Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 464

Thread: More German Anti-Tech Lunacy

  1. #61
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,152
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I don't see (yet) what the difference between Facebook able to recognise who you're posting and Google being able to recognise what you're searching for.
    In some respects they are different in that Google doesn't know who you are. They don't require you to log-in or enter any information to use their search services.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Its not my responibility to hold someone's hand and force them to learn something new if they have shown clearly they don't want to learn to begin with. If this is your way of asking for more information, that works.

    Picasa Web Album does not have a facial recognition program that can tell you "hey, thats bob, lets tell bob, all of bob's friends, and all of your friends that Picasa knows what bob looks like". Picasa Web Album does however know (generally) what a face looks like, which makes it easier to tag people manually; sorta like how cameras can find a face before taking a picture. The web album also defaults so that pictures aren't shared or published without permission.
    Picasa 3.5 and beyond does include a more robust facial recognition tool, but it only works with the information on your computer. It doesn't send that information overseas, or to any central database. It can also take hours to scan through a hard drive worth of information because its designed like this.

    Facebook's tool however combines this desktop feature with the online feature. Adding biometric facial profiles to a centralized database that facebook uses to improve its general "hey thats a face" and its "hey, thats bob, lets tell bob, all of bobs friends, and all of your friends we found bob."

    The issue isn't the tagging, never was and thats obvious when reading through the OP links. The issue is where and how this biometric information is being stored and how its being provided, used, and stored without consent.


    Google's analytics, which is used to help localize search results, has also come under fire.
    I've never used the Picasa desktop client. I've only used the browser version. I've been using it for a few years. A few years ago it presented me with all my photos grouped by face whom Picasa thought were the same person. I could weed out the false-positives and then group-tag them with their name and e-mail address. This was 2008 or something.

    No need to pretend to know everything. No one does.


    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    This is horrifically over simplifying it. Lets say in a hypothetical situation, Dread is going up for a job interview and HR is going to do a background check on the internet. Which are they more likely to find? His drunk pictures on the most popular social networking site Facebook, or on page 15 of Google's search results for David Naughtenberg, in Joe's Blog o' Drunk?

    Oh why look at that, I actually posted no to banning it, and offered a solution! And its the first sentence of what you quoted! Its almost like you don't read things and instead just slip into some alternate universe of horrible things ultra libertarians hate and start ranting about how awful that place is.
    Google's algorithm doesn't rank sites based on how popular they are. If there's a picture of me on a blog and it fits any of Google's hundreds of variables, it will rank highly.

    Like with many types of speech, the medium doesn't matter. Expression is expression. Stopping Facebook from letting me tag photos of my friends is akin to telling the paper company to stop selling me paper because I might print your name and photo on it.

    What is your solution, BTW? I seem to have missed it.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I've never used the Picasa desktop client. I've only used the browser version. I've been using it for a few years. A few years ago it presented me with all my photos grouped by face whom Picasa thought were the same person. I could weed out the false-positives and then group-tag them with their name and e-mail address. This was 2008 or something.
    Facial recognition in the Web Album was disabled a year ago. Ouch. Did someone kill a possible privacy violation?
    What I said is true.

    Even if was still alive on the web album, from what you've said so far, its using only what images it has present in a certain collection. Its not using any outside resources (beyond the cloud), central database collection or tying/comparing it to any outside accounts. Its comparing a set number of photos against themselves. Still not what facebook is doing.

    If there's a picture of me on a blog and it fits any of Google's hundreds of variables, it will rank highly
    Yeah.... no.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-13-2011 at 02:32 AM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  3. #63
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,152
    I wondered why I hadn't seen it on my last upload. I thought it was because the upload interface had changed and I was just missing it.

    But there is no mention of a privacy issue. They seem to want to focus the feature on the desktop client. Unless we're going to start planting conspiracy theories here, which is pointless. But even assuming they were pre-empting the all-seeing German regulators, that only bolsters the point that stupid regulators are gumming-up new products with made-up ideas of privacy.

    My apologies if my SEO phrasing wasn't accurate, oh humble lord of stuff he doesn't actually know too much about. But the point is still valid: Google's algorithm has hundreds of variables and "site popularity" isn't directly one of them (except in the sense that link structure can create de-facto site reputations in a sort of a recursive calculation). If a random blog has my photo and picture, plus the right combination of other variables (link structure pointing to that site, high CTR on an organic search results page, etc) it will rank highly.

    That's the whole freaking point of Web search after all. It's only been around for over a decade, though that doesn't seem to stop German regulators or even dumb US regulators from thinking of new ways to slow down technological change.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    But there is no mention of a privacy issue. They seem to want to focus the feature on the desktop client. Unless we're going to start planting conspiracy theories here, which is pointless. But even assuming they were pre-empting the all-seeing German regulators, that only bolsters the point that stupid regulators are gumming-up new products with made-up ideas of privacy.
    This is google, king of the cloud, taking something offline and putting into its standalone software package only months after Germany passed the enhanced data protection act you are taking issue with. There is no conspiracy here. There is no made-up ideas of privacy here. You tried to prop up Google's facial recognition of as an example of pre-existing software alive and well on the web and you failed. Google also killed facial recognition in its google goggles for the same reasons.

    oh humble lord of stuff he doesn't actually know too much about.
    lashing out cause you're butthurt isn't your thing.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  5. #65
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post

    Glass houses, mate.
    I do try and explain things. All the time. That's the complaint that gets leveled at me the most, that I lecture people.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  6. #66
    King of Ellipses...
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Google's algorithm doesn't rank sites based on how popular they are. If there's a picture of me on a blog and it fits any of Google's hundreds of variables, it will rank highly.
    It actually does take into account how popular a site is, but you are right that is not the only metric. Your profile on Facebook, and thus the ability to find your drunk photos there is going to show up higher in the rankings than a snippet of text on Joe's Blog o' Drunk unless its a popular, well linked blog.

