Now that DRM is, for the most part not faring well and people are paying for music and video downloads - they want to put a tax on them and increase the price which will then upset and discourage people from using any taxed services and likely will push them towards file-sharing alternatives?
or....is that that they are using this a back door to an enforcement strategy?
Think about it - once music downloads are taxed if people are eschewing paid services and moving to filesharing and downloading music without paying tax - well then.....Isn't busting people for tax related offenses the last refuge when the state can't get them on more direct charges?
I love this guy's quote: "Their IT guys should have known better."
Yeah, right..Blame the IT people, because they most certainly are the ones who decide who gets paid...
I think it's either that whoever fucked up figures the ol standby excuse of "blaming IT" will work in almost any situation....Or is it the old "those IT nerds, they're supposed to be smart - they should've warned us, those confounded proton jockeys!"
As I'm reading everyone's posts about this, looking at the arguments people are making for or against this, all I can think of is that it doesn't matter.
The reason I say it doesn't matter is because while it's crystal clear that our election system, (scratch that; make it our entire political system) needs something - this isn't it.
As some other posts have pointed out, we're stuck in this dirty two-party system, and it stinks to high hell and seems to be little more than a big show to manipulate the public - it promotes self-interest (and rewards it if you know how to play the game).
Even if you wipe all off all of the straight up illegal corruption for the sake of this discussion and just remove it from the equation, when you look at many, many facets of the everyday business of our system, the lobbying, the gerrymandering, the money/finance side and all sorts of manner of quid pro quo that isn't called what it is - It's basically entrenched institutionalized corruption.
In general in this country I feel that the best thing to do is get back to the constitution in every way we can - I am heartened by the way NH has started standing up for state's rights in a serious way. Some people say it couldn't be changed unless you change the monetary system.
One thing that may help is a sort of "run-off" election that makes parties that don't win more viable, though I don't know how compatible that is with constitution.
The point is that there have to be some real changes - otherwise it's business as usual, just with a twist..
The guy is basically a hero - he stood up and respected his oath to the constitution as well as the NSA's own policies "Thou shalt not spy on Americans;" at great risk to himself - I know I would never want to be on the bad side of any of our Intelligence agencies.
He is already having to put up with FBI intimidation.
I know I don't want to live in a world where the sort of corruption and tyranny we've seen since 9/11 doesn't only increase in scope, but is unchecked and legitimized (attempts at legitimization with ex post facto immunity and other such things seem to be being considered).
I will really be watching Obama on this to see if his actions live up to his rhetoric.
People who value our heritage as Americans and our constitution who are in government service and who are willing to stick their necks out to do the right thing deserve massive respect. I hope that there are more people like Tice in these agencies, because our constitution and the laws surrounding intelligence gathering are extremely important to ensure that these powers aren't abused. We need intelligence agencies, as much now as ever - and I am sure that most of the people who work for these agencies are good, upstanding people - but with the way compartmentalization works it is very easy for some extremely shady stuff to go on (EG international drug trafficking, etc) - this is how it has been for a long time, and that's not going to change - but as far as spying on Americans and wholesale data collection without warrants - there are reasons why this isn't and shouldn't be allowed - when you add in the fact that journalists now know that they especially are targets for government surveillance it doesn't bode well for any sort of "democracy."
She's attempting to use the "security through obscurity" method.
As all of us who work in IT know, security through obscurity is not only the lazy person's security method, it also does not work, and creates conflict between users and administrators of the system through which the attempt to implement it is being made.
Weigh your options, what would non-cooperation cost you? is there significant outrage among others to stand together and make it an issue, or are your grade/graduation at stake?
Certainly a post as offensive as that one and with as many different sorts of moderations is going to be tackled by metamoderation.
I guess I feel like it will be sorted out in meta moderation - that if someone is truly abusing their mod points that's going to come out....
I mean - by and large I think the moderation system works, everyone has had a post poorly moderated, or had someone mod a post for what seems like petty personal reasons, but democratic type of system is always open to a little abuse.
As for the second question, i dunno..I get mod points all of the time and still see the metamod link at the top after modding things....One thing I have noticed is that the entire site doesn't seem to work properly in IE7, but I usually use chrome or Firefox.
People are entitled to their opinions, as politically incorrect or bigoted as they may be.
