"I have friends who have stopped speaking to each other because of Facebook"
"Complete and utter bullshit."
Ah, are you that blind? No, you're just not answering the question, because yours is oh so cleverer.
And proving all the points. Newspapers used to devote nontrivial space to 'letters to the editor', and some would publish pretty interesting and inflammatory drivel. But would a 'reputable' newspaper ever publish a plain incitement to murder? I doubt it.
Facebook is going to have to decide if it is a publisher or a medium, and if they continue to filter, direct, and promote content, they are too much like a publisher to easily avoid responsibility for what they permit, if they exercise control over it.
And no, I may be wrong, but I do not what them to have it both ways. I'm betting the US Secret Service monitors a variety of Internet media to detect threats against elected officials, and responds as they believe is appropriate. But that won't absolve the distributors from all responsibility for the content they distribute if they manipulate distribution by arbitrary conditions.
If governments can force corporations to disclose location records, communications, and identities for mundane violations such as tax evasion, certainly they can for public incitement to riot or murder.
" It's designed to feed you whatever propaganda you're most predisposed to believing."
It's designed to monopolize your attention. That it does so in a way that seems, SEEMS, to also promote its founders and managers' points of view is, for them, a huge benefit.
Make FB politically agnostic, and this isn't such a big deal. But FB ownership and management do not seem to be running it in a politically neutral or agnostic fashion, and eventually there is a real McCain-Feingold violation* to address. Not that we can expect any real action, since the UniParty is deathly afraid of actually addressing the blatant corporate in-kind contributions being made, and I do not include the ostensible 'news' organizations. They are a different issue, as they will rely upon First Amendment protections to avoid even the appearance of criticism.
It's not just FB, either but you can figure that out for yourself.
* - When corporate media owners and officers meet with elected officials to discuss campaign issues, their actions can reasonable be suspected of being in-kind contributions, and there is likely a McCain-Feingold violation in progress. And other violations.
FTFY. Getting all butthurt because FB can be used to influence people is, it seems, mostly the result of people hating that other points of view are accepted and/or propagated. Gee. Really.
Of course. AOL did this you know, and for those on the fringe it was IRC before. FB is dangerous not because it's doing what has been done for a fairly long time now, 20 years or so, but because it's ubiquitous. The whole election troll is passe, but it does continue the meme.
And regulating FB is a loser. All you get for that is limiting opinions to the 'approved' set. And that should, in the US, be illegal, even (especially) if the Government does it.
If I subscribe to DirectTV in March, with the 3 month premium channel deal, just one channel (Usually it's three), I would in a year pay 9 months' premium service that I may not have expected to. At $9 per month (that's conservative) that's $81. Then the contract changes into a full-price deal, and my costs go much higher, and they get my attention, so let's stop the analysis there.
$81 times only 22 million subscribers (a third figured it out, sure). $1,782,000,000. Times 8.
OK, let's settle on just 10% of these clueless subscribers were deceived. $1,425,600,000. Yeah, the FTC asked way too much money, they should have asked for $1 billion. OR start at $4 Billion, and 'settle' for $500 Million in court, consent decree and a $100 Million settlement, and everyone leaves the table happy, except of course the subscribers who may share a third (REALLY optimistic) after the lawyers get paid, or, if a fraction register for the class, probably more like $8 each.
Our Federal government lacks the nerve and drive to actually punish a transgressor like this. If DirectTV is truly guilty of misleading subscribers for so long, a $4 Billion fine would only give back about $120 per subscriber, or a little more than a years' thievery, each. Real punishment would have to include intrusive regulation, such as disclosure in larger type, maybe a fee calendar, hey, be creative.
It works for the financial industry, right? They sure cleaned that up, right? Right?
We didn't really, really fine Wells Fargo for what was not merely illegal, but plainly theft. And we didn't cause anyone involved deep personal embarrassment. I'm beginning to appreciate the Icelandic example.
A related suit, claiming that using predominantly white-skinned models in advertisements constituted discrimination by presenting the appearance that the market was assumed to be predominantly white... And it seems to have been dismissed, apparently on technical grounds, like standing and such.
By the late 80s it was well known, to landlords at least, that trying to advertise with illegal restrictions would not be tolerated by mainstream newspapers, and soon after even the 'little' specialty papers had to police their classifieds. This has, predictably, also been the rule in new media, as Craigslist etc had to also police their listings.
If you cared to read the Act, you would see it is sufficiently specific to make it clear, you cannot advertise housing with illegal restrictions.
If you could turn them off they would not be 'recommendations'. They would not be, to you, anything.
And 'they' want to dominate your attention, any way they can. For instance, making damn sure you know about the other magnificence they have for you to see^H^H^H spend your time on...
In 1998 FLAC was useless, as in did not exist. That was my first complete rip and load. A refresh in 2002, but both FLAC and Vorbis were not well supported. Today I would probably rip WSAV for compatibility and Vorbis for lightweight use, but MP3 was still ubiquitous, and phones were not good players until wyat, 2006/2007?