    What is your solution, BTW? I seem to have missed it.
    Allow non-users to opt out of Facebook's functions, and don't automatically opt-in current users to new features. For instance, someone who is not a member of Facebook would be able to opt out of being tagged in photos, and someone who has signed up when Facebook's functionality was X, is not automatically included in Y until they agree to it.

  7. #67
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,487
    I'm guessing YouTube is going to be closed under this logic?

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I'm guessing YouTube is going to be closed under this logic?
    Youtube has a system in place to deal with uploads, even though the similarities betweens facebook's and youtube's focus are minimial at best.

    Remember the bullied kid that bodyslammed his tormentor? Youtube was pulling those faster than they could be uploaded. As well as 4chan's failed attempt to turn youtube into youporn for a day. Any automactic programming youtube uses to shift through existing uploads is provided by the source of the material, not 3rd parties.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-13-2011 at 05:30 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  9. #69
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    This is horrifically over simplifying it. Lets say in a hypothetical situation, Dread is going up for a job interview and HR is going to do a background check on the internet. Which are they more likely to find? His drunk pictures on the most popular social networking site Facebook, or on page 15 of Google's search results for David Naughtenberg, in Joe's Blog o' Drunk?
    In the first place, if the people HR hires to do a background check are remotely competent, they'll find both almost as easily. What, you think these professionals just print off the top 10 Google results and leave it at that? (HR doesn't generally do the background check thing themselves anymore... I once asked what, if anything HR actually does do, but was told to stop making trouble and get back to work, so I still don't know.) Being on page 15 of Google's search results is only going to deter the casually interested from finding something, but not anyone who's actually looking. Secondly, I have to wonder if Dread would even want that job... or why anyone would, for that matter. An employer willing to disqualify you for employment based on doing what everyone since the beginning of time has done doesn't sound much like one worth working for... not to mention it seems like a job you'll lose pretty fast if they care about about you not getting drunk your off hours, and you have a propensity to be photographed drunk for the whole internet to see. And of course, the distinction you make shows the root of this "problem,: and where the "solution effort" should be focused - Joe (of Joe's blog o' Drunk). Not Facebook, not Google, Joe.

    Now whether or not you ought to have any control over what truthful things Joe says/expresses is another matter, but ultimately, if you have a problem with Joe uploading pictures of your hairy ball sac to the internet... take it up with Joe, not the rest of the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    Oh why look at that, I actually posted no to banning it, and offered a solution! And its the first sentence of what you quoted! Its almost like you don't read things and instead just slip into some alternate universe of horrible things ultra libertarians hate and start ranting about how awful that place is.


    You did, in fact, not offer a solution. You said "it would be nice if." Well, I think it would be nice if the government gave everyone free money and blowjobs! Lookie there, I just offered a solution too... a solution to everything! I bet you wouldn't care about your drunk pictures being on the net if you had free money and blowjobs! See, the problem is that the government isn't giving you free money and blowjobs! Why, oh why, won't the government listen to my solution and fix everything by giving people free money and blowjobs?!?!?!



    Moreover, your "solution," as you want to call it, is completely absurd on its face. You object to Facebook using software to automate the process of IDing and labeling people who haven't signed up for their service, because of something about privacy rights, or an algorithm recognizing your face being more of a violation than a person doing the same thing, or something. And your proposed solution is for people who don't use (or want) Facebook accounts to provide identifying details to Facebook so these anti-privacy algorithms can... wait for it... identify them, which was the problem in the first place - automated identification of people not on Facebook's system.

    So. Much. Fail.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Facial recognition in the Web Album was disabled a year ago. Ouch. Did someone kill a possible privacy violation?
    What I said is true.
    Disingenuous little shit.

    Hi everyone. I'm Jonathan, I'm the Product Manager for Google Photos. The decision to retire these name tag features didn't come lightly, but we felt they were necessary to help our team prioritize working on features that more people will find useful. I appreciate all your feedback about our recent changes and please continue to share your opinions and suggestions here in the forum. Thank you.



    That is very far from a vindication of your anti-technology, pro-useless-"privacy"-measures stance. Whether the answer is a political evasion or a PR-friendly lie or even the honest truth is immaterial to the fact that your source, the source you chose and provided gives no hint that this is in any way related to privacy concerns or the anti-technology stance of the German government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Even if was still alive on the web album, from what you've said so far, its using only what images it has present in a certain collection. Its not using any outside resources (beyond the cloud), central database collection or tying/comparing it to any outside accounts. Its comparing a set number of photos against themselves. Still not what facebook is doing.
    It's exactly what Facebook is doing. The size of their data set doesn't alter the fundamental nature of what they're doing, no matter how much you want it to. Nor does it change the fact that *I* can do the exact same thing you claim is so horrible when Facebook does it. Just need an image search engine, a script to grab the images, facial recognition algorithms to compare faces and, voila. (All three of which are freely available, natch.) It might take a while on my cable internet and quad core desktop... but then again, there's nothing stopping me from renting out some cloud computing power to speed up the process either. Congratulations, you've stopped Facebook, and absolutely no one else... maybe I'll set up my own twist on the mug-shot extortion racket. But instead of using mugshots, I can match up people's professional-looking faces with images of their genitals that they've uploaded, and then charge them a thousand bucks to delete the linkage between the two. Wouldn't want a potential employer or a possible date, or your mother to see that raunchy photo of your fun parts, would we?
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  10. #70
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    It actually does take into account how popular a site is, but you are right that is not the only metric. Your profile on Facebook, and thus the ability to find your drunk photos there is going to show up higher in the rankings than a snippet of text on Joe's Blog o' Drunk unless its a popular, well linked blog.

    Allow non-users to opt out of Facebook's functions, and don't automatically opt-in current users to new features. For instance, someone who is not a member of Facebook would be able to opt out of being tagged in photos, and someone who has signed up when Facebook's functionality was X, is not automatically included in Y until they agree to it.
    Google doesn't have direct knowledge of how popular a site is. It also doesn't care. It uses proxies to determine the reputation and reliability of the information on a site. The system is specifically designed to not prioritize the popular unless that "popularity" is correlated with a number of other things.

