Let me be clear: Corporate America wants to control everything that is said online, and the tools to do it are starting to show up. Companies are starting to employ people whose soul job is to look at social media and respond to negative comments.
You're right, they are responding to negative comments. In fact, I'm impressed with the responses I have received from my ISP (Charter) and SAS. I posted some pretty pissed off comments about Charter last week when my connection dropped (I have business class and I expect it to remain up) and they not only responded to me on Twitter but they also called me to ensure my connection was back up in a timely fashion (I was up before any of my neighbors with residential connections). SAS once contacted me (actually one of their VPs did) via e-mail following a Twitter post expressing frustration about "proc gplot". They wanted to make sure that I got it "to do my bidding".
So while I am sure that what you are saying is true, I have not yet seen corporate America do anything with social media except stop negative comments the CORRECT way--by ensuring the customer is happy. If that sort of customer to company interaction continues in the way it has been, I would say that their attempts are amazingly useful. If they somehow want to change the course of those discussions forcibly or by spamming with positive, I am sure the backlash--especially with those of us that enjoy the way it currently works--will be phenomenal.
and for every one of these there's a microsoft or GoP astroturfer/astro-modder on slashdot poisoning the well.
Just look, for instance, at the dramatic change in the way microsoft related titles are handled on/. for instance. Blatant, extra-fluffy astroturf immediately makes it to +5, anything remotely negative gets subjected to a massive war both against deliberately disingenuous replies and as the real mod community fights with sock puppet accounts to keep the post relevant.
Then Visible 'scores' each post, labeling it as positive or negative, mixed or neutral. It examines how influential a conversation or an author is. ('Trying to determine who really matters,' as Cahill puts it.)
the correct answer is, C - none of the above!.. they're all on social networks so none of them matter.
I was referring to the "silent majority" that Agnew kept spouting off about before he went to prison for tax fraud, as if most Americans supported the Vietnam war but kept quiet about it. The fact was, the "silent majority" wanted out of Vietnam as badly as the vocal folks.
If you're silent, don't expect your voice to be heard or your wishes to be accomodated.
under this philosophy, the 9/12 loonies who look up to heaven as they speak breathlessly about glenn beck MUST represent the "majority" view, right?
you can't compare quiet, scheming bigots to a whole nation full of war protestors who actually show up themselves, not speak through well funded media mouthpieces.
if the majority of the public really DOES agree with them there should be no risk of ostracism.
So this is what "the land of the free" now becomes. You are free to do whatever you want, say whatever you want, as long as the majority of the public agree with it.
Whatever happened to the "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" ideal?
except this isn't "saying" anything at all, it's a LEGISLATIVE effort to strip people of substantive human rights.
Asking for this is no different than asking for cspan footage of a senate hearing to figure out who to vote out.
A vocal minority should never be allowed to control the population, regardless of cause or locality.
Exactly, which is why the names should be made public.
Placing an initiative on a ballot is a legislative process, just like passing a new speed limit or making it illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your pocket.
I would also be remiss not to mention that those responsible for the referendum are deliberately gaming the election process.
They know damn well mid-terms have much lower turn-out. The lower the office elected the less people show up.
The "vocal minority" responsible for the referendum will be disproportionately represented, and the silent majority who are OK with gay marriage but don't care enough to interrupt their day will not be represented at all, allowing an even SMALLER minority to be oppressed.
that their signature remained secret, however no one should have to put up with an organized intimidation process which is the new method of choice. Seeing the pubic exercise their opinion has so offended certain elements out there. As such these same elements intend to use intimidation while expertly avoiding stepping over the line or just not getting caught to get any big names on their to back down or pay up.
In other words, the names should be protected based on what we know these elements will do with them. We cannot have the democratic process circumvented by threats and intimidation. I am all for treating these signatures like votes, off the public record. keep them private. If only to stop the new tactics.
This is similar to why Unions want Card Check, to intimidate their way into power. Freedom of expression is freedom from fear
If it really were a measure of public opinion they would not be so fast to cry foul and scream "intimidation".