I remember when modems came in their own boxes, and you often got the wrong cable. Then of course they got all internal, but were optional for a while before they became expected.
You're not getting 320k streaming anyways unless you ask for it, so SBC is adequate with decent headsets. But...
aptX claims to be better, but I'm not hearing it, even with lossless source.
aptX HD? Feh. Better, just.
LDAC I heard in a Sony store. Impressive, but that was not in my car, the gym, or parking lot. When it's ubiquitous, I'll try to turn it on, but I don't see that coming.
AAC? You bought an iPhone. Go splurge on decent headphones. Apple does not manufacture any.
My own media server holds lossless (WAV and Ogg) and 320K, I choose depending on the situation. Since commercial radio seems to be 128k I need to swap out my cars radio for anything that streams, though cars are terrible audio environments and do not reward spending unless you just a thumper. I only have wired over-ear headphones right now, but I may yet spend money on my head, never know, most disappointed me.
I knew I was in for a long haul when I realized 128k MP3s sounded worse than my MiniDisc. Arg.
"just because some company is too lazy or incompetent to incorporate it into their 'design philosophy'"
-wut? are you really that angry you're pretending it was an effort NOT to include a jack?
"In an age where every wireless signal can be hacked"
They can listen to my music. They already listen to my calls. They already know what I just asked Siri/Google Now/Alexa/Cortana. If they can get within about 100 feet (assuming Godly Bluetooth powers) they can read my lips. Your concern is already obsolete.
If your mobile OS isn't spying on you, your apps are. It's their revenue generator, and you won't avoid it without paying some other way.
Not that paying for services and avoiding the intrusive spying wouldn't be good, but sooner or later demand for revenue growth will force them to spy again. And then offer you privacy-for-pay. And more pay. Repeat.
Slashdot Mirror
"The technology is basically just keeping the slow pace of incremental innovation"
As in "real soon now"
Or, more accurately, "nope".
So we keep on keepin on. I can deal with that, since I won't be paying the bills. But I'll miss the glory.
Nailed it.
"I have friends who have stopped speaking to each other because of Facebook"
"Complete and utter bullshit."
Ah, are you that blind? No, you're just not answering the question, because yours is oh so cleverer.
And proving all the points. Newspapers used to devote nontrivial space to 'letters to the editor', and some would publish pretty interesting and inflammatory drivel. But would a 'reputable' newspaper ever publish a plain incitement to murder? I doubt it.
Facebook is going to have to decide if it is a publisher or a medium, and if they continue to filter, direct, and promote content, they are too much like a publisher to easily avoid responsibility for what they permit, if they exercise control over it.
And no, I may be wrong, but I do not what them to have it both ways. I'm betting the US Secret Service monitors a variety of Internet media to detect threats against elected officials, and responds as they believe is appropriate. But that won't absolve the distributors from all responsibility for the content they distribute if they manipulate distribution by arbitrary conditions.
If governments can force corporations to disclose location records, communications, and identities for mundane violations such as tax evasion, certainly they can for public incitement to riot or murder.
" It's designed to feed you whatever propaganda you're most predisposed to believing."
It's designed to monopolize your attention. That it does so in a way that seems, SEEMS, to also promote its founders and managers' points of view is, for them, a huge benefit.
Make FB politically agnostic, and this isn't such a big deal. But FB ownership and management do not seem to be running it in a politically neutral or agnostic fashion, and eventually there is a real McCain-Feingold violation* to address. Not that we can expect any real action, since the UniParty is deathly afraid of actually addressing the blatant corporate in-kind contributions being made, and I do not include the ostensible 'news' organizations. They are a different issue, as they will rely upon First Amendment protections to avoid even the appearance of criticism.
It's not just FB, either but you can figure that out for yourself.
* - When corporate media owners and officers meet with elected officials to discuss campaign issues, their actions can reasonable be suspected of being in-kind contributions, and there is likely a McCain-Feingold violation in progress. And other violations.
Perfect.
"No shit, they can influence"
FTFY. Getting all butthurt because FB can be used to influence people is, it seems, mostly the result of people hating that other points of view are accepted and/or propagated. Gee. Really.
Of course. AOL did this you know, and for those on the fringe it was IRC before. FB is dangerous not because it's doing what has been done for a fairly long time now, 20 years or so, but because it's ubiquitous. The whole election troll is passe, but it does continue the meme.
And regulating FB is a loser. All you get for that is limiting opinions to the 'approved' set. And that should, in the US, be illegal, even (especially) if the Government does it.
Try this:
If I subscribe to DirectTV in March, with the 3 month premium channel deal, just one channel (Usually it's three), I would in a year pay 9 months' premium service that I may not have expected to. At $9 per month (that's conservative) that's $81. Then the contract changes into a full-price deal, and my costs go much higher, and they get my attention, so let's stop the analysis there.
$81 times only 22 million subscribers (a third figured it out, sure). $1,782,000,000. Times 8.