    Thus, even a random blog that no one reads could be a top result for a specific search. This is the key advance that Google brought to the table ten years ago over other search engines.

    Your idea of opting-out of Facebook's functions for non-members further clarifies why this is an impossible demand. You are opted-out of Facebook's functions if you're not a member. But that doesn't stop someone from posting a giant Facebook album with your name and details about you that everyone can see.

    This is exactly what happened with Khaled Saeed in Egypt, in which someone posted a Facebook album of someone's tortured corpse and it helped start the Egyptian revolution. And it's exactly what happens when someone posts a blog about anything.

    Your "solution" is very plainly a warm-fuzzy attempt to cater to "privacy advocates" that actually is censorship. Expression is expression, whether it's no Facebook, a private blog or a newspaper.

    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    Disingenuous little shit.

    Hi everyone. I'm Jonathan, I'm the Product Manager for Google Photos. The decision to retire these name tag features didn't come lightly, but we felt they were necessary to help our team prioritize working on features that more people will find useful. I appreciate all your feedback about our recent changes and please continue to share your opinions and suggestions here in the forum. Thank you.



    That is very far from a vindication of your anti-technology, pro-useless-"privacy"-measures stance. Whether the answer is a political evasion or a PR-friendly lie or even the honest truth is immaterial to the fact that your source, the source you chose and provided gives no hint that this is in any way related to privacy concerns or the anti-technology stance of the German government.
    I find it pretty rich that OG, who openly pirates games, movies and music because the laws for owning/distributing that content don't make sense to him, thinks that laws to restrict the dissemination of photos taken in public do make sense.

    But more generally, I was just doing some more reading on this in the media this morning and was pointed to a post by Google's privacy lawyer. He claims to be representing his own opinions here, but I think he make a very valuable point that people are often making "foggy" points about privacy here that usually lead to censorship.

    http://peterfleischer.blogspot.com/2...-oblivion.html

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011
    Foggy thinking about the Right to Oblivion


    I was lucky enough to spend a few days in Switzerland working on Street View. And I treated myself to a weekend of skiing too. The weather wasn't great, we had a lot of mountain fog, but then, the entire privacy world seems to be sort of foggy these days.

    In privacy circles, everybody's talking about the Right to be Forgotten. The European Commission has even proposed that the "right to be forgotten" should be written into the up-coming revision of the Privacy Directive. Originally, a rather curious French "universal right" that doesn't even have a proper English-translation (right to be forgotten? right to oblivion? right to delete?), le Doit a l'Oubli, is going mainstream. But, what on earth is it? For most people, I think it's an attempt to give people the right to wash away digital muck, or delete the embarrassing stuff, or just start fresh. But unfortunately, it's more complicated than that.

    More and more, privacy is being used to justify censorship. In a sense, privacy depends on keeping some things private, in other words, hidden, restricted, or deleted. And in a world where ever more content is coming online, and where ever more content is find-able and share-able, it's also natural that the privacy counter-movement is gathering strength. Privacy is the new black in censorship fashions. It used to be that people would invoke libel or defamation to justify censorship about things that hurt their reputations. But invoking libel or defamation requires that the speech not be true. Privacy is far more elastic, because privacy claims can be made on speech that is true.

    Privacy as a justification for censorship now crops up in several different, but related, debates: le droit a l'oubli, the idea that content (especially user-generated content on social networking services) should auto-expire, the idea that data collection by companies should not be retained for longer than necessary, the idea that computers should be programmed to "forget" just like the human brain. All these are movements to censor content in the name of privacy. If there weren't serious issues on both sides of the debate, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

    Most conversations about the right to oblivion mix all this stuff up. I can't imagine how to have a meaningful conversation (much less write a law) about the Right to be Oblivion without some framework to dis-entangle completely unrelated concepts, with completely unrelated implications. Here's my simple attempt to remember the different concepts some people want to forget.

    1) If I post something online, should I have the right to delete it again? I think most of us agree with this, as the simplest, least controversial case. If I post a photo to my album, I should then later be able to delete it, if I have second-thoughts about it. Virtually all online services already offer this, so it's unproblematic, and this is the crux of what the French government sponsored in its recent Charter on the Droit a l'Oubli. But there's a big disconnect between a user's deleting content from his/her own site, and whether the user can in fact delete it from the Internet (which is what users usually want to do), more below.

    2) If I post something, and someone else copies it and re-posts it on their own site, do I have the right to delete it? This is the classic real-world case. For example, let's say I regret having posted that picture of myself covered in mud, and after posting it on my own site, and then later deleting it, I discover someone else has copied it and re-posted it on their own site. Clearly, I should be able to ask the person who re-posted my picture to take it down. But if they refuse, or just don't respond, or are not find-able, what can do I do? I can pursue judicial procedures, but those are expensive and time-consuming. I can go directly to the platform hosting the content, and if the content violates their terms of service or obviously violates the law, I can ask them to take it down. But practically, if I ask a platform to delete a picture of me from someone else's album, without the album owner's consent, and only based on my request, it puts the platform in the very difficult or impossible position of arbitrating between my privacy claim and the album owner's freedom of expression. It's also debatable whether, as a public policy matter, we want to have platforms arbitrate such dilemmas. Perhaps this is best resolved by allowing each platform to define its own policies on this, since they could legitimately go either way.

    3) If someone else posts something about me, should I have a right to delete it? Virtually all of us would agree that this raises difficult issues of conflict between freedom of expression and privacy. Traditional law has mechanisms, like defamation and libel law, to allow a person to seek redress against someone who publishes untrue information about him. Granted, the mechanisms are time-consuming and expensive, but the legal standards are long-standing and fairly clear. But a privacy claim is not based on untruth. I cannot see how such a right could be introduced without severely infringing on freedom of speech. This is why I think privacy is the new black in censorship fashion.