For one, there are laws against anything substantive (vandalism, assault, etc), and for another, if the majority of the public really DOES agree with them there should be no risk of ostracism.
Of course, they obviously know this is NOT the case, and their efforts to conceal their signatures are no different than the white hoods the KKK used to wear.
The reality is this referendum doesn't do anything except exploit the "squeaky wheel" phenomenon to oppress gay people. The (silent) majority of the public could care less, so they won't consider it important enough to show up at the polls, allowing the "vocal (and bigoted) minority" to disenfranchise them.
I don't understand what the issue is with shutting down the internet in the case of an emergency.
We have tremendous infrastructure vital to our economy and the logistics of daily living. I'd much rather have no WoW for a week or two than have our national infrastructure twisted in knots by a devastating cyber attack which could have been stopped by simply "blowing the bridge".
The internet is not just a conduit for speech, and it's also not the SOLE conduit for speech by far.
I had always assumed the military had the capacity to pull the plug on the intertubes before this was brought up.
Buy the company and do what? Sorry but due to various responsibilities, Google, Apple, etc. would more than likely be legally forced to keep the patents and keep trying to sue (Eolas being a patent troll has no real assets other than BS patents) to make the investment worthwhile for its shareholders.
If none of them own a controlling share the only reasonable expectations from investors would be the nullification of the mutual threat to their companies.
Without a controlling share, no individual among the group would be able to wield it unilaterally, and anti-trust law would prevent collusion.
I think buying them out and replacing the management or liquidating the company would be an excellent idea.
Are they saying they can "program" the human genetic code and create an improved species?
This is not cybernetics, it's eugenics (not the obviously unethical "extermination" eugenics but the more deviously unethical establishment of a 'genetic elite').
In star trek they're called "augments", in gundam seed they're called "coordinators", but im sure in practice it will be called "oops!, we accidentally gave you gills!"
I don't know. In the USA, maybe more or less consumer protection; maybe more or less freedom. The status quo is known and personal responsibility is not that bad.
tell me exactly how I'm personally responsible for being compelled by "standard practices" in an industry to take onerous contract terms. (cell phone plans anyone?)
and don't give me that crap about "you can choose none at all", because the larger a market a company has the more onerous they can become without it registering on their profit margins..
"why don't you just create a firm and fill that market gap yourself then?"
because you seem to operate under this fantasy that everyone has the connections required to raise massive amounts of venture capital, put lobbyists in the right places to keep the incumbents from legislating your business away, and the personal charisma to keep things in order.
I'm afraid to tell you that economic theory is very different from economics in action. Unfortunately, you don't learn those nuances until the very end of undergraduate studies (that is, if you're lucky, otherwise you won't touch on them until grad school). This leaves the public with a very flawed concept of economics which allows self-interested parties to manipulate them into believing and voting in a manner which strips them of liberty.
A final note: When the US was founded, the government and the nobility were the same thing.. the king, his nobles, and their estates were the top players in the economy. Now they are two different entities, and it seems the constitution is being applied to only one.... at the peril of the populace.
Recent reports of pilot programs with the kindle show the fundamental difference between the way people experience movies and music and how they experience books.
There is no tangible difference between a downloaded song/vid and one which is on dvd, tv, or radio.
This is VERY different from how books are experienced.
Reading text on a video screen is very taxing on the eyes. Additionally, and especially in the case of textbooks, interaction with the paper media is something which is important to readers. While its very logical in the case of texts with the capacity to scrawl notes in margins, highlight passages, and tape stickies to pages, there is also an emotional/comfort aspect to the interaction with the paper itself which is simply not there on digital versions.
Despite being a heavy tech head I will still print out any extended text to dead tree media because it's simply more comfortable and convenient to access in that manner.
While I'm about a generation removed at this point, the pilot programs with current university students show the same attachment.
I personally would love to see neurological and psychology experts convene a joint study on this to determine exactly why this is the case.
Many websites have begun to select and censor comments in order to support their agendas.
I once tried to post a comment to an obviously biased fox news column and behold it never made it there, despite intelligent presentation and links to the relevant data.