I never usually pay attention to FPs, but I suspect that whoever modded it insightful was just pissed about Obama's hypocrisy on this issue and chose a poor way to show it - still though, like the Jewish lawyer who has vigorously defended the KKK or white supremacists (I think it was the klan but can't remember) on first amendment grounds, I may not agree with someone's point of view or may find it infantile, bigoted, pointless or personally highly offensive - but I still support their being able to say it.
It's funny to see people reacting exactly how the media and jurors in the case did - emotionally, without considering thhat there is a right and a wrong thing to do things, and that the rule of law HAS to be adhered to in all cases, ESPECIALLY in cases where the public feels a heinous wrong has been done.
We cannot compromise long held principles in a one of a kind situation just because we feel someone needs to be punished to to make an example of her.
Harrassment charges would have been fine. The woman is already a national pariah (as another poster has pointed out) and was run out of her neighborhood.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong - certainly you're entitled to your opinion about whaty happened to Lori Drew, I agree that she was sick and deserved a lot of things - but don't pervert our legal system to try to turn something that isn't a crime into a crime ex post facto.
The verdict on the other hand could affect a lot of people, it could affect me, so on that count you're just plain wrong.
Firstly I (and many others) feel that the verdict in the Drew case was a travesty, set a horrible precedent and was the one of the absolute worst uses of the judicial system in recent years - the implications are huge and could affect all of us who spend a lot of time online. It was an abuse of the legal system in my mind, tapping into people's emotions about a tragedy to get a dubious legal ruling passed - it was a judicial lynch mob.
Secondly I am so tired of the double standard in video games in how any type of the most gruesome violence is permitted (with the rating system) but even a minor mention of sex or nudity and the game can;t be made. Sex has to be sanitized, yet you can blow someones brains out.
I love violent games as much as the next person, the generally are some of the best games out there - well made shooters are especially up my alley - loved GTA, but damn, it would be nice not to have to tiptoe around any sex or nudity (if it's appropriate). In games made for adults this should be an option. I am not talking about having those things just for the sake of having them, but am referring to the ability for a designer to make a game truly geared towards adults that isn't a lame excuse/attempt at porn. I would like to see the ability for AO titles to be viable, what that would be I don't know, but take the sex scene is GTA4 - they could have made those a lot more fun or funny had they had a little visual latitude.
As a parent I totally understand how and why people are concerned about violent games. I play a lot of games I wouldn't want my daughter to play until she is old enough to understand certain things. The biggest issue I would have with these sort of games is the same issue I have with TV and some movies when it comes to kids, and it the desensitization to violence and the pain and suffering of others. I think that can do a real disservice to the humanity inside a person if they grow up constantly witnessing violent acts.
However, with all of that said I think that it is a parent's job to monitor what their kids see and buy and put it in the proper context.
I do think that the voluntary ratings system is the way to go....The absolute worst thing that could be done is censorship of game content by the government - it would especially be pointless because it's not like it would have an effect on TV (which is much worse). Censorship doesn't solve anything - it's bad enough that the industry self censors based on what they think will sell or be controversial.
Parents who aren't digitally literate could use a little education about these ratings and what they mean, but all in all determining what is appropriate for a child or the market isn't a government job, it's a parent/industry job, and for the record if given the choice between my child seeing explicit violence or explicit sex it's my feeling that sex is much less harmful.
They could improve their image worldwide AND become more efficient in their repression by using your suggestion, (which henceforth shall be referred to as "The American Model."
>>You must be new here. Some of the people who moderate are petty, petty abusers of power. Express a sentiment they agree with, even in a completely flamebait fashion, and you get modded up. Express a sentiment they disagree with, even if you're reasonable about it, and you get modded down.
You must be new here:) Some of the people in any undertaking are petty assholes, but Slashdot has meta-moderation, which seems to be the best way to deal with that in a way that is as fair as possible. I only wish I could meta-moderate in real life - politicians, television, comments made by my girlfriend... The other thing is that pretty much everyone can become eligable to moderate; it's not some elitist core.
Okay, so they try an end run and use the court which they disdained and claimed would never work to suit their purposes to issue a ruling after the fact?
It shouldn't matter because it certainly wasn't legal when it was undertaken - hence all of the shady actions and attempts at ex post facto bullshit.
The IWF makes me sick - using "think of the children" and child porn scares to chill political speech and information is reprehensible.
The only reason to censor the internet archive and the wayback machine is to control your populace and prevent them from learning and referencing things you'd rather they not know.