    4) The Internet platforms that are used to host and transmit information all collect traces, some of which are PII, or partially PII. Should such platforms be under an obligation to delete or anonymize those traces after a certain period of time? and if so, after how long? and for what reasons can such traces be retained and processed? This is a much-debated topic, e.g., the cookies debate, or the logs debate, the data retention debate, all of which are also part of the Droit a l'Oubli debate, but they completely different than the categories above, since they focus on the platform's traffic data, rather than the user's content. I think existing law deals with this well, if ambiguously, by permitting such retention "as long as necessary" for "legitimate purposes". Hyper-specific regulation just doesn't work, since the cases are simply too varied.

    5) Should the Internet just learn to "forget"? Quite apart from the topics above, should content on the Internet just auto-expire? e.g., should all user posts to social networking be programmed to auto-expire? Or alternatively, to give users the right to use auto-expire settings? Philosophically, I'm in favor of giving users power over their own data, but not over someone else's data. I'd love to see a credible technical framework for auto-delete tools, but I've heard a lot of technical problems with realizing them. Engineers describe most auto-delete functionalities as 80% solutions, meaning that they never work completely. Just for the sake of debate, on one extreme, government-mandated auto-expire laws would be as sensible as burning down a library every 5 years. Even if auto-expire tools existed, they would do nothing to prevent the usual privacy problems when someone copies content from one site (with the auto-expire tool) and moves it to another (without the auto-expire function). So, in the real world, I suspect that an auto-expire functionality (regardless of whether it was optional or mandatory) would provide little real-world practical privacy protections for users, but it would result in the lose of vast amounts of data and all the benefits that data can hold.

    6) Should the Internet be re-wired to be more like the human brain? This seems to be a popular theme on the privacy talk circuit. I guess this means the Internet should have gradations between memory, and sort of hazy memories, and forgetting. Well, computers don't work that way. This part of the debate is sociological and psychological, but I don't see a place for it in the world of computers. Human brains also adapt to new realities, rather well, in fact, and human brains can forget or ignore content, if the content itself continues to exist in cyberspace.

    7) Who should decide what should be remembered or forgotten? For example, if German courts decide German murderers should be able to delete all references to their convictions after a certain period of time, would this German standard apply to the Web? Would it apply only to content that was new on the Web, or also to historical archives? and if it only applied to Germany, or say the .de domain, would it have any practical impact at all, since the same content would continue to exist and be findable by anyone from anywhere? Or to make it more personal, the web is littered with references to my criminal conviction in Italy, but I respect the right of journalists and others to write about it, with no illusion that I should I have a "right" to delete all references to it at some point in the future. But all of my empathy for wanting to let people edit-out some of the bad things of their past doesn't change my conviction that history should be remembered, not forgotten, even if it's painful. Culture is memory.

    8) Sometimes people aren't trying to delete content, they're just trying to make it harder to find. This motivates various initiatives against search engines, for example, to delete links to legitmate web content, like newspaper articles. This isn't strictly speaking "droit a l'oubli", but it's a sort of end-run around it, by trying to make some content un-findable rather than deleted. This will surely generate legal challenges and counter-challenges before this debate is resolved.

    Next time you hear someone talk about the Right to be Oblivion, ask them what exactly they mean. Foggy thinking won't get us anywhere.

  11. #71
    King of Ellipses...
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Google doesn't have direct knowledge of how popular a site is. It also doesn't care. It uses proxies to determine the reputation and reliability of the information on a site. The system is specifically designed to not prioritize the popular unless that "popularity" is correlated with a number of other things.
    Popular = how widely linked a site is (plus other related metrics), and yes, it does know.

    Thus, even a random blog that no one reads could be a top result for a specific search. This is the key advance that Google brought to the table ten years ago over other search engines.
    Unless its extremely relevant, and there are no other equally relevant, but more widely linked or appropriate things, then no, it will not.

    Your idea of opting-out of Facebook's functions for non-members further clarifies why this is an impossible demand. You are opted-out of Facebook's functions if you're not a member. But that doesn't stop someone from posting a giant Facebook album with your name and details about you that everyone can see.
    So I'm opted out of Facebook's functions by not being a member, but someone can still tag me in photos...a function of Facebook. Really...?

    Your "solution" is very plainly a warm-fuzzy attempt to cater to "privacy advocates" that actually is censorship. Expression is expression, whether it's no Facebook, a private blog or a newspaper.
    This is even dumber. You can untag yourself in photos if you're a member of Facebook. Why should you not be able to untag yourself if you aren't a member? Also why should someone be automatically opted into something they don't agree with? How is that censorship?

  12. #72
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    This is exactly what happened with Khaled Saeed in Egypt, in which someone posted a Facebook album of someone's tortured corpse and it helped start the Egyptian revolution. And it's exactly what happens when someone posts a blog about anything.

    Your "solution" is very plainly a warm-fuzzy attempt to cater to "privacy advocates" that actually is censorship. Expression is expression, whether it's no Facebook, a private blog or a newspaper.


    Indeed, very much so... and I think that's the point that gets lost amongst all this talk of how individuals should have some right to delete the embarrassing things about themselves and somehow control whether information about them is available to the rest of the world. Framing it like that completely ignores who will inevitably be the biggest beneficiary of these new privacy censorship rights - repressive governments, corrupt government officials criminal conspiracies and so on. Essentially, the very people we most need to protect ourselves against with the truth, will be allowed to censor the truth so that they can keep abusing the rest of us, undetected.

