31–40 of 86 posts
"The result is that the unique network ID of your socket is transported in an unencrypted form to the Chinese server" The use of The word "Chinese" in this article is amusing. Is it really important or necessary? Would it be preferable if the data was sent to a US server ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sort of wonder if Amazon is the entity providing the discount. (I spent a minute trying to figure it out and didn't find anything)
Nope, there's a cottage industry of review-for-discount sites that give people discounts/free items in exchange for reviews, but wink wink don't feel obligated to give it 5 stars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it "Sinophobia" to state a fact about where the server is located?
Because it frames the situation in a certain, coerced way.
If the author had instead attempted to tie this to, say, past security breaches caused by hackers operating out of China, then that would be framing the situation in a coerced way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it frames the situation in a certain, coerced way.
How is it coerced? The author reports the facts exactly as they are. If the author had instead attempted to tie this to, say, past security breaches caused by hackers operating out of China, then that would be framing the situation in a coerced way.
Man kills man.
Man kills black man.
White man kills black man.
Assuming the facts are all the same, do you understand how the selective informing of facts frames the readers understanding or impression of the issue?
Thanks for the downvote though.
To me this seems like an odd tactic to use as the manufacturer. Did the boss just pick some random employee and decide that one guy had to get the review taken down other wise he was fired? Also, I'm inclined to believe that this isn't the case because I also don't believe that those "other reviewers" actually complained about his review. Why would anyone else care that he left a truthful review about the product? If…
But if you give an honest opinion -- even one with which I disagree -- I'll never even downvote it, much less report it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dollars to donuts, there is no employee. It's the manufacturer writing him and concocting a story.
It ought to be criminal, the way it's approaching a found security flaw. The sort of review shenanigans they're pulling should be criminal as well. Company is revealed to be completely incompetent with regards to security. So their reaction is to harangue and pressure the reviewer instead of fixing the problem.
Sounds like a classic abusive boyfriend. "You pointed out security flaws? Look what you made me do. You made me fire these workers."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it "Sinophobia" to state a fact about where the server is located?
Because it frames the situation in a certain, coerced way.
I do not think that is a valid comparison. The author did not go out of her way to point out that the server was located in China. There is no mention of China in the title, and the only place where the author mentions China is several paragraphs in explaining how and where the data is transmitted. There are more mentions of China in this comment than in the entire article.
Finally, for the record, I do not have a verified email associated with this account and thus do not have the ability to downvote.