual VR monitor setup is great, the FOW is so narrow, it's like watching your single monitor setup through a small pipe. (or one of this toy masks with tiny holes for the eyes) It's currently the opposite of the overview a multi monitor setup gives you. You're supposed to recognize the small red warmning light on a peripheral monitor from the corner of your eye and THEN turn your focus from the central monitor a a reaction to it. That's currently not possible with the rift VR.
Slashdot Mirror
In the EU, which includes true socialist countries,
Which EU are you talking about? Can you name one and add the definition by which that country is socialist?
Google shouldn't have to make intelligent decisions as to what needs to be removed. It should all be automatic. Either everything is removed, or nothing is removed. Only by court orders otherwise.
Those people, who want to be forgotten, should go after those hosting the material, not the search engine pointing.
That's what has been tried first. But as a newspaper archive, the source is protected from removal. Then that guy decided to to so big time trolling and shoot the messenger (sue Google) instead.
Don't we have an expectation to know where things are when searching? The search engine should be neutral is discovering the information.
One of the biggest misconceptions ever. Altavista was neutral, going only by comparing the search keywords to the keywords on the websites. It got spammed and SEOed into oblivion. Google finally sent them into oblivion by showing search results that DID NOT try to be neutral, but tried to guess what the user was actually looking for. And they keep their position by filtering and reordering the results by so many factors, that it would be hard pressed calling it "neutral"
Like page loading speed. Is it "neutral" that slow sites take a penalty? Rank is definitly not connected to the actual content of the page here.
That's the great idea about that russion system. 3 years of all-year-round DST/summer time, then all back to Standard/Winter-Time, and in a few years, they'll be going for a few years of summer time again. Like Westeros.
Summary ommits that during soviet times, russian time was also DST all year round, so this is not a new idea from 2011. That was just the latest iteration.
They're content with a flashing 0:00 on their clock. That flashing means it is working, right? For telling the time, there is a consultant.
But this line is crossed thousandfold already. The type of environment is secondary.
So your point is everybody's doing it, so it's OK?
I never said that. I agreed that it's a line that shouldn't be crossed. But I'm still surprised that people are surprised.
According to this article here [slashdot.org], no messages were changed:
If ANYTHING about the message is altered including delivery schedule, mix of content, etc then they are altering the message.
Please define "message".
It may refer to an item in your facebook stream. In which case, nothing in the messages has been altered.
Or "message" may refer to the the facebook stream as a whole, made up of the smaller individual message items by your friends and/or advertisers.
In that case, facebook is the sender of the message and the "message" always has been subject to facebook picking news items. We basically had more than one algorithm (or parameter sets for the same alogrithm) that picked those messages. And as picking messages (or message items in this definition) out of all those potential messages sources (friends/groups/pages, whatever you're following) has always been the core of what facebook made to create its message (the stream you're seeing) there is not much new here either.
Not everything about a message is the simple content. When you send a message and the tone you use is every bit as important to correct interpretation by the recipient. Facebook altered the messages without actually changing the specific content. If the message was unaltered (including delivery, tone, timing, etc) then we would expect reactions to be identical.
i agree that context is essential for "messages". But when you're posting something on facebook to your friends, you never had control when, where and even if it will appear in other users stream. So the context in which your post may or may not appear is not under the senders control and therefor not part of the message.
Could you please give an example how facebook could have changed a message (and not the delivery context, which has always been under facebook control) without changing the content?
But this line is crossed thousandfold already.
Even if true (which I dispute) it is irrelevant. Just because others do it doesn't make it acceptable for Facebook.
I never said it was acceptable. I said it was widespread. And I put that line where you're manipulating someones emotions for commercial gain without their consent. (When I'm watching a comedy, I WANT my emotional state to be manipulated)
Agreed.
But intresting enough, according to one of those news articles I read about that issue today, one of the potential harm that was supposed to be subject of the experiment was feeling left out by too many positive news about their friends.(*)
May be BS, but may indeed be a valid and intresting theory, too.
(*) That statement should have at least 6 pairs of "quotes" around certain "words". I left them out for readability.
Point taken.
I'll reduce that claim to "commercial web design". But that's still the majority of pages out there. They want to SELL. And if it takes those dancing bears, there is no way they won't use dancing bears.
Quick: what toilet paper brand has dancing bears as mascots?
And aren't they cute and funny and loveable.... See, it works.
So you don't want to create websites that people enjoy using?
That may explain the design of the average Linux user group website, but wold also explains why websites like facebook or even lolcats, that target emotions, have more commercial success.
The issue is clear; if a doctor or psychologist tried this, they would have to get IRB approval. You need informed consent; such laws were passed after psychologists had tried a LOT of experiments on the unwitting public; simluating muggings, imminent death scenarios, etc.
Yes. And I agree with you.
I never said it was or should be accepted, I said it was widespread. And that in marketing, emotional manipulation is even out of the experimental stage.
Because they aren't just throwing messages at people to see how they react. They were actively changing the messages and how they were received. HUGE difference and one that crosses an ethical line.
But according to /., not what happend here.
According to this article here, no messages were changed:
Facebook briefly conducted an experiment on a subset of its users, altering the mix of content shown to them to emphasize content sorted by tone
(emphasis mine).
I agree with you that changing the actual messages would not be acceptable by any standard.
Just in case you haven't noticed. I'm surprised about the number of people who are surprised.