    This, in a very big way, relates back to that thread I started about cops [in America] bullying and threatening anyone with a camera, as a means to cover up and get away with all manner of abuses, including murder. Is it really a good idea to invent a right to "privacy" censorship, and legalize that behavior? Yeah, it might, maybe, make it harder for someone to dig up embarrassing dirt on you, but it will definitely make it easier for government officials to get away with abusing you, and for that matter, make it a lot easier for individual criminals to do the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    This is even dumber. You can untag yourself in photos if you're a member of Facebook. Why should you not be able to untag yourself if you aren't a member?
    Let's think about that for a second. Why should only members of Facebook be allowed to use Facebook services...? Hmm, that is a tougie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    Also why should someone be automatically opted into something they don't agree with? How is that censorship?
    Uh, by the definition, primarily. You want the ability to censor what others can say or express [about you]. The better question is how is that not the very definition of censorship?
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I find it pretty rich that OG, who openly pirates games, movies and music because the laws for owning/distributing that content don't make sense to him, thinks that laws to restrict the dissemination of photos taken in public do make sense.
    Wow, you are a fucking moron. Not once, ever, have I even suggested I openly pirate anything. In fact, the last dumbass who tried to suggest I did was Loki, and I replied to him with a post full of evidence that I own and paid for everything I use and install. I've countered the suggestion that I'm a pirate every single time someone wants to go full retard and claim that. Yet somehow, because I know of how piratebay works, why people feel justifed in pirating, because I don't think $60 games are worth their price, or that $15 movie tickets are, or that I'm simply not a music fan to begin with, or that the RIAA/MPAA are coming at the problem in all the wrong ways, there are certain people who have somehow labeled me a pirate.

    Thats about the most off topic, offensive, retarded and flat out lazy decision you have come too; and its not the first time I've addressed you on this matter. Like you are the living embodiment of the "if I say it enough, it must be true"

    You are a asshole Dread. You have no interest is actually debating whats going on. You've shown a clear lack in willingness to read or understand the articles that are being posted and you would rather post insults (and you can't even reply directly to me when you do so) than admit that you don't have a fucking clue how any of the subjects in this thread currently work.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-13-2011 at 07:02 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  14. #74
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    Popular = how widely linked a site is (plus other related metrics), and yes, it does know.

    Unless its extremely relevant, and there are no other equally relevant, but more widely linked or appropriate things, then no, it will not.

    So I'm opted out of Facebook's functions by not being a member, but someone can still tag me in photos...a function of Facebook. Really...?

    This is even dumber. You can untag yourself in photos if you're a member of Facebook. Why should you not be able to untag yourself if you aren't a member? Also why should someone be automatically opted into something they don't agree with? How is that censorship?
    Jesus.

    For the third time, link structure is a proxy for reputation and relevance. It's not a proxy for popularity. A bit more detail is outlined in the original paper describing PageRank, section 2: http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf

    But if your standard for what is harmful to someone revolves around how high it appears in search engines, you still seem to be far more pro-censorship than you seem to realize. It's hard to grasp how you value free speech at all, as you are basically hovering around this position that information about an individual can't be posted or indexed without their permission.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Wow, you are a fucking moron. Not once, ever, have I even suggested I openly pirate anything. In fact, the last dumbass who tried to suggest I did was Loki, and I replied to him with a post full of evidence that I own and paid for everything I use and install. I've countered the suggestion that I'm a pirate every single time someone wants to go full retard and claim that. Yet somehow, because I know of how piratebay works, why people feel justifed in pirating, because I don't think $60 games are worth their price, or that $15 movie tickets are, or that I'm simply not a music fan to begin with, or that the RIAA/MPAA are coming at the problem in all the wrong ways, there are certain people who have somehow labeled me a pirate.

    Thats about the most off topic, offensive, retarded and flat out lazy decision you have come too; and its not the first time I've addressed you on this matter. Like you are the living embodiment of the "if I say it enough, it must be true"

    You are a asshole Dread. You have no interest is actually debating whats going on. You've shown a clear lack in willingness to read or understand the articles that are being posted and you would rather post insults (and you can't even reply directly to me when you do so) than admit that you don't have a fucking clue how any of the subjects in this thread currently work.
    Forgive me if I mistook your years of defending software/music/movie pirates as an indication that you have ever pirated software/music/movies. I really don't know how one could come to that conclusion and indicates a stunning lack of intelligence. Because, you know...your years of defending software/music/movie pirates.

    Though my point was you seem to understand that laws can sometimes make no sense whatsoever. So it's all the more surprising that you think Germany's jihad on the Internet makes sense.

    You get really hostile whenever people disagree with you over technology.

  15. #75
    Absolutely Sane Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pancakeistan
    Posts
    2,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Forgive me if I mistook your years of defending software/music/movie pirates as an indication that you have ever pirated software/music/movies. I really don't know how one could come to that conclusion and indicates a stunning lack of intelligence. Because, you know...your years of defending software/music/movie pirates.
    Dread, Dread, Dread.

    You have to learn to at least feel a little silly after you jump to wrong conclusions instead of this air of innocence you pulled on me as well (Remember "There's 16.431 posts here, I only read 16.430. How could I know" bullshit? We even hugged. Have you forgotten already? ) . Because as it seems, you feel you are not to blame here, even are surprised anyone would think so, and don't feel a bit silly. So I'm afraid it'll happen again. And then you'll have to do this whole routine again.

    And we woudln't want that now would we?
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    You get really hostile whenever people disagree with you over technology.
    Not true in the slightest. I may get passionate, but I have no problem having a real conversation about technology with people who either understand what the conversation is about, or are least able follow through on the material thats being discussed. You're shown a clear and continuing problem in both. For this thread and previous (pirating being another obvious example). This here isn't a debate, this is you sticking your head in the fucking sand as people waste their time trying to bash knowledge into it. When someone does manage to get through to you and show you in crystal clear terms that something you claimed was wrong, you reply with the usual "not really the point" or "what I really meant" (, Ziggy called it too); like you did in this very reply when it was pointed out your pirate accusations were false, previously with facial recongition in Google's Web Album, and when I pointed out that the incognito function of your browser provides no real protection. Attempting to hold a debate with you is like arguing with a damn 9 year old (seriously, personal experience).

