Is there practical difference between Twitter releasing information to an affiliated third party that intends to disclose it (via lawsuit) and directly doxing? I just don't see it.
When RIAA was sending all these "John Doe" lawsuits, there was generally process to appeal disclosure of private information. That is, judge had to order ISP to release it if the user objected. Why the same process wasn't followed here?
Is there attempted jaywalking? I think attempted murder exists because of a gravity of the crime. I am not sure there is such thing as attempted assault, and if it does, how it is defined.
Again, this goes back to my original point that defining sending gifs to someone as an assault is controversial. I think you have to have a trial to set precedent on this before we can call it assault.
Another question - what happens if attempt is not credible or has no chance to succeed? For example, I take a swing from 10 feet away without any way of landing it?
I am not on Twitter, but I am fairly sure that they have privacy statement that outlines what they could do with a data. I am fairly sure doxing is not on the list of allowed abuses. Since there is no criminal investigation and they allegedly disclosed PII to a private party and not a law enforcement agency I am fairly sure they are opening themselves to a lawsuit and FCC fines.
Was there a seizure? You have two components - intent and result. If I intend to punch you in a face, take a swing, but never manage to hit you, did assault actually happened? IANAL, so I don't know.
Definition of assault that includes sending flashing gifs is controversial. Until there is a grand jury determination that assault possibly happened, Twitter is just taking sides in a civil dispute.
You are moving goalposts by conflating religious belies and factual recorded history. If we could produce a birth certificate and a driver license of Jesus, then his existence would be non-controversial. However, his Godhood would still be controversial. Since there is no divine claims around holocaust, we are simply examining record-based facts. To dispute holocaust you need to discredit all factual sources.
Yes, your position makes logical sense, however, applying logic would not let you understand this situation. Simply put, for people practicing logical thinking holocaust is a historical fact. Instead, you need to consider how to be more persuasive. You can attempt stigmatizing, but it no longer works - it is too easy to use social media to find like-minded people and form a support group. Censorship, while somewhat effective in the short term, is more likely to be turned against you in the long term. This only leaves emotional arguments - show old photos, tell stories, display artifacts in museums.
It is much harder to deny holocaust when search result turns up with photos of liberated camp survivors and mass graves. Shocking, but effective.
...because it allows the various cranks and racists to borrow the goodwill of these sites to create a veneer of respectability around what are ultimately noxious and vile views.
I just don't see anyone going "Oh, look, its on Twitter, so it must be true".
Social platforms allow like-minded people to connect. It doesn't have any additional power of persuasion that you are attributing to it.
How would a neutral person respond to such question?
a) State the facts - yes it did happen b) Acknowledge there are controversial opinions and revisionists views c) Affirm that controversy is manufactured and explain its source.
Google search just returned b). Not good. Just a) would be slight improvement, but complete solution requires a+b+c.
This is not at all desirable outcome. You want to convince and educate based on facts, not on who can shout loudest.
You failed to consider consequences of what Nazoole popularity would do to our society. Sure, it is extremely unlikely, but we also thought Trump was extremely unlikely and look where we are.
Then neo-nazis create alternative search engine with hard coded "no" and all young people trying to form an understanding of this are left with arbitrarily picking sides. This is how religions form.
Instead, what you need to do is present factual information and both points of view and let reader decide. Convincing is the way to get positive results, ostracizing and norm-policing leads to increasingly tribal and shallow-understanding believers.
Not quite. Stormfront is a reliable source of neo-nazi materials, if this is what you are searching for then it should be top ranked. If you removing it from all searches, then you are biasing your search results.
The issue is that a) I am a neo-nazi and asking about holocaust and b) I am a normal person and asking about holocaust should produce two different ranked lists, but the question and search terms are the same.
It is very clear that described problem is malfunction of search ranking algorithm, you don't fix it by making it impossible to find offending searches, you fix it by making it rank result appropriately.
I am cynic and believe this is Google's plot to acclimate public to skewing the search results. Ad revenue is down, and they are not making any money from indexed search. So they plan to intentionally break your search algorithm. Highlight sensationalist results. Push for "curated results" as a solution. Then monetize all search results by charging for favorable decision, so Pepsi doesn't show as a top search result when googling for Coke.
He is not entitled to succeed, unless on merits, but he is absolutely entitled to try anything and everything he chooses to do that doesn't actively harms others. This list does include twitting while on meth.
I think much better criticism is to point out that tunneling isn't cost effective. Especially in milder climates like in California, multi-level raised highways are probably much better approach.
There was one, but it was shut down because we couldn't find enough female rocket engineers to shield the project. So the incomplete rocket was labeled phallic symbol, the whole thing was declared sexists and everyone got fired.
I am Sander supporter and did not vote for Trump. Don't let this stop you from proceeding to smear me as racist, misogynist, a tool of oppressing patriarchy, tell me to check my privilege, and proceed to attempt to get me fired, you wretched scum.
Thing is, such one-sided situation is not a good thing. You need a credible opposition or you end up with a trickle-down economics or the gender equity law Title IX. The other side has to be there to check the excesses.
Nobody attributing amorality or criminality to shopping at Wal-Mart of eating at McDonalds. If enough people disagree that Trump's is abhorrent behavior, maybe you should take more care with definition creep?
When everything is misogyny, what Trump does is no longer condemned.
Yep, plus "preparing to enter a pilot testing period for drone delivery" should have been done before they start delivery, not during. What if pilots don't pass?
Slashdot Mirror
Is there practical difference between Twitter releasing information to an affiliated third party that intends to disclose it (via lawsuit) and directly doxing? I just don't see it.
