Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

thedrum.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 233 posts

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#211

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

pirateking wrote: post #185
fennecfoxen wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Texting while driving" has a simple, safe, more-or-less equivalent substitute: texting while not driving. Facebook, insofar as it is a widely-adopted and community-preferred communications tool, does not: network effects and all that.

Actually it does. The more or less equivalent substitute to "communicating on the internet with Facebook" is "communicating on the internet without Facebook". Facebook is a subset of Internet communication just as driving is a subset of texting scenarios.

So you're asking people to beseech their friends to adopt regular usage of some alternative to Facebook (email, Jabber, Google, etc.) solely so that they can stay in contact. That's equivalent to asking someone "could you please go to my blog regularly to see if I have anything to say to you?".

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#212

Post by _xeah »

darkarmani wrote: post #210
_xeah wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person holding to this position will have no problem with a woman wanting to cut off a finger or remove a toe, but as soon as you consider the unborn to be a person that has a body, every right given to someone with a body would be extended to the body in the womb. Not trying to start any debate (I promise), but I would say it does solve the issue with abortion, because there is a human body in the womb, and would…

> and would therefore have rights protecting it from being killed. So what about the rights of the mother to suicide? Don't those rights conflict?

Though I'm not arguing for what the original commenter was arguing for, I don't think it would be a conflict in their line of thinking. I think the OP would argue for the right to suicide, but not for the right to commit suicide by head on collision with another car. It's the same idea.

Plus, we would want to be very careful with pregnant women wanting to commit suicide, because their body is going through so much stuff at the time. Those desires could very well be contrary to what the woman is really living for. A pregnant woman with suicidal desires (in OP's argument) should be seen as someone who needs assistance to live, not assistance to die.

Again, just stepping inside that thinking and not necessarily arguing for/against OP's argument.

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#213

Post by jason_slack »

Lets all just remember that we make our own choices.

1. If you want to use Facebook, then you must follow the rules they set forth.

2. If you dont like #1. Just dont use it.

As consumers we all make choices that we need to make to benefit ourselves. If I dont like a grocery store, I dont shop there. If I get treated rude someplace. I find a new place that treats me better.

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#214

Post by _xeah »

gliese1337 wrote: post #198
_xeah wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person holding to this position will have no problem with a woman wanting to cut off a finger or remove a toe, but as soon as you consider the unborn to be a person that has a body, every right given to someone with a body would be extended to the body in the womb. Not trying to start any debate (I promise), but I would say it does solve the issue with abortion, because there is a human body in the womb, and would…

It does not, because the whole point of the abortion debate is that many people don't think that there is a human body with rights in the womb. The only thing that would 'solve' the abortion debate is clarifying the legal status of unborn fetuses as rights-bearing humans; clarifying the rights of humans without specifying who counts as human is pointless for this purpose.

I didn't want to start or get into a debate, but I'll bite for a second :)

I have a really hard time understanding how some can claim that a body in one location is human, but that body in another location is non-human. How should it be classified? Is it even homo sapien or a different species (or no species)? Is a baby half delivered half human?

The argument is really whether or not women have the right to kill that human body, or whether or not that human body in her womb has any rights on its own to live.

edit: spelling

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#215

Post by pirateking »

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #211
pirateking wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it does. The more or less equivalent substitute to "communicating on the internet with Facebook" is "communicating on the internet without Facebook". Facebook is a subset of Internet communication just as driving is a subset of texting scenarios.

So you're asking people to beseech their friends to adopt regular usage of some alternative to Facebook (email, Jabber, Google, etc.) solely so that they can stay in contact. That's equivalent to asking someone "could you please go to my blog regularly to see if I have anything to say to you?".

I am not asking anyone to do anything. I am just saying that it is possible to communicate outside of Facebook. The choice of tools and exercise of free will that make it a realistic possibility for each individual is up to them.

The idea here is not simply about using an existing alternative network. The idea is that creating an alternative network is always a possibility, and that free will exists.

The "network effect", while a real observable phenomenon, is still a flawed rationalization for the existence of a network, and undermines that thing which actually propagates the network - the free will of the individual.

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#216

Post by mhurron »

falcolas wrote: post #189
mhurron wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to take issue with just one statement here because I'm short on time - > special kind of oppressor to tell you ... who you are allowed to love and allow into your family. They don't. You can have a polygamous marriage all you want, you can have an open marriage, you can be as gay as you want. However, husband, wife, father, mother, son, daughter and what not also have legal ramifications, and that is where…

> You can have a polygamous marriage all you want No, you can't. It's illegal in most states (see how the "Big Love" family had to move due to pending prosecution in Utah). > you can be as gay as you want. Not if you're male - sodomy is illegal in many states (despite a Supreme Court ruling that pretty much shuts them down) in the US, and many other countries entirely [1]. > [The law] has nothing to do with any moral…

> You can have a polygamous marriage all you want

>No, you can't. It's illegal in most states (see how the "Big Love" family had to move due to pending prosecution in Utah).