Welcome to the brave new world of information manipulation and astro-turfing.
In their efforts to balance the budget, the state govt of california utterly gutted many essential services.
Perhaps they should focus on restoring those, particularly those associated with education, medical care, and consumer protection, back on their feet first.
I can only say that someone is twisting your arm out of its socket. My cable package is €15/month and includes television, radio and internet. (My "television" is a €50 circuit board in my computer.) Anyway, to get back to the point, entertainment has its price. We know that and accept that. But sometimes you look back upon your spending and can't help but think "I could have had just as much fun for a lot less bucks" and this is for lots of folks true of mmorpgs. It has probably something to do with the psychology of a small subscription versus a big (I went shopping yesterday; €50 is apparently common for games nowadays, but you can do better in the last year's games bin) up-front price - it just sort of creeps up on you.
I live in the US, the land where the "free market" crushes common citizens ^---%--%--v where the free market produces better goods by promoting competition! : )
(this post edited by the propaganda ministers in the RNC and their affiliates at fox news)
Slashdot Mirror
Your link won't load.
the front page loads but this specific link does not.
I'm tempted to jump to the conclusion of major ISP blockage, but I just tried from a dutch proxy and it appears the page really is totally hosed.
Let me be clear: Corporate America wants to control everything that is said online, and the tools to do it are starting to show up. Companies are starting to employ people whose soul job is to look at social media and respond to negative comments.
You're right, they are responding to negative comments. In fact, I'm impressed with the responses I have received from my ISP (Charter) and SAS. I posted some pretty pissed off comments about Charter last week when my connection dropped (I have business class and I expect it to remain up) and they not only responded to me on Twitter but they also called me to ensure my connection was back up in a timely fashion (I was up before any of my neighbors with residential connections). SAS once contacted me (actually one of their VPs did) via e-mail following a Twitter post expressing frustration about "proc gplot". They wanted to make sure that I got it "to do my bidding".
So while I am sure that what you are saying is true, I have not yet seen corporate America do anything with social media except stop negative comments the CORRECT way--by ensuring the customer is happy. If that sort of customer to company interaction continues in the way it has been, I would say that their attempts are amazingly useful. If they somehow want to change the course of those discussions forcibly or by spamming with positive, I am sure the backlash--especially with those of us that enjoy the way it currently works--will be phenomenal.
and for every one of these there's a microsoft or GoP astroturfer/astro-modder on slashdot poisoning the well.
Just look, for instance, at the dramatic change in the way microsoft related titles are handled on /. for instance. Blatant, extra-fluffy astroturf immediately makes it to +5, anything remotely negative gets subjected to a massive war both against deliberately disingenuous replies and as the real mod community fights with sock puppet accounts to keep the post relevant.
Then Visible 'scores' each post, labeling it as positive or negative, mixed or neutral. It examines how influential a conversation or an author is. ('Trying to determine who really matters,' as Cahill puts it.)
the correct answer is, C - none of the above!.. they're all on social networks so none of them matter.
I was referring to the "silent majority" that Agnew kept spouting off about before he went to prison for tax fraud, as if most Americans supported the Vietnam war but kept quiet about it. The fact was, the "silent majority" wanted out of Vietnam as badly as the vocal folks.
If you're silent, don't expect your voice to be heard or your wishes to be accomodated.
under this philosophy, the 9/12 loonies who look up to heaven as they speak breathlessly about glenn beck MUST represent the "majority" view, right?
The (silent) majority of the public
My God, I just had a flashback
you can't compare quiet, scheming bigots to a whole nation full of war protestors who actually show up themselves, not speak through well funded media mouthpieces.
if the majority of the public really DOES agree with them there should be no risk of ostracism.
So this is what "the land of the free" now becomes. You are free to do whatever you want, say whatever you want, as long as the majority of the public agree with it.
Whatever happened to the "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" ideal?
except this isn't "saying" anything at all, it's a LEGISLATIVE effort to strip people of substantive human rights.