OK, let's settle on just 10% of these clueless subscribers were deceived. $1,425,600,000. Yeah, the FTC asked way too much money, they should have asked for $1 billion. OR start at $4 Billion, and 'settle' for $500 Million in court, consent decree and a $100 Million settlement, and everyone leaves the table happy, except of course the subscribers who may share a third (REALLY optimistic) after the lawyers get paid, or, if a fraction register for the class, probably more like $8 each.
Our Federal government lacks the nerve and drive to actually punish a transgressor like this. If DirectTV is truly guilty of misleading subscribers for so long, a $4 Billion fine would only give back about $120 per subscriber, or a little more than a years' thievery, each. Real punishment would have to include intrusive regulation, such as disclosure in larger type, maybe a fee calendar, hey, be creative.
It works for the financial industry, right? They sure cleaned that up, right? Right?
We didn't really, really fine Wells Fargo for what was not merely illegal, but plainly theft. And we didn't cause anyone involved deep personal embarrassment. I'm beginning to appreciate the Icelandic example.
United States v. Joyce, 2008
United States v. Penny Pincher, Inc., 2011
A related suit, claiming that using predominantly white-skinned models in advertisements constituted discrimination by presenting the appearance that the market was assumed to be predominantly white... And it seems to have been dismissed, apparently on technical grounds, like standing and such.
By the late 80s it was well known, to landlords at least, that trying to advertise with illegal restrictions would not be tolerated by mainstream newspapers, and soon after even the 'little' specialty papers had to police their classifieds. This has, predictably, also been the rule in new media, as Craigslist etc had to also police their listings.
If you cared to read the Act, you would see it is sufficiently specific to make it clear, you cannot advertise housing with illegal restrictions.
This has been tried against newspaper publishers, and upheld.
If you could turn them off they would not be 'recommendations'. They would not be, to you, anything.
And 'they' want to dominate your attention, any way they can. For instance, making damn sure you know about the other magnificence they have for you to see^H^H^H spend your time on...
In 1998 FLAC was useless, as in did not exist. That was my first complete rip and load. A refresh in 2002, but both FLAC and Vorbis were not well supported. Today I would probably rip WSAV for compatibility and Vorbis for lightweight use, but MP3 was still ubiquitous, and phones were not good players until wyat, 2006/2007?
You use what works.
Not worth it to me. Ogg serves, and I would actually encode ATRAC if I could get a decent player for it
Make it as thin as an iPhone and we are on the same page.
If it could be sold Apple would have.
"If they did it right there would be a way to store the airpods in your phone."
Clearly not what you meant. But even wrapping makes your phone something it is not otherwise - bulkier.
I remember when modems came in their own boxes, and you often got the wrong cable. Then of course they got all internal, but were optional for a while before they became expected.
Nothing about airpods nor any other usable earphone whatever can be stored within a current design phone by any manufacturer.
And app sales are driven by revenue, which they take a share of from the app sellers.
It's revenue all the way down.
No, I don't. I remember how modems were the most popular peripheral. USB sticks a close second.
You're not getting 320k streaming anyways unless you ask for it, so SBC is adequate with decent headsets. But...
aptX claims to be better, but I'm not hearing it, even with lossless source.
aptX HD? Feh. Better, just.
LDAC I heard in a Sony store. Impressive, but that was not in my car, the gym, or parking lot. When it's ubiquitous, I'll try to turn it on, but I don't see that coming.
AAC? You bought an iPhone. Go splurge on decent headphones. Apple does not manufacture any.
My own media server holds lossless (WAV and Ogg) and 320K, I choose depending on the situation. Since commercial radio seems to be 128k I need to swap out my cars radio for anything that streams, though cars are terrible audio environments and do not reward spending unless you just a thumper. I only have wired over-ear headphones right now, but I may yet spend money on my head, never know, most disappointed me.
I knew I was in for a long haul when I realized 128k MP3s sounded worse than my MiniDisc. Arg.
"something better, faster, cheaper, more reliable and with more storage."
We know it as the Internet. Really, I know you thought it was something else, but Sun figured it out a while ago, and FedEx felt it immediately.
"just because some company is too lazy or incompetent to incorporate it into their 'design philosophy'"
-wut? are you really that angry you're pretending it was an effort NOT to include a jack?
"In an age where every wireless signal can be hacked"
They can listen to my music. They already listen to my calls. They already know what I just asked Siri/Google Now/Alexa/Cortana. If they can get within about 100 feet (assuming Godly Bluetooth powers) they can read my lips. Your concern is already obsolete.
Wired is Tired.
MultiMEME for your consideration.
If your mobile OS isn't spying on you, your apps are. It's their revenue generator, and you won't avoid it without paying some other way.
Not that paying for services and avoiding the intrusive spying wouldn't be good, but sooner or later demand for revenue growth will force them to spy again. And then offer you privacy-for-pay. And more pay. Repeat.
Try Facebook Keto for a few weeks and realize you've been lied to all these decades...