231–240 of 293 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My question was not whether the customer can decide to take my water or not, the question was whether it would be wrong to argue for getting rid of the radon, or maybe to ask for radon-free water because you are concerned about your health.
No, of course it's not wrong. You can argue until you are blue in the face. Go right ahead...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been in a coffee shop that does this. You can either set the password yourself or log in via facebook. Don't remember the exact workflow, but it's possible.
You can see the setting to enable this from the provider's point of view from the last screenshot on this post on Meraki's site: https://meraki.cisco.com/blog/2013/05/youll-like-this-cisco-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, asking for alternatives to what you consider ethically questionable makes you a jerk then? And opression is not to be questioned if getting rid of it and its externalities would cost something?
Ha, come on, is this oppression? And the problem we all have is that this guy is taking it out on the clerk, who has no responsibility in deciding this, has no control, and present a reasonable solution despite not having too. The guy who went there for ice cream is more to blame than the clerk in this issue.
Second, how did you get the impression he was "taking it out on the clerk"? He simply was asking for an alternative method to access the WiFi and expressing his concerns about his privacy. Are you also to blame for taking it out on the clerk if you ask, for example, whether you might open some window because you think it's too hot or too cold or whatever?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming you are a Facebook user they would know your location anyway, Facebook Wifi or non-Facebook wifi. Then again, considering your username I guess you aren't a fan of Facebook at all.
>Assuming you are a Facebook user they would know your location anyway, Facebook Wifi or non-Facebook wifi How do you figure?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook gets to access to data about who purchases what and when The upside would be that you at least wouldn't keep seeing ads for things that you just purchased, as Facebook would know that you already have them. Kind of a crappy silver lining, I know.
I wouldn't bet on it. Amazon knows exactly what I just bought and still shows me 100 different variations on it "recommended" for me.
Damnit Amazon I just built one! How many processors do you think a single gaming PC can fit?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My POV is... look, you get to be as contrarian as you want. Feel free to never jump on the Dictatorship band wagon. But understand you're in the minority. The Dictator is that big, and is that established in our culture. So, feel free, choose your own path, but then stop whining about the hassle of being in the minority. Nobody cares about your freedom concerns.
Like a drug, nobody knows yet the long term effects of Facebook. So when someone acts super paranoid about the effects of something yet unproven, other people come out of the woodwork and try to give the guy some perspective. It's kind of the same negative attitudes we see towards GMO's, drones or RF radiation. I mean people could easily flip their perspective and, instead, see these tools as very powerful and, if us…
What ? Its pretty well known that Facebook is pretty lackadaisical with your personal information from leaks to giving it away to their "partners".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure your point utterly convinced the clerk being paid minimum wage at your ice cream shop of the errors of his employer. Would you have accepted it if the clerk explained to you that requiring a Facebook account is the most hassle-free way that ice cream shop has found, considering a) their technical expertise, b) the amount of time and money they need to invest and c) their average customer?
Well, said ice cream shop had a fully open wifi before going through the hassle of creating the captive portal by themselves two years ago. The thing that really irks me is the assumption that nowadays everyone has facebook. Isn't it surprising that in a country that finds national IDs liberticide the problem of identifying people is being outsourced to a corporate monopoly?
Decades after widespread e-mail and web use, very little progress has been made to improve identity and relation representation with a usable design outside of Facebook and its competitors (currently: LinkedIn, twitter; and the less public: Instagram, WhatsApp, SnapChat, Lime) all self-centric platforms. Open social media initiatives have been legions, from blog-based solutions (mainly on top of WordPress) to some revitalisation of OpenSocialNetwork spearheaded by Facebook employees. However, standard-based platform hit the contradictions raised by social presentation (what is a friend, a follower, should a non-physical person have identity? what should be public?) even harder than a single platform does. At least a corporate monopoly headed by people who don’t mind being called prejudiced can leap over a semester long nasty debate on gender classification, and focus on scalability and fixing bugs.
My ever-disappointed hope is that after a handful of social network generations, current decision-makers know how to recognise a coming tide. To preserve their market share, they hopefully will support a working standard. In that regard, having Facebook and Instagram under the same super-management might help agree on some commonalities. I believe it will be in their interest to suggest a usable OpenSocial-4.0 that will first let one connect their accounts within one corporate group. In Facebook/Instagram case, that means articulate multiple identity facets, pseudonyms, challenge the need for civil criteria such as age and gender. Moving further out, it might mean discuss information-sharing for ad-targeting to avoid commercial conflict with competitors. Possibly it might finally let you connect your own server, and your multiple identities to your less savvy friends WordPress blog or twitter feed.
From there on, one can hope proving their integrity to their ice-cream clerk without having to bow to too Orwellian institutions. An alternative is to ask a Facebook competitor more agreeable to your concerns (reddit? Moot’s Canvas?) to offer a similar service: though luck if what matters is law enforcement.
That war of leaky abstractions against our own laziness to express our social ties has been raging since the 80’s.
As icky as post-libertarian can seem, their focus on usability helps set up great services far before any more respectful entity can. Rather than code along and be overtaken, we might benefit from learning how to shift those to more open practice later in their development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im saying its just a social network. Its not going to give you csncer or arrest you in the night or cause massive floods. And the negative predictions related to privacy about Facdbook are largely conspiracy theories. We should take action when something seems plausible and in line with the most accurate, unbiased information out there. I know you're making a general statement about uncertainty but I hadnt mentionsd…
So, it can have a massive impact, but it's "just a social network"? How do you know the massive impact is going to be positive, and otherwise it's "just a social network"? North Korea is also a social network, BTW, and it doesn't give you cancer either, nor does it cause massive floods. Yeah, somewhat unfair way of framing it, isn't it? But then so is bringing up (somewhat) unpreventable illnesses and natural disaste…
I love how you first complain about dictatorial regimes, then proceed to declare that "society should probably try to get rid of Facebook, at least the way it currently functions".
What was the problem with dictatorships again ? Oh right, stupid edicts from above based on interpretations of individuals. You want to deny a billion people's freedom to play on facebook just because of your ethical/moral concerns. Please note that over a two billion people feel the same way about killing you/me because of premarital sex, why would we respect your moral concerns and not theirs ?
To use your kind of hyperbole : how are you different from the Taliban/dictatorships ?