Off topic, but such a crass title makes me instantly disinterested in whatever the article has to say, even if I'm likely to agree with its content. Is this really the new normal for websites ?
To be fair, I expected something about The Zuck.
The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered
31–40 of 66 posts
Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. Immaturity isn't something to strive for, or be proud of. It's something I've seen far too much of in recent years of politics.
I'm British and I think that swearing enriches language when used judiciously. Also - expressing emotion and anger is valuable when the situation calls for it. Personally I would have considered something stronger than 'turd' in this case. Oh. Here's Hitchens saying "Fuck" a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO129-RfhVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1fmWVECUI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB_dgqy6l4k
I'm Irish and I agree.
Think of some great comedians, especially Scots, like Billy Connolly and Frankie Boyle - who use a good swear word very well.
Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered
#33I am so conflicted. At my core, I believe everyone, regardless of affiliation or beliefs has a right to online privacy. On the other, man do I freaking wish that one of the big porn sites would put up a billboard with the (private) sexual fetishes of these specific elected officials. Edit: I would wish more for the latter if I thought it would change anything.
I don't see those views as conflicting. Everyone has a fundamental right to privacy, but one's rights end when stomping on those of others.
This point gets made a lot. "Person/Group X doesn't believe in the right to privacy/free expression/due process/whatever so we shouldn't extend rights to those people."
If it's a right, you have it just by being human; it's not given to you as a reward in exchange for good behavior. And there's a good reason for that, because such loopholes are ripe for abuse.
Remarkably, people can label and truly believe ANYONE is a facist. When Bush was president, people compared him to Hitler. When Obama was president, people compared him to Hitler. Now Trump is Hitler. I've heard people non-ironically compare Steve Jobs to Hitler. Comparing an Apple CEO to history's most notorious genocidal dictator, in complete earnestness.
Do we want us, a crazy bunch of humans that for the most part seem to be unable to differentiate between an idea we don't like and genocide, deciding who is deserving enough to have rights? Privacy is a complicated issue, and I don't think it would be hard to paint all but the most zealous of advocates as being soft of privacy and therefore undeserving. Not a path I hope we go down.
Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered
#34I am so conflicted. At my core, I believe everyone, regardless of affiliation or beliefs has a right to online privacy. On the other, man do I freaking wish that one of the big porn sites would put up a billboard with the (private) sexual fetishes of these specific elected officials. Edit: I would wish more for the latter if I thought it would change anything.
That's very sex-negative of you to think of sexual fetishes as something you should be ashamed of and keep hidden from others. Also, the kind of porn you watch doesn't imply what you are attracted to.
If you really feel that way, feel free to tell us who you are, where you live, and what kind of porn you watch.
Yours is a barely-disguised version of the usual "I don't care about privacy because have nothing to hide" argument.
Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered
#35And nothing changes. They were unrecognizable nobodies before, and now they are unrecognizable nobodies with more money. They will become unrecognizable nobodies again, next week, or next month, or next year, and move right along with the rest of their lives. Conceptually, this is how legislation works. You start with politicians no one cares about, and you end with politicians no one cares about selling you out, bec…
Here is the full list:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp...
If you see your Congress people on the list you should help replace them with moderates in their primaries and call them more during the year.
Everyone needs to get to know their Congress. Even if they aren't on the list, find out who they are and how to contact them. You only have 3 of them! 2 statewide senators and your house rep. Just 3!
Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see those views as conflicting. Everyone has a fundamental right to privacy, but one's rights end when stomping on those of others.
This point gets made a lot. "Person/Group X doesn't believe in the right to privacy/free expression/due process/whatever so we shouldn't extend rights to those people." If it's a right, you have it just by being human; it's not given to you as a reward in exchange for good behavior. And there's a good reason for that, because such loopholes are ripe for abuse. Remarkably, people can label and truly believe ANYONE is…
Everyone has the right to go where they please but occasionally we put people behind bars as a punishment. That's not as contradictory as you make it seem.
Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's very sex-negative of you to think of sexual fetishes as something you should be ashamed of and keep hidden from others. Also, the kind of porn you watch doesn't imply what you are attracted to.
If you really feel that way, feel free to tell us who you are, where you live, and what kind of porn you watch. Yours is a barely-disguised version of the usual "I don't care about privacy because have nothing to hide" argument.
Both points are valid. Human sexuality is broad and deep. Using it as a weapon against people is wrong and leads to terrible things. Still, the proposed strategy would definitely have a sock factor, even for the most sexually liberated of individuals. I think it would be a shitty thing to do, but it would get attention.
Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered
#38And nothing changes. They were unrecognizable nobodies before, and now they are unrecognizable nobodies with more money. They will become unrecognizable nobodies again, next week, or next month, or next year, and move right along with the rest of their lives. Conceptually, this is how legislation works. You start with politicians no one cares about, and you end with politicians no one cares about selling you out, bec…
Here is the full list: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp... If you see your Congress people on the list you should help replace them with moderates in their primaries and call them more during the year. Everyone needs to get to know their Congress. Even if they aren't on the list, find out who they are and how to contact them. You only have 3 of them! 2 statewide senators and your house rep…
Selling out your constituents isn't a part of conservative or liberal philosophy, just corrupt politicians.
And the Republican party have become the moderate party, there is no truly conservative party anymore.
Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered
#39Off topic, but such a crass title makes me instantly disinterested in whatever the article has to say, even if I'm likely to agree with its content. Is this really the new normal for websites ?
Turds isn't even crass.
Maybe it's an American thing, but I honestly didn't notice anything odd about the headline until you complained.
Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered
#40Can someone explain what "selling web browsing and app usage data" really means? I don't imagine they literally package sensitive information and distribute it to anyone who pays. In which case, "they sell your data" is completely misleading.
It means exactly what it say on the tin. This isn't a hypothetical, either, but a class of behaviour which has happened repeatedly in the past. Here are a few examples of things which the FCC & FTC eventually stopped; there's zero reason to believe that this behaviour won't resume as soon as it's safe to accept that money.
Large ISPs like Verizon altered HTTP traffic to inject a unique identifier which linked all of your traffic across devices and sites and sold a service linking those identifiers to demographic information. Even without paying, you could use that to reliably link user activity across every plain-text HTTP service:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh https://arstechnica.com/security/2014/10/verizon-wireless-in...
Going further back, a number of ISPs got heat for reselling access to customer activity to various tracking services:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04...
Another interesting allegation came from Andreas Gal after he left Mozilla, claiming that Google's competitors were paying ISPs for copies of user's search activity so they could improve their search engine by using ranking closer to Google's. Given how many people search for sensitive or identifying terms, that's already a concern and, again, there's no reason to think companies with very limited competition won't expand their profits if it's safe:
https://andreasgal.com/2015/03/30/data-is-at-the-heart-of-se...