The wayback machine also makes it impossible for government or organizations to hide changes that they have made to websites - they can sweep things under the run and there is no going back to an earlier version to see wat has been done.
To me, this sort of censorship is extremely serious, and should be something people there stand up against, by any and all means necessary.
Yeah, because certainly an inanimate metal tool took it upon itself to kill his parents. Blaming the gun is a stupid as blaming the game.
It never ceases to amaze me, the ignorance in the general public surrounding firearms. It's surprising that there isn't the same sort of movement trying to ban cars to stop drunk driving. Though it has been stated over and over again, the fact remains that criminals don't follow laws, so any sort of attempted ban on firearms will only affect the responsible, law abiding gun owner, and they aren't the problem.
If, in this day and age you can't understand why those who wrote the constitution granted the right to bear arms to the populace then take a look at history - it should be fairly apparent.
I do think that there may be an attempt to remove the consitutional right of private firearm ownership in America. I hope I am wrong, but unfortunately our society in America seems to be transitioning into an authoritarian state, and historically private firearm confiscation usually is one of the last events to occur before a people is completely subjugated.
Whether or not you choose to exercise your right to own a gun is a personal choice, but I know myself and millions of others like me don't like to depend upon the state (which has shown that their incompetence is the exception and corruption is the rule)for protection in times of need - and also stand as a final check and balance against complete tyranny or invasion - and I know that should I or my family ever be in a civil emergency following a natural disaster like Katrina or any other scenario where society and basic services have broken down - the well being of my family and our provisions will be protected.
Why is assigning blame on one solitary factor so important? People seem to follow the lead of the corporate media, who inevitably suggests that it is always ONE thing that causes these scenarios - and it never is...It's more complicated than that - but like Bush they don't do nuance.
We know that while it is difficult to survive with that sort of integrity on the hill, it isn't impossible...Look at Ron Paul, and there are a few others...It looks like Franken will be one.
Here's the thing: I don't see how this can be justified - if the school is allowing the student to study and attend for free, than it may make some sense that the school would have options over any intellectual property - however, most people pay for their university via student loans, family money, third party scholarships, or actually working their way through school.
Given that this is the case, why should the institution have this right?
It's tolerated in Goa somewhat, and there are Bhang shops that are govt regulated which sell a very, very potent marijuana based drink used on traditional holidays....but other than that it's illegal....This is my understanding anyway.
Hopefully the sophistication of this community and the hopelessness of DRM will further encourage those who make decisions about DRM to abandon this sinking ship. Anyone with a brain knows that all DRM can eventually be circumvented, and that there is no such thing as perfect security - thus, it makes much more sense to come up with a cooperative model that works with the community of users. I am not saying that anything goes, but what I am saying is that if Apple were to embrace the enthusiast community to enable them to use the device in the ways they want to to enable increased functionality and compatibility with the caveat that the community polices itself so that cetain things that both sides can agree would be harmful to Apple and the community, or would threaten the continued cooperation of the community and the corporation wouldn't be tolerated.
I look at the community of live recording traders online that use bittorrent to distribute live recordings through membership based trackers as an example of how communities can thrive all while respecting the business model of the artists and labels - and how well those communities police themselves...There are rules, like that you canot uplaod or trade anything that is officially released; it's all not-for-profit....If any user tries to circument the rules they're dealt with quickly by the community...
Now certainly it's more complicated when dealing with the Apple store and different carriers and business agreements, etc - and it's not something that could happen overnight, but I think the general principle of working with your commmunity of enthusiasts instead of fighting againsst them and what they are doing would work out much better for both sides than the current state of affairs.
A mother breastfeeding a child doesn't create a public health hazard like urinating in public does. I wasn't saying simply that "it is okay because it is natural," and obviously I am not talking about people who, for whatever reason are breastfeeding adults or purposefully trying to be offensive...
It's a very fine line - and as far as facebook is concerned I would think that they could apply a standard that is a little bit better than just "no breastfeeding."
Slashdot Mirror
So let me understand this:
Now that DRM is, for the most part not faring well and people are paying for music and video downloads - they want to put a tax on them and increase the price which will then upset and discourage people from using any taxed services and likely will push them towards file-sharing alternatives?
or....is that that they are using this a back door to an enforcement strategy?
