51–60 of 136 posts
This page reliably crashes safari on my iPad 1. Does anyone else have this problem or am I going insane?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's offensive, and I would like to not see things like that pop up in my stream. Isn't this one of those things that are on the line where if just 1 person says it's offensive, then it should be treated as such. It's kind of like if there were only 10 men and 2 women in a room, then by democracy, you'd probably end up with rape being OK.
So by this measure: - if anything were said / written criticizing the Bible, then a single devout Christian could deem it offensive and it would be removed? - if a woman's picture without a burkha were posted, then a single fundamentalist Muslim could declare it offensive and it would be deleted? - if a "blonde" joke were posted, then a single radical feminist could call it offensive and it would be eliminated? Doesn…
You might have more liberal views than me, but I do think it's a violent gesture. I get the point you're trying to make, but I simply disagree that for this specific case, this should be something that is generally acceptable in a public social network with 13+ year olds on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's not complaining about anything that anyone has a problem with (ok maybe SOME people do want to see people giving them the finger in their stream). He's just whining about G+ like he always does, like a baby. Your general statements don't apply here. If you want to argue, then tell me why you want to see people flicking you off on G+ and why you think that's something that should be OK for everyone.
I see. So the reason you think he should keep his mouth shut, is because you perceive his issue to be a minority issue. How many people need to have a problem with something before it's ok for them to complain about it? Just because you disagree with somebodys opinion, doesn't mean they were wrong to express it.
However, the point I'm making is, all things considered, I don't think he had much of an argument for this case, and it's more of just a cheap shot at G+ (he could have instead addressed it to all social networks instead of G+ too..). He kind of has a track record for these things though..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tom Anderson gets it the wrong way round, and completely misses Siegler's point. The question is not is why does Siegler care. He can reasonably expect to care: it's his photo attached to his personal profile and his photo is part of how he chooses to portray himself online. Siegler now knows that he cannot be himself on Google+, and now thousands of others know that they cannot be themselves on Google+ either. The q…
Actually, Tom gets it right. It's called discretion. Use his public example, for instance. If you were, for example, a cross-dresser who loved wearing women's underwear - and only women's underwear - would that be tolerated by the general public if you were roaming around a mall? "But this is who I really am, and it's how I want to portray myself in public!" It's Google's playground, and you either play by the rules…
I don't think anyone is insisting that there are no types of images that are so bad that it wouldn't be ok for Google to remove them. At least I haven't seen anyone claim so.
As long as that is the case, using examples that the vast majority would agree are worse than the one that was actually taken down just weakens your point dramatically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I'm concerned, if a service you like, does something you dislike, you should complain, and you should tell people about it. Especially if the service is used by tens of millions of people and is growing at the rate that Google+ is. It sounds like you disagree with this though. Why? Why do you think he should have kept his mouth shut? "this is already the standard for any currently popular social network" An…
He's not complaining about anything that anyone has a problem with (ok maybe SOME people do want to see people giving them the finger in their stream). He's just whining about G+ like he always does, like a baby. Your general statements don't apply here. If you want to argue, then tell me why you want to see people flicking you off on G+ and why you think that's something that should be OK for everyone.
I already use Google+ far more than Facebook, but they keep stepping in it and making me less and less hopeful about it being long term viable as a replacement.
When this sort of tech pundit makes himself the center of a non-story I do my best to ignore it, I recommend that everyone do the same. Tech blogging has deteriorated to parroting PR releases and slobbering over iStuff, I draw the line at appeasing the attention whores.
[deleted]
I think it's offensive, and I would like to not see things like that pop up in my stream. Isn't this one of those things that are on the line where if just 1 person says it's offensive, then it should be treated as such. It's kind of like if there were only 10 men and 2 women in a room, then by democracy, you'd probably end up with rape being OK.
Also a lot of right wing politicians. Republicans for example. Actually most Democrats too - I'm not American.
And political statements against meat eaters - I want my steaks, and I want them bloody.
I can go on. I'd rather not see any of the above pop up in my stream.
At the same time, if the choice is between having to see them in my stream or having censorship, I'll tolerate seeing them in my stream. Together with people giving me the finger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So by this measure: - if anything were said / written criticizing the Bible, then a single devout Christian could deem it offensive and it would be removed? - if a woman's picture without a burkha were posted, then a single fundamentalist Muslim could declare it offensive and it would be deleted? - if a "blonde" joke were posted, then a single radical feminist could call it offensive and it would be eliminated? Doesn…
IANAL, but I think your #1 and #2 do apply most of the time for anything that can be seen in the public. Defamation of people's religions in a dis-respectful way is generally unlawful (though maybe not illegal). The act of giving someone the finger is generally regarded as a sign of violence. You might have more liberal views than me, but I do think it's a violent gesture. I get the point you're trying to make, but I…
Do you believe women posting profile pics on Google+ should be required to cover everything but their eyes?
There are millions of people for whom a profile pic of a woman showing her hair and rest of her face is indeed highly offensive.
What about someone holding their thumb up? That is grossly offensive in a number of countries.