Asking for this is no different than asking for cspan footage of a senate hearing to figure out who to vote out.
so they won't consider it important enough to show up at the polls, allowing the "vocal (and bigoted) minority" to disenfranchise them.
Umm, if someone chooses not to vote, they have disenfranchised THEMSELVES.
sorry for the lack of clarity.. by them I refer to the target of the referendum (in this case, gay people).
A vocal minority should never be allowed to control the population, regardless of cause or locality.
Exactly, which is why the names should be made public.
Placing an initiative on a ballot is a legislative process, just like passing a new speed limit or making it illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your pocket.
I would also be remiss not to mention that those responsible for the referendum are deliberately gaming the election process.
They know damn well mid-terms have much lower turn-out. The lower the office elected the less people show up.
The "vocal minority" responsible for the referendum will be disproportionately represented, and the silent majority who are OK with gay marriage but don't care enough to interrupt their day will not be represented at all, allowing an even SMALLER minority to be oppressed.
that their signature remained secret, however no one should have to put up with an organized intimidation process which is the new method of choice. Seeing the pubic exercise their opinion has so offended certain elements out there. As such these same elements intend to use intimidation while expertly avoiding stepping over the line or just not getting caught to get any big names on their to back down or pay up.
In other words, the names should be protected based on what we know these elements will do with them. We cannot have the democratic process circumvented by threats and intimidation. I am all for treating these signatures like votes, off the public record. keep them private. If only to stop the new tactics.
This is similar to why Unions want Card Check, to intimidate their way into power. Freedom of expression is freedom from fear
If it really were a measure of public opinion they would not be so fast to cry foul and scream "intimidation".
For one, there are laws against anything substantive (vandalism, assault, etc), and for another, if the majority of the public really DOES agree with them there should be no risk of ostracism.
Of course, they obviously know this is NOT the case, and their efforts to conceal their signatures are no different than the white hoods the KKK used to wear.
The reality is this referendum doesn't do anything except exploit the "squeaky wheel" phenomenon to oppress gay people. The (silent) majority of the public could care less, so they won't consider it important enough to show up at the polls, allowing the "vocal (and bigoted) minority" to disenfranchise them.
I don't understand what the issue is with shutting down the internet in the case of an emergency.
We have tremendous infrastructure vital to our economy and the logistics of daily living. I'd much rather have no WoW for a week or two than have our national infrastructure twisted in knots by a devastating cyber attack which could have been stopped by simply "blowing the bridge".
The internet is not just a conduit for speech, and it's also not the SOLE conduit for speech by far.
I had always assumed the military had the capacity to pull the plug on the intertubes before this was brought up.
Everyone knows the master chief loves to drink "Soda"
I wonder how much it would cost to simply buy 51% of Eolas?
Eolas is one guy (and his investors). Buying him out and settling the lawsuits would cost the same amount.
Last time I checked the going rate for a "sloppy" job was 5k, I think they can spare considerably more than that to make it clean and untraceable.
Buy the company and do what? Sorry but due to various responsibilities, Google, Apple, etc. would more than likely be legally forced to keep the patents and keep trying to sue (Eolas being a patent troll has no real assets other than BS patents) to make the investment worthwhile for its shareholders.
If none of them own a controlling share the only reasonable expectations from investors would be the nullification of the mutual threat to their companies.
Without a controlling share, no individual among the group would be able to wield it unilaterally, and anti-trust law would prevent collusion.
I think buying them out and replacing the management or liquidating the company would be an excellent idea.
Are they saying they can "program" the human genetic code and create an improved species?
This is not cybernetics, it's eugenics (not the obviously unethical "extermination" eugenics but the more deviously unethical establishment of a 'genetic elite').
In star trek they're called "augments", in gundam seed they're called "coordinators", but im sure in practice it will be called "oops!, we accidentally gave you gills!"
The premise of the entire series is the search for these over-grown AA batteries they called zpm's.
They had one at half capacity, and they had a machine that could xerox any object!