    I was hoping this thread would move into how these laws may possibly be used against augmented reality programs, because AR is without a doubt where the industry is headed; I even tried nedging it that way with Google Goggles. Illusions appears to have picked up that on somewhat, discussing the aspect of how its not the information persay, but the ease of access (how many times I have used that line?) for said information. But instead, this thread is still stuck on trying to get you to understand how google and facial recongition works
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-13-2011 at 10:44 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  17. #77
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,209
    For the third time, link structure is a proxy for reputation and relevance. It's not a proxy for popularity. A bit more detail is outlined in the original paper describing PageRank, section 2: http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf
    Two things:

    1) Google are constantly changing and refining their algorithm, you can't really use what they wrote in their original paper to determine current behavior. The recent Panda update in particular takes into account user behavior to try and determine if a site is shit/not relevant - if Google sends user to a site, and then they immediately come back to Google, then that site gets marked down.
    2) PageRank was only ever one part of the google algorithm, one of many signals they take into account, and not an especially relevant one.
    The walls are coming down.
    All we need is one to fail, one to break, one to take it all away.
    What if we crumble, what if we fall? Where's the flame that torch the soul?
    Truth, when spoken, dies down to nothing.

  18. #78
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
    Dread, Dread, Dread.

    You have to learn to at least feel a little silly after you jump to wrong conclusions instead of this air of innocence you pulled on me as well (Remember "There's 16.431 posts here, I only read 16.430. How could I know" bullshit? We even hugged. Have you forgotten already? ) . Because as it seems, you feel you are not to blame here, even are surprised anyone would think so, and don't feel a bit silly. So I'm afraid it'll happen again. And then you'll have to do this whole routine again.

    And we woudln't want that now would we?
    Ziggy Ziggy Ziggy.

    OG has spent years defending software/music/movie pirates. Encouraging people to disable DRM was one of his main hobbies at the Atari forums. It's not unreasonable to assume he's pirated software/music/movies at some point.

    But I wasn't judging him on the issue at all.

    I was pointing out that OG feels many copyright laws are stupidly implemented in the digital age. He feels they are so stupid we shouldn't judge people for ignoring them. So, I was expressing surprise that he would turn around and support a government's ham-fisted attempts to create unrealistic and stupid laws for privacy in the digital age.

    Can you at least appreciate the point I was trying to make?

    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Two things:

    1) Google are constantly changing and refining their algorithm, you can't really use what they wrote in their original paper to determine current behavior. The recent Panda update in particular takes into account user behavior to try and determine if a site is shit/not relevant - if Google sends user to a site, and then they immediately come back to Google, then that site gets marked down.
    2) PageRank was only ever one part of the google algorithm, one of many signals they take into account, and not an especially relevant one.
    You are correct, that has been my point all along and what I've been trying to convey to Illusions. Google has hundreds of variables to a constantly-changing algorithm. I was just simplifying things to make this clear to Illusions. He was incorrectly arguing that a Facebook page will always be the highest-ranked link for a search simply because Facebook is a "popular" site.

    You and I are both saying that's not true.

  19. #79
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,209
    If all other things are equal, Facebook would rank well above some random, obscure blog. I think you and Cain are mostly right here, but the idea that photos on Facebook don't have more exposure than Joe Blogger's Blog is a bit facile. Hell, never mind the Google rankings, for many people Facebook *is* the internet.
    The walls are coming down.
    All we need is one to fail, one to break, one to take it all away.
    What if we crumble, what if we fall? Where's the flame that torch the soul?
    Truth, when spoken, dies down to nothing.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    OG has spent years defending software/music/movie pirates. Encouraging people to disable DRM was one of his main hobbies at the Atari forums. It's not unreasonable to assume he's pirated software/music/movies at some point.

    But I wasn't judging him on the issue at all.

    I was pointing out that OG feels many copyright laws are stupidly implemented in the digital age. He feels they are so stupid we shouldn't judge people for ignoring them. So, I was expressing surprise that he would turn around and support a government's ham-fisted attempts to create unrealistic and stupid laws for privacy in the digital age.
    You're still doing it.
    Removing DRM is a far cry from attacking copyright laws. Is there really a connection there? Hell, I don't even remember making it one of my "things" over at atari. May have helped a handful of people when DRM was the problem, but I sure wouldn't have called it a hobby. But hell, you said so, so it must be true.

    Also don't recall using DRM as an avenue to attack copyright law as stupidly implemented. You're pulling a lot of he "thinks" and he "feels" here, and I don't know, its not like I'm Ominous Gamer or anything, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and again say this is a subject you're not in full understanding of.

    Most preplexing is how removing game DRM, which the DMCA allows in certain instances (damn those laws!), is somehow concrete evidence to accuse me of pirating movies and music

    Thats not even getting into the idea that in your mind, being against one specific sweeping regulation or law somehow means everyone should be against all of them.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-13-2011 at 11:01 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  21. #81
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    If all other things are equal, Facebook would rank well above some random, obscure blog. I think you and Cain are mostly right here, but the idea that photos on Facebook don't have more exposure than Joe Blogger's Blog is a bit facile. Hell, never mind the Google rankings, for many people Facebook *is* the internet.
    I think it really depends on the blog and how it fares under those hundreds of variables, but the broader point Cain and I are making is the principles of free expression are the same whether it's a blog or Facebook.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    You're still doing it.
    Removing DRM is a far cry from attacking copyright laws. Is there really a connection there? Hell, I don't even remember making it one of my "things" over at atari. May have helped a handful of people when DRM was the problem, but I sure wouldn't have called it a hobby. But hell, you said so, so it must be true.
    If it wasn't your thing, I sure spent a lot of time trying to stop the admins from banning you for promoting software piracy.

  22. #82
    King of Ellipses...
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I think it really depends on the blog and how it fares under those hundreds of variables, but the broader point Cain and I are making is the principles of free expression are the same whether it's a blog or Facebook.
    And the point I'm making is that Facebook already has tools available for what you consider "censorship", ie. that you can untag yourself after the fact, or opt out of a service after you're automatically opted in, or do those things once you become a member, and I am asking how you assume it is intrinsically different "censorship"-wise whether you opt out beforehand (my suggestion for how Facebook could operate), or opt out afterwards (currently implemented functionality).