Think about it - once music downloads are taxed if people are eschewing paid services and moving to filesharing and downloading music without paying tax - well then.....Isn't busting people for tax related offenses the last refuge when the state can't get them on more direct charges?
I love this guy's quote: "Their IT guys should have known better."
Yeah, right..Blame the IT people, because they most certainly are the ones who decide who gets paid...
I think it's either that whoever fucked up figures the ol standby excuse of "blaming IT" will work in almost any situation....Or is it the old "those IT nerds, they're supposed to be smart - they should've warned us, those confounded proton jockeys!"
As I'm reading everyone's posts about this, looking at the arguments people are making for or against this, all I can think of is that it doesn't matter.
The reason I say it doesn't matter is because while it's crystal clear that our election system, (scratch that; make it our entire political system) needs something - this isn't it.
As some other posts have pointed out, we're stuck in this dirty two-party system, and it stinks to high hell and seems to be little more than a big show to manipulate the public - it promotes self-interest (and rewards it if you know how to play the game).
Even if you wipe all off all of the straight up illegal corruption for the sake of this discussion and just remove it from the equation, when you look at many, many facets of the everyday business of our system, the lobbying, the gerrymandering, the money/finance side and all sorts of manner of quid pro quo that isn't called what it is - It's basically entrenched institutionalized corruption.
In general in this country I feel that the best thing to do is get back to the constitution in every way we can - I am heartened by the way NH has started standing up for state's rights in a serious way. Some people say it couldn't be changed unless you change the monetary system.
One thing that may help is a sort of "run-off" election that makes parties that don't win more viable, though I don't know how compatible that is with constitution.
The point is that there have to be some real changes - otherwise it's business as usual, just with a twist..
This is just like the federal government - get rid of one of the symptoms instead of the actual problem.
He's credible and yes has plenty of proof.
The guy is basically a hero - he stood up and respected his oath to the constitution as well as the NSA's own policies "Thou shalt not spy on Americans;" at great risk to himself - I know I would never want to be on the bad side of any of our Intelligence agencies.
He is already having to put up with FBI intimidation.
I know I don't want to live in a world where the sort of corruption and tyranny we've seen since 9/11 doesn't only increase in scope, but is unchecked and legitimized (attempts at legitimization with ex post facto immunity and other such things seem to be being considered).
I will really be watching Obama on this to see if his actions live up to his rhetoric.
People who value our heritage as Americans and our constitution who are in government service and who are willing to stick their necks out to do the right thing deserve massive respect. I hope that there are more people like Tice in these agencies, because our constitution and the laws surrounding intelligence gathering are extremely important to ensure that these powers aren't abused. We need intelligence agencies, as much now as ever - and I am sure that most of the people who work for these agencies are good, upstanding people - but with the way compartmentalization works it is very easy for some extremely shady stuff to go on (EG international drug trafficking, etc) - this is how it has been for a long time, and that's not going to change - but as far as spying on Americans and wholesale data collection without warrants - there are reasons why this isn't and shouldn't be allowed - when you add in the fact that journalists now know that they especially are targets for government surveillance it doesn't bode well for any sort of "democracy."
She's attempting to use the "security through obscurity" method.
As all of us who work in IT know, security through obscurity is not only the lazy person's security method, it also does not work, and creates conflict between users and administrators of the system through which the attempt to implement it is being made.
Weigh your options, what would non-cooperation cost you? is there significant outrage among others to stand together and make it an issue, or are your grade/graduation at stake?
Who are "these moderators?" Is it more than one?
Certainly a post as offensive as that one and with as many different sorts of moderations is going to be tackled by metamoderation.
I guess I feel like it will be sorted out in meta moderation - that if someone is truly abusing their mod points that's going to come out....
I mean - by and large I think the moderation system works, everyone has had a post poorly moderated, or had someone mod a post for what seems like petty personal reasons, but democratic type of system is always open to a little abuse.
As for the second question, i dunno..I get mod points all of the time and still see the metamod link at the top after modding things....One thing I have noticed is that the entire site doesn't seem to work properly in IE7, but I usually use chrome or Firefox.
I don't think the RIAA thinks they are staying within the law.
They view the law as something that must be molded to their desires, and care not if it protects all evenly.
People are entitled to their opinions, as politically incorrect or bigoted as they may be.