When RIAA was sending all these "John Doe" lawsuits, there was generally process to appeal disclosure of private information. That is, judge had to order ISP to release it if the user objected. Why the same process wasn't followed here?
Is there attempted jaywalking? I think attempted murder exists because of a gravity of the crime. I am not sure there is such thing as attempted assault, and if it does, how it is defined.
Again, this goes back to my original point that defining sending gifs to someone as an assault is controversial. I think you have to have a trial to set precedent on this before we can call it assault.
Interesting. Law is rather complicated.
Another question - what happens if attempt is not credible or has no chance to succeed? For example, I take a swing from 10 feet away without any way of landing it?
I am not on Twitter, but I am fairly sure that they have privacy statement that outlines what they could do with a data. I am fairly sure doxing is not on the list of allowed abuses. Since there is no criminal investigation and they allegedly disclosed PII to a private party and not a law enforcement agency I am fairly sure they are opening themselves to a lawsuit and FCC fines.
Was there a seizure? You have two components - intent and result. If I intend to punch you in a face, take a swing, but never manage to hit you, did assault actually happened? IANAL, so I don't know.
So Twitter is now actively doxing people?
Definition of assault that includes sending flashing gifs is controversial. Until there is a grand jury determination that assault possibly happened, Twitter is just taking sides in a civil dispute.
You are moving goalposts by conflating religious belies and factual recorded history. If we could produce a birth certificate and a driver license of Jesus, then his existence would be non-controversial. However, his Godhood would still be controversial. Since there is no divine claims around holocaust, we are simply examining record-based facts. To dispute holocaust you need to discredit all factual sources.
Yes, your position makes logical sense, however, applying logic would not let you understand this situation. Simply put, for people practicing logical thinking holocaust is a historical fact. Instead, you need to consider how to be more persuasive. You can attempt stigmatizing, but it no longer works - it is too easy to use social media to find like-minded people and form a support group. Censorship, while somewhat effective in the short term, is more likely to be turned against you in the long term. This only leaves emotional arguments - show old photos, tell stories, display artifacts in museums.
It is much harder to deny holocaust when search result turns up with photos of liberated camp survivors and mass graves. Shocking, but effective.
...because it allows the various cranks and racists to borrow the goodwill of these sites to create a veneer of respectability around what are ultimately noxious and vile views.
I just don't see anyone going "Oh, look, its on Twitter, so it must be true".
Social platforms allow like-minded people to connect. It doesn't have any additional power of persuasion that you are attributing to it.
How would a neutral person respond to such question?
a) State the facts - yes it did happen b) Acknowledge there are controversial opinions and revisionists views c) Affirm that controversy is manufactured and explain its source.
Google search just returned b). Not good. Just a) would be slight improvement, but complete solution requires a+b+c.
They can make their own search engine.
This is not at all desirable outcome. You want to convince and educate based on facts, not on who can shout loudest.
You failed to consider consequences of what Nazoole popularity would do to our society. Sure, it is extremely unlikely, but we also thought Trump was extremely unlikely and look where we are.
Then neo-nazis create alternative search engine with hard coded "no" and all young people trying to form an understanding of this are left with arbitrarily picking sides. This is how religions form.
Instead, what you need to do is present factual information and both points of view and let reader decide. Convincing is the way to get positive results, ostracizing and norm-policing leads to increasingly tribal and shallow-understanding believers.
Not quite. Stormfront is a reliable source of neo-nazi materials, if this is what you are searching for then it should be top ranked. If you removing it from all searches, then you are biasing your search results.
The issue is that a) I am a neo-nazi and asking about holocaust and b) I am a normal person and asking about holocaust should produce two different ranked lists, but the question and search terms are the same.
It is very clear that described problem is malfunction of search ranking algorithm, you don't fix it by making it impossible to find offending searches, you fix it by making it rank result appropriately.
I am cynic and believe this is Google's plot to acclimate public to skewing the search results. Ad revenue is down, and they are not making any money from indexed search. So they plan to intentionally break your search algorithm. Highlight sensationalist results. Push for "curated results" as a solution. Then monetize all search results by charging for favorable decision, so Pepsi doesn't show as a top search result when googling for Coke.
He is not entitled to succeed, unless on merits, but he is absolutely entitled to try anything and everything he chooses to do that doesn't actively harms others. This list does include twitting while on meth.
I think much better criticism is to point out that tunneling isn't cost effective. Especially in milder climates like in California, multi-level raised highways are probably much better approach.
There was one, but it was shut down because we couldn't find enough female rocket engineers to shield the project. So the incomplete rocket was labeled phallic symbol, the whole thing was declared sexists and everyone got fired.
The fees start rolling in. Enjoy your "car as a service".
SJW "speaks out" for social causes, in the same way Spanish Inquisition spoke out for Jesus.
I am Sander supporter and did not vote for Trump. Don't let this stop you from proceeding to smear me as racist, misogynist, a tool of oppressing patriarchy, tell me to check my privilege, and proceed to attempt to get me fired, you wretched scum.
What is there to patent? I am using prior art right now and it is at least 2 years old.
You need 30 people to maintain Github, the rest are affirmative action hire, SJW thought police department, and female game developers.
Thing is, such one-sided situation is not a good thing. You need a credible opposition or you end up with a trickle-down economics or the gender equity law Title IX. The other side has to be there to check the excesses.
Nobody attributing amorality or criminality to shopping at Wal-Mart of eating at McDonalds. If enough people disagree that Trump's is abhorrent behavior, maybe you should take more care with definition creep?
When everything is misogyny, what Trump does is no longer condemned.
Yep, plus "preparing to enter a pilot testing period for drone delivery" should have been done before they start delivery, not during. What if pilots don't pass?