Then you do not understand what is going on. Facebook stepped over an ethical line in their "research". No, nobody got (badly) hurt but that doesn't make it acceptable. Screwing around with people's emotions in a controlled experiment should require at minimum review by a genuinely independent ethical review board and probably genuine informed consent. Facebook could be bothered with neither one. They seem to regard their users as insects to be manipulated and dissected.
And again I agree with you that you're stepping over a line when you're consciously manipulating people's feelings for economic reasons. But this line is crossed thousandfold already. The type of environment is secondary. A/B-tests take place in controlled environments, too.
I find it pretty shocking that so many people are having difficulty understanding the difference between A/B testing and intentional emotional manipulation where a significant negative (or positive) result was the data point the study strove to measure.
Creating an emotional response is part of marketing and therefore webdesign.
Of course you're not directly monitoring emotions as a data point during A/B-Tests. You measure e.g. the clicks, pages read or the time spent on the website. But every marketing guy worth its money could tell you that you can increase all of that by "making the user feel at home".
I understand why this should be considered wrong and fully understand users who don't want to have someone (less some company!) playing with their feelings.
But on the other hand, considering that creating an emotional response has been a standard marketing tool for the last 20 years, how is this different from regular A/B-Testing? 50% of your website users will see a slightly altered version of your website, and you compare response rates to the users receiving the "old" or "original" website.
Advertisers are manipulating our feelings for decades.News outlets have been doing it to an extent it became part of the news format itself (I guess anyone who was watching tv news last night saw that light-hearted, cozy, human-intrest or slightly oddball or cute item concluding the broadcast, right?) While creating negative feelings toward someone else has always been used in political campaigns.
It even becomes less spectacular if you consider, that on facebook, there always has been a selection algorithm in place, that tried to select those items from all your facebook-sources, that might keep your intrest focused onto facebook. Without selection, your facebook would scroll past like the Star Wars end titles. Only the parameters of the selection have been fine tuned, as they probably are at each facebook server update. It would be some new quality if that selection had been "objective" before, but being "personal" and emotional instead, is what kept us at facebook already.
So this is old news. But it should be a wake-up call: WAKE UP, THIS IS OLD NEWS! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO MANIPULATE YOUR FEELINGS FOR AGES!
Just in case you haven't noticed. I'm surprised about the number of people who are surprised.
That there is /. in it should have been a giveaway that your imagination was flawed from the begining...
It doesn't seem far fetched at all that we don't fully understand the physics behind the Higgs boson. I'd rather say it's OBVIOUS that we don't understand the physics behind it.
A non-crushed universe should be proof enough that our current theories are missing something.
I think it takes more than three words scribbled on a piece of paper to circumvent the first sales doctrine.
But I agree with you that tickets are a special case.
That's why the OP and me explicitly talked about actual physical goods and not physical tokens for entertainment services. But then again, 10 years ago, no one would have expected concert tickets to be handled differently from other physical goods. After all, as you said, tickets have been invented to have a convinient way to buy sell that right like you would buy and sell a gallon of milk.
And yes, of course contracts have to be fulfilled legaly. But that doesn't change my point that a contract, after its fulfilment is fulfilled and done with and a fulfilled contract can't be broken (read: NOT be fulfilled) as it has been already fulfilled.
I thought of your remark as an intresting and valid(!) point. Intresting because they are usually NOT privately but public owned, as communism would require.
Banning scalping would be like banning retail. Buy goods for less, sell them for more. None of government's business except when the ticket says "not for resale" in which case it's a breach of contract.
I call BS. Or rather First Sales doctrine.
You can't break a contract that has already been fulfilled. Money has changed hands, a physical good has changed hands. The contract is fulfilled.
If you need to drive to work, there wouldn't be any production without parking spots.
A mean of production doesn't need to be consumed for production. (machines, factory buildings...)
But auctioning off something that is not yours isn't free market either.
No. The problem without net neutrality would be that a provider charges on both sides.
Or to pick up your restaurant analogy. Everyone is paying for their internet access already. Different prices, according to a free market. Dialup custumers pay $5 for their cornbread internet connection, Cable/Dsl customers pay Lobster prices for fast internet connection, and companies like Google and Netflix pay several complete buffets at a dozen restaurants to connect directly to each of the restaurants internet backbones.
The proposed anti-neutrality would make it legal for corn farming assosications to pay a restaurant money for serving cornbread to anyone, no matter if they ordered and payed for cornbread or lobster. Or in internet terms again: artificially slow down delivery to customers who already paid more for a faster internet connection.
An apology footer in each tweet?
You mean in the US, you can get the best university degrees that money can buy.....
Of course we had Java applets for that.
Then standalone flash-apps
and then AIR.
Somewhere inbetween the web-app and the local app we had the dreaded ActiveX.
And didn't both Firefox and chrome offer, but fail to establish some container format to add mostly local HTML&Javascript archives to the start menu and work similar to local apps?
HTML5 at least put a standard onto local storage.
And I'm completly leaving out Silverlight-Apps as I can't exactly remember their intended purpose. (But I'm pretty sure it was something along the lines of uniting local and web apps, too)
Did I miss out something?
Worse. Field of view.
While the idea of a 360 virtual VR monitor setup is great, the FOW is so narrow, it's like watching your single monitor setup through a small pipe. (or one of this toy masks with tiny holes for the eyes) It's currently the opposite of the overview a multi monitor setup gives you. You're supposed to recognize the small red warmning light on a peripheral monitor from the corner of your eye and THEN turn your focus from the central monitor a a reaction to it. That's currently not possible with the rift VR.