Yes you can, you can not however have more than one legal wife. You can marry wife #1 (marriage certificate) and this person will be the only wife the law cares about. You can then have any religious or whatever ceremony to marry any number of other women and you can all live together any way you wish. You can do this because the state doesn't care about the religious ceremony. You can not legally marry more than one woman, the women must know they are taking part in a polyamorous relationship and they can not be coerced into it. Again, the legal definition of marriage and what you call being married do not have to match.

As a side not, it is basically impossible to find what you are referring to with 'the "Big Love" family' since it appears to be a TV show as well. So I can't say anything about it.

> Not if you're male - sodomy is illegal in many states (despite a Supreme Court ruling that pretty much shuts them down) in the US, and many other countries entirely.

This is the best example of how the law and individuals differ. Legally (in the US), sodomy is defined as any sexual contact other than vaginal intercourse. Ever had a blow job? Congratulations, you could be charged. It has noting to do with being male, lesbianism would be charged with sodomy as well.

In the US, you can be as gay as you want.

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#217

Post by dragonwriter »

falcolas wrote: post #189
mhurron wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to take issue with just one statement here because I'm short on time - > special kind of oppressor to tell you ... who you are allowed to love and allow into your family. They don't. You can have a polygamous marriage all you want, you can have an open marriage, you can be as gay as you want. However, husband, wife, father, mother, son, daughter and what not also have legal ramifications, and that is where…

> You can have a polygamous marriage all you want No, you can't. It's illegal in most states (see how the "Big Love" family had to move due to pending prosecution in Utah). > you can be as gay as you want. Not if you're male - sodomy is illegal in many states (despite a Supreme Court ruling that pretty much shuts them down) in the US, and many other countries entirely [1]. > [The law] has nothing to do with any moral…

> see how the "Big Love" family had to move due to pending prosecution in Utah

Presumably -- and I am somewhat embarrassed to be able to catch this mistake -- you are referring to the actual family featured on the reality show "Sister Wives" [1], not the fictional family featured on the show "Big Love".

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Wives

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#218

Post by dragonwriter »

mhurron wrote: post #216
falcolas wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can have a polygamous marriage all you want No, you can't. It's illegal in most states (see how the "Big Love" family had to move due to pending prosecution in Utah). > you can be as gay as you want. Not if you're male - sodomy is illegal in many states (despite a Supreme Court ruling that pretty much shuts them down) in the US, and many other countries entirely [1]. > [The law] has nothing to do with any moral…

> You can have a polygamous marriage all you want >No, you can't. It's illegal in most states (see how the "Big Love" family had to move due to pending prosecution in Utah). Yes you can, you can not however have more than one legal wife. You can marry wife #1 (marriage certificate) and this person will be the only wife the law cares about. You can then have any religious or whatever ceremony to marry any number of ot…

> > > You can have a polygamous marriage all you want

> > No, you can't. It's illegal in most states (see how the "Big Love" family had to move due to pending prosecution in Utah).

> Yes you can, you can not however have more than one legal wife. You can marry wife #1 (marriage certificate) and this person will be the only wife the law cares about.

Whether this is true or not depends on the details of the state law, but its certainly not true in, e.g., Utah, where the relevant statute [1] looks at cohabitation as well:

(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.

(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.

(3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.

[1] Utah Code, tit. 76, chap. 7, sec. 101; http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_07_010100.htm

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#219

Post by dragonwriter »

mhurron wrote: post #181
sneak wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These legal ramifications should be either abolished or applied to everyone who applies those titles equally. Anything else is state-sponsored discrimination and harassment, which is our current sad state of affairs.

Your wife can mandate health care when you are otherwise incapable. You have 7 wives. Who has final say. You get a divorce from one wife. What does she get? These are just two things off the top of my head that throw a monkey wrench in things making the 'just abolish it' not quite as simple. As for 'state-sponsored discrimination and harassment' just no. That is people and their attitudes, legality has nothing to do…

> Your wife can mandate health care when you are otherwise incapable. You have 7 wives. Who has final say.

Establishing a rule for priority in this situation is fairly straightforward. The most obvious rule is to support a pre-need declaration of priority if one exists, and otherwise default to an oldest-marriage priority.

> You get a divorce from one wife. What does she get?

This is essentially an identical issue to dissolution of a partnership with more than two partners, and as such is pretty well already solved by the legal system.

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#220

Post by falcolas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #217
falcolas wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can have a polygamous marriage all you want No, you can't. It's illegal in most states (see how the "Big Love" family had to move due to pending prosecution in Utah). > you can be as gay as you want. Not if you're male - sodomy is illegal in many states (despite a Supreme Court ruling that pretty much shuts them down) in the US, and many other countries entirely [1]. > [The law] has nothing to do with any moral…

> see how the "Big Love" family had to move due to pending prosecution in Utah Presumably -- and I am somewhat embarrassed to be able to catch this mistake -- you are referring to the actual family featured on the reality show "Sister Wives" [1], not the fictional family featured on the show "Big Love". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Wives

You are quite correct. Can't edit anymore, but that is the correct title of the show I was referring to.
Post reply on HN