I never usually pay attention to FPs, but I suspect that whoever modded it insightful was just pissed about Obama's hypocrisy on this issue and chose a poor way to show it - still though, like the Jewish lawyer who has vigorously defended the KKK or white supremacists (I think it was the klan but can't remember) on first amendment grounds, I may not agree with someone's point of view or may find it infantile, bigoted, pointless or personally highly offensive - but I still support their being able to say it.
It's funny to see people reacting exactly how the media and jurors in the case did - emotionally, without considering thhat there is a right and a wrong thing to do things, and that the rule of law HAS to be adhered to in all cases, ESPECIALLY in cases where the public feels a heinous wrong has been done.
We cannot compromise long held principles in a one of a kind situation just because we feel someone needs to be punished to to make an example of her.
Harrassment charges would have been fine. The woman is already a national pariah (as another poster has pointed out) and was run out of her neighborhood.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong - certainly you're entitled to your opinion about whaty happened to Lori Drew, I agree that she was sick and deserved a lot of things - but don't pervert our legal system to try to turn something that isn't a crime into a crime ex post facto.
The verdict on the other hand could affect a lot of people, it could affect me, so on that count you're just plain wrong.
Firstly I (and many others) feel that the verdict in the Drew case was a travesty, set a horrible precedent and was the one of the absolute worst uses of the judicial system in recent years - the implications are huge and could affect all of us who spend a lot of time online. It was an abuse of the legal system in my mind, tapping into people's emotions about a tragedy to get a dubious legal ruling passed - it was a judicial lynch mob.
Secondly I am so tired of the double standard in video games in how any type of the most gruesome violence is permitted (with the rating system) but even a minor mention of sex or nudity and the game can;t be made. Sex has to be sanitized, yet you can blow someones brains out.
I love violent games as much as the next person, the generally are some of the best games out there - well made shooters are especially up my alley - loved GTA, but damn, it would be nice not to have to tiptoe around any sex or nudity (if it's appropriate). In games made for adults this should be an option. I am not talking about having those things just for the sake of having them, but am referring to the ability for a designer to make a game truly geared towards adults that isn't a lame excuse/attempt at porn. I would like to see the ability for AO titles to be viable, what that would be I don't know, but take the sex scene is GTA4 - they could have made those a lot more fun or funny had they had a little visual latitude.
As a parent I totally understand how and why people are concerned about violent games. I play a lot of games I wouldn't want my daughter to play until she is old enough to understand certain things. The biggest issue I would have with these sort of games is the same issue I have with TV and some movies when it comes to kids, and it the desensitization to violence and the pain and suffering of others. I think that can do a real disservice to the humanity inside a person if they grow up constantly witnessing violent acts.
However, with all of that said I think that it is a parent's job to monitor what their kids see and buy and put it in the proper context.
I do think that the voluntary ratings system is the way to go....The absolute worst thing that could be done is censorship of game content by the government - it would especially be pointless because it's not like it would have an effect on TV (which is much worse). Censorship doesn't solve anything - it's bad enough that the industry self censors based on what they think will sell or be controversial.
Parents who aren't digitally literate could use a little education about these ratings and what they mean, but all in all determining what is appropriate for a child or the market isn't a government job, it's a parent/industry job, and for the record if given the choice between my child seeing explicit violence or explicit sex it's my feeling that sex is much less harmful.
Boy, well that sure worked well with Germany post WWI.
Yeah, seriously!!!
They could improve their image worldwide AND become more efficient in their repression by using your suggestion, (which henceforth shall be referred to as "The American Model."
>>You must be new here. Some of the people who moderate are petty, petty abusers of power. Express a sentiment they agree with, even in a completely flamebait fashion, and you get modded up. Express a sentiment they disagree with, even if you're reasonable about it, and you get modded down.
You must be new here :) Some of the people in any undertaking are petty assholes, but Slashdot has meta-moderation, which seems to be the best way to deal with that in a way that is as fair as possible. I only wish I could meta-moderate in real life - politicians, television, comments made by my girlfriend... The other thing is that pretty much everyone can become eligable to moderate; it's not some elitist core.
Okay, so they try an end run and use the court which they disdained and claimed would never work to suit their purposes to issue a ruling after the fact?
It shouldn't matter because it certainly wasn't legal when it was undertaken - hence all of the shady actions and attempts at ex post facto bullshit.
The IWF makes me sick - using "think of the children" and child porn scares to chill political speech and information is reprehensible.