    Besides that stop acting like all censorship is bad. Your entire position here at the forums is to censor people when we ask for it. You don't post about who you actually are in real life, and have edited this information out of your own posts when it accidentally happens, and have edited it out of the posts of others. Is this not censorship too? How would you feel if I posted your IP address? The other person I'm arguing with uses a Tor gateway or other anonymizing proxies to hide or "censor" his IP address from us. Hell didn't Cain, at the other forums, go on a huge deleting spree to remove his posts? For two people arguing how awful censorship is you seem to be alright with it to a degree.
    Last edited by Illusions; 08-14-2011 at 04:03 AM.

  23. #83
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Wow, you are a fucking moron. Not once, ever, have I even suggested I openly pirate anything. In fact, the last dumbass who tried to suggest I did was Loki, and I replied to him with a post full of evidence that I own and paid for everything I use and install. I've countered the suggestion that I'm a pirate every single time someone wants to go full retard and claim that.
    Get a grip. You are a pirate. Whether you use cracks and image mounting software to disable the crippling DRM crap on stuff you bought, or you use it to avoid paying for content, you're a pirate, period. And yes, the familiarity shown when you've discussed the topic in the past is only possible as a result of experience... you've used them, you're a pirate. The fact that you paid for all your stuff only proves that you're not a thief - it doesn't say anything about your status as a pirate.

    You are (or were) breaking the law and committing federal felonies, even if you paid for the content. Being a childish ass and throwing a tantrum at the label doesn't change it. And, again, this bullshit is a result of the DMCA... Digital Millenium Copyright Act... which is what happened the last time our [US] government tried to regulate the internet. Smashing success, that. Yet, somehow, despite the last attempt being a massive clusterfuck that makes you a felon and applies a label to you that you don't like, your solution to this issue seems to be more legislation. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a definition of insanity and/or stupidity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Attempting to hold a debate with you [Dread] is like arguing with a damn 9 year old (seriously, personal experience).
    Personal experience as the one acting like a nine year old, I assume? Well, stop acting like a child. Really, all your bullshit does beg the question of what the point of responding to you is, when all you give back is childish crap:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
    Wow, you are a fucking moron. [...]
    someone wants to go full retard and claim that. [...]
    You are a asshole Dread. [...]
    Seriously, pro-tip: If you wanna accuse someone of acting like a child, don't do the name calling thing... kinda hurts your credibility on the topic a wee bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Removing DRM is a far cry from attacking copyright laws.
    No, it's not. It's an explicit violation of the DMCA, the copyright law in question.

    And, again, the fact that you have no problem with pissing on the DMCA because it deserves to be pissed on, and is a really shitty law should probably raise some red flags in your mind about having some e-privacy legislation pushed through. Because anyone who's read any copyright news in the last 2 decades can tell you what's going to happen the instant some privacy law like you suggest gets passed - Sony, the RIAA, the MPAA, Apple, and so on, are going to use privacy provisions to get speech they disagree with yanked off the internet. Not to mention corrupt governments and government officials and the like, and how any law of this sort essentially legalizes cover ups. Yippie. All that because you want to make it harder to find drunken pics of yourself (or whomever)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    And the point I'm making is that Facebook already has tools available for what you consider "censorship", ie. that you can untag yourself after the fact, or opt out of a service after you're automatically opted in, or do those things once you become a member, and I am asking how you assume it is intrinsically different "censorship"-wise whether you opt out beforehand (my suggestion for how Facebook could operate), or opt out afterwards (currently implemented functionality).
    I'm beginning to think you don't know what censorship actually is... when you remove something you uploaded, from the site you uploaded it to... this is not censorship. It's censorship when *I* try to remove something *you* uploaded.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  24. #84
    King of Ellipses...
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,515
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    I'm beginning to think you don't know what censorship actually is... when you remove something you uploaded, from the site you uploaded it to... this is not censorship. It's censorship when *I* try to remove something *you* uploaded.
    If my friend on Facebook tags me in a photo, I can untag myself. If someone posts something on my wall, I can delete it. This is already a feature. If they opt me into having my picture featured in their ads I can opt out. They already provide methods for censorship, you can remove or undo things other people do. So if Facebook auto-tags me in a photo, I can manually go through and untag myself. Since I already have the option to do it manually, how is it worse to allow me to opt out all together, or let me automatically do it?

    See I don't think the problem is that I don't know what censorship is (I do know what it is, thanks for the explanation*), I think the problem is you don't know the already existing functions within Facebook (like untagging photos, or deleting other people's wall posts).

    * When you delete something you wrote out of concern someone may find it and use it against you, this is self-censorship.
    Last edited by Illusions; 08-14-2011 at 04:26 AM.

  25. #85
    Facebook does some censoring on its own as well. They have blocked, banned, or removed plenty of topics, keywords, links and other doodads over the years.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  26. #86
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    If my friend on Facebook tags me in a photo I can untag myself. If someone posts something on my wall, I can delete it. This is already a feature. If they opt me into having my picture featured in their ads I can opt out. They already provide methods for censorship, you can remove or undo things other people do. So if Facebook auto-tags me in a photo, I can manually go through and untag myself. Since I already have the option to do it manually, how is it worse to allow me to opt out all together, or let me automatically do it?
    So basically, you're saying you can control your wall, and pictures you upload into your account... and you think this is censorship (), and that there's no difference between you being allowed to modify your account and you being allowed to modify someone else's?

    Really, that's really the position you're taking here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    See I don't think the problem is that I don't know what censorship is (I do know what it is, thanks for the explanation),
    The more you post, the more convinced I become that you don't know what censorship is, actually. Oh crap, I just censorshipped myself by using the backspace button to remove a sentence in typing this post!

    Again, it's not censorship when you control the information you share. It's not censorship when you control what goes up on your wall - it's your wall, in effect your property, of course you can do what you want with it. Same deal with your photo albums and your other account... crap.