I have a book and a xerox machine, but no pens! I think i'll go to the store for some pens so i can copy the book by hand!!
of all the stupidity....
yes yes please! more fodder!
its simple.. in atlantis they travel from one galaxy to the next within about 2 months.
The "course" shown on the pilot indicates this "amazing new wonder" the ancients created was in fact defective by design.
by all rights, even if it crossed half the universe, this spaceship should have only taken a couple decades, not several hundred thousand years.
Welcome to the world of gross continuity errors! For other examples see this parody of the crappy 09 star trek movie.
I don't know. In the USA, maybe more or less consumer protection; maybe more or less freedom. The status quo is known and personal responsibility is not that bad.
tell me exactly how I'm personally responsible for being compelled by "standard practices" in an industry to take onerous contract terms. (cell phone plans anyone?)
and don't give me that crap about "you can choose none at all", because the larger a market a company has the more onerous they can become without it registering on their profit margins..
"why don't you just create a firm and fill that market gap yourself then?"
because you seem to operate under this fantasy that everyone has the connections required to raise massive amounts of venture capital, put lobbyists in the right places to keep the incumbents from legislating your business away, and the personal charisma to keep things in order.
I'm afraid to tell you that economic theory is very different from economics in action. Unfortunately, you don't learn those nuances until the very end of undergraduate studies (that is, if you're lucky, otherwise you won't touch on them until grad school). This leaves the public with a very flawed concept of economics which allows self-interested parties to manipulate them into believing and voting in a manner which strips them of liberty.
A final note: When the US was founded, the government and the nobility were the same thing.. the king, his nobles, and their estates were the top players in the economy. Now they are two different entities, and it seems the constitution is being applied to only one.... at the peril of the populace.
Recent reports of pilot programs with the kindle show the fundamental difference between the way people experience movies and music and how they experience books.
There is no tangible difference between a downloaded song/vid and one which is on dvd, tv, or radio.
This is VERY different from how books are experienced.
Reading text on a video screen is very taxing on the eyes. Additionally, and especially in the case of textbooks, interaction with the paper media is something which is important to readers. While its very logical in the case of texts with the capacity to scrawl notes in margins, highlight passages, and tape stickies to pages, there is also an emotional/comfort aspect to the interaction with the paper itself which is simply not there on digital versions.
Despite being a heavy tech head I will still print out any extended text to dead tree media because it's simply more comfortable and convenient to access in that manner.
While I'm about a generation removed at this point, the pilot programs with current university students show the same attachment.
I personally would love to see neurological and psychology experts convene a joint study on this to determine exactly why this is the case.
There is a conflict of interest but making this type of thing illegal would be a slippery slope.
A slipper slope to what? A market where consumers are properly protected from corporate abuse?
Many websites have begun to select and censor comments in order to support their agendas.
I once tried to post a comment to an obviously biased fox news column and behold it never made it there, despite intelligent presentation and links to the relevant data.
Welcome to the brave new world of information manipulation and astro-turfing.
Customer information without a warrant.. why does that sound familiar?
In their efforts to balance the budget, the state govt of california utterly gutted many essential services.
Perhaps they should focus on restoring those, particularly those associated with education, medical care, and consumer protection, back on their feet first.
Absolutely ridiculous!
I've always insisted that copyright should end with the death of the original author. This pretty much proves my point. He's DEAD...
he's just resting!
I can only say that someone is twisting your arm out of its socket. My cable package is €15/month and includes television, radio and internet. (My "television" is a €50 circuit board in my computer.) Anyway, to get back to the point, entertainment has its price. We know that and accept that. But sometimes you look back upon your spending and can't help but think "I could have had just as much fun for a lot less bucks" and this is for lots of folks true of mmorpgs. It has probably something to do with the psychology of a small subscription versus a big (I went shopping yesterday; €50 is apparently common for games nowadays, but you can do better in the last year's games bin) up-front price - it just sort of creeps up on you.
I live in the US, the land where the "free market" crushes common citizens ^---%--%--v where the free market produces better goods by promoting competition! : )
(this post edited by the propaganda ministers in the RNC and their affiliates at fox news)