The only reason to censor the internet archive and the wayback machine is to control your populace and prevent them from learning and referencing things you'd rather they not know.
The wayback machine also makes it impossible for government or organizations to hide changes that they have made to websites - they can sweep things under the run and there is no going back to an earlier version to see wat has been done.
To me, this sort of censorship is extremely serious, and should be something people there stand up against, by any and all means necessary.
Yeah, because certainly an inanimate metal tool took it upon itself to kill his parents. Blaming the gun is a stupid as blaming the game.
It never ceases to amaze me, the ignorance in the general public surrounding firearms. It's surprising that there isn't the same sort of movement trying to ban cars to stop drunk driving. Though it has been stated over and over again, the fact remains that criminals don't follow laws, so any sort of attempted ban on firearms will only affect the responsible, law abiding gun owner, and they aren't the problem.
If, in this day and age you can't understand why those who wrote the constitution granted the right to bear arms to the populace then take a look at history - it should be fairly apparent.
I do think that there may be an attempt to remove the consitutional right of private firearm ownership in America. I hope I am wrong, but unfortunately our society in America seems to be transitioning into an authoritarian state, and historically private firearm confiscation usually is one of the last events to occur before a people is completely subjugated.
Whether or not you choose to exercise your right to own a gun is a personal choice, but I know myself and millions of others like me don't like to depend upon the state (which has shown that their incompetence is the exception and corruption is the rule)for protection in times of need - and also stand as a final check and balance against complete tyranny or invasion - and I know that should I or my family ever be in a civil emergency following a natural disaster like Katrina or any other scenario where society and basic services have broken down - the well being of my family and our provisions will be protected.
Why is assigning blame on one solitary factor so important? People seem to follow the lead of the corporate media, who inevitably suggests that it is always ONE thing that causes these scenarios - and it never is...It's more complicated than that - but like Bush they don't do nuance.
Because somebody keeps cutting the cables and blaming it on ship anchors?
I've got the Flavor-Aid and cyanide....You guys just bring your sneakers and death shrouds...
Also, we're making a DVD by the way, so shave your heads and get that nutty twinkle back in your eye!!! We want to look good for our ride to heaven!!
We know that while it is difficult to survive with that sort of integrity on the hill, it isn't impossible...Look at Ron Paul, and there are a few others...It looks like Franken will be one.
Here's the thing: I don't see how this can be justified - if the school is allowing the student to study and attend for free, than it may make some sense that the school would have options over any intellectual property - however, most people pay for their university via student loans, family money, third party scholarships, or actually working their way through school.
Given that this is the case, why should the institution have this right?
It's tolerated in Goa somewhat, and there are Bhang shops that are govt regulated which sell a very, very potent marijuana based drink used on traditional holidays....but other than that it's illegal....This is my understanding anyway.
Good post.
Hopefully the sophistication of this community and the hopelessness of DRM will further encourage those who make decisions about DRM to abandon this sinking ship. Anyone with a brain knows that all DRM can eventually be circumvented, and that there is no such thing as perfect security - thus, it makes much more sense to come up with a cooperative model that works with the community of users. I am not saying that anything goes, but what I am saying is that if Apple were to embrace the enthusiast community to enable them to use the device in the ways they want to to enable increased functionality and compatibility with the caveat that the community polices itself so that cetain things that both sides can agree would be harmful to Apple and the community, or would threaten the continued cooperation of the community and the corporation wouldn't be tolerated.
I look at the community of live recording traders online that use bittorrent to distribute live recordings through membership based trackers as an example of how communities can thrive all while respecting the business model of the artists and labels - and how well those communities police themselves...There are rules, like that you canot uplaod or trade anything that is officially released; it's all not-for-profit....If any user tries to circument the rules they're dealt with quickly by the community...
Now certainly it's more complicated when dealing with the Apple store and different carriers and business agreements, etc - and it's not something that could happen overnight, but I think the general principle of working with your commmunity of enthusiasts instead of fighting againsst them and what they are doing would work out much better for both sides than the current state of affairs.
A mother breastfeeding a child doesn't create a public health hazard like urinating in public does. I wasn't saying simply that "it is okay because it is natural," and obviously I am not talking about people who, for whatever reason are breastfeeding adults or purposefully trying to be offensive...
It's a very fine line - and as far as facebook is concerned I would think that they could apply a standard that is a little bit better than just "no breastfeeding."