    It's censorship when a third party controls what you can or cannot say. Like, for example, the government (through legislation), or me, because I don't like what you post on your wall about me. Those are examples of censorship. You controlling your speech and your e-property are not examples of censorship... more like examples of what we in the West consider to be "rights." Also, since you seem to not be noticing the difference, me obscuring my real IP address through the use of a proxy chain is not censorship either. Me deleting my posts, also, not censorship. That's me controlling the flow of information I share. Me exercising my freedom of speech/expression, by choosing what information to express and what information to withhold.

    Truly, your definition of censorship, at least based on your last couple of posts is entirely bizzare. It's not a synonym for privacy, and it's not any situation where absolutely everything isn't freely disclosed. As convenient as that might be to your argument, it's just not what the word means. It's informational control by a third party.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Facebook does some censoring on its own as well. They have blocked, banned, or removed plenty of topics, keywords, links and other doodads over the years.
    It's not really censorship considering that things uploaded to their web servers are on their property. Their property, their rules. I sincerely doubt you'd consider it "censorship" to tell me I can't come into your home and teach your little kids all kinds of nasty words... so you shouldn't apply a different standard to Zuckerberg (Facebook founder and CEO). His house, his rules.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  27. #87
    King of Ellipses...
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,515
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    So basically, you're saying you can control your wall, and pictures you upload into your account...
    No, I'm stating that if someone tags me in a photo they upload into one of their albums, I can untag myself. Also if someone says something I don't like, on my wall, I can delete it. This is the very definition of censorship. Censorship doesn't involve who owns something.

    and you think this is censorship (), and that there's no difference between you being allowed to modify your account and you being allowed to modify someone else's?
    I can modify my own, and someone else's. Is this really that hard to follow?

    The more you post, the more convinced I become that you don't know what censorship is, actually. Oh crap, I just censorshipped myself by using the backspace button to remove a sentence in typing this post!
    When you removed your posts from the old Atari forums out of concern that someone would find them, that is self censorship. If you correct spelling, or remove a ridiculous sentence, that isn't. The more you post, the more I think you're an ignorant, irascible, paranoid, delusional fucktard.

    Again, it's not censorship when you control the information you share. It's not censorship when you control what goes up on your wall - it's your wall, in effect your property, of course you can do what you want with it. Same deal with your photo albums and your other account... crap.
    Multiple problems with this:

    1. It is self-censorship when you remove information you've already shared or were intending to share out of fear/concern/whatever that said information will negatively affect you, because of the reactions of other people.

    2. I've already stated, numerous times, that you can control, as in remove certain things, on other people's photo albums, and walls.

    3. If something being someone else's property means that if they remove something they don't like from it, that this action isn't censorship, then censorship is pretty shot as a concept. Newspaper changed your hateful rant against the government into something that makes you look like a moron? Not censorship, they own the paper. Book publisher removes that chapter about the government being pigs, because it might offend people or get them in trouble? Not censorship...they own the books. News reporter cuts you off when you start ranting about the government? Not censorship, they own the television broadcast! Friend said something unflattering about you on your wall on Facebook, so you delete it? Not censorship, its your wall!

    ...yeah I don't think your opinion on this one is in the majority.

    It's censorship when a third party controls what you can or cannot say. Like, for example, the government (through legislation), or me, because I don't like what you post on your wall about me.
    Or me, because I don't like that you tagged me in your photo album (an actual function Facebook currently has).

    What if a third party owns the property you're trying to broadcast your message through...oh damn, wait, thats not censorship.

    That's me controlling the flow of information I share.
    Out of a paranoid delusion that someone will use it against you, which is self-censorship.

    It's informational control by a third party.
    Self-censorship as a concept exists and is used by many numerous people. I'm really interested in seeing you argue that words, or concepts, things that exist solely because they are defined and agreed upon by people, are wrong because you, a singular person, said so.

  28. #88
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    Self-censorship as a concept exists and is used by many numerous people.|
    It is. . . but it's also not. Self-censorship is actually also external. At its most non-coercive it's still basically doing something solely because of peer pressure even though it's not what YOU want to do. Self-censorship is an exercise of 2nd-degree power. Rather than directly suppressing something, they have you do it yourself. It's still the suppression of what you want for what the third party wants, still third-party control over your actions and voice.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  29. #89
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    When you removed your posts from the old Atari forums out of concern that someone would find them, that is self censorship. If you correct spelling, or remove a ridiculous sentence, that isn't. The more you post, the more I think you're an ignorant, irascible, paranoid, delusional fucktard.
    In accordance with Illusions' stated beliefs on everyone's right to control expression about themselves, I hereby exercise my right to privacy, and demand that the mods remove this. It is expression made about me, without my consent, and apparently I have a right to have it removed.

    Thank you in advance for protecting my rights, and supporting Illusions' beliefs, at your earliest convenience.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  30. #90
    King of Ellipses...
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,515
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    In accordance with Illusions' stated beliefs on everyone's right to control expression about themselves, I hereby exercise my right to privacy, and demand that the mods remove this. It is expression made about me, without my consent, and apparently I have a right to have it removed.
    You seem to have problems with the difference between a right, and an already existing ability a website offers you. I'm stating that Facebook has an already existing ability to censor people, not that we have an inherent, natural right to it, like we do life or liberty. Stop acting like a child. Besides that, this website does offer you the ability to censor my posts at the mod's discretion, which involves using the report post function.

    Thank you in advance for protecting my rights, and supporting Illusions' beliefs, at your earliest convenience.
    Again, you don't have a right to censor other people, you have the ability to request from moderators that they remove a post, which you can do via the Report Post button.

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    It is. . . but it's also not. Self-censorship is actually also external. At its most non-coercive it's still basically doing something solely because of peer pressure even though it's not what YOU want to do. Self-censorship is an exercise of 2nd-degree power. Rather than directly suppressing something, they have you do it yourself. It's still the suppression of what you want for what the third party wants, still third-party control over your actions and voice.
    So when Cain deleted his Atari forum posts out of concern someone might find them, would you consider this self censorship when the third party is an abstract concept like Cain's bogeyman government?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •