I dunno, sounds like something a consumer privacy protection bureau may want to noodle on
The upside is that it's similar in structure to most administrations involved in research, so existing regulations can carry over. The downsides are that it becomes much harder for anybody to create a new version of any social media, and the government will eventually have access to the personal information of everybody that's registered with a popular social media network. That's what's probably going to happen to give teeth to audit power.
I’m sorry I have a hard time mustering up any fucking shits at all
I wouldn't have put it forward if it was a completely terrible idea, but it begs the question: how much do you trust the government? Like any regulatory solution, If (trust in government > increase in government power) {success} else {failure}
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I dunno, sounds like something a consumer privacy protection bureau may want to noodle on
The upside is that it's similar in structure to most administrations involved in research, so existing regulations can carry over. The downsides are that it becomes much harder for anybody to create a new version of any social media, and the government will eventually have access to the personal information of everybody that's registered with a popular social media network. That's what's probably going to happen to give teeth to audit power.
I’m sorry I have a hard time mustering up any fucking shits at all
I wouldn't have put it forward if it was a completely terrible idea, but it begs the question: how much do you trust the government? Like any regulatory solution, If (trust in government > increase in government power) {success} else {failure}
I dunno, sounds like something a consumer privacy protection bureau may want to noodle on
The upside is that it's similar in structure to most administrations involved in research, so existing regulations can carry over. The downsides are that it becomes much harder for anybody to create a new version of any social media, and the government will eventually have access to the personal information of everybody that's registered with a popular social media network. That's what's probably going to happen to give teeth to audit power.
I’m sorry I have a hard time mustering up any fucking shits at all
I wouldn't have put it forward if it was a completely terrible idea, but it begs the question: how much do you trust the government? Like any regulatory solution, If (trust in government > increase in government power) {success} else {failure}
I’m probably not a good person to have this conversation with, not just for the fact that I have no interest at all in churning on hypotheticals
There are huge problems and civilization-sized risks with social media and tech and nowhere fucking near the levels of accountability needed for its reach and impact
I dunno, sounds like something a consumer privacy protection bureau may want to noodle on
The upside is that it's similar in structure to most administrations involved in research, so existing regulations can carry over. The downsides are that it becomes much harder for anybody to create a new version of any social media, and the government will eventually have access to the personal information of everybody that's registered with a popular social media network. That's what's probably going to happen to give teeth to audit power.
I’m sorry I have a hard time mustering up any fucking shits at all
I wouldn't have put it forward if it was a completely terrible idea, but it begs the question: how much do you trust the government? Like any regulatory solution, If (trust in government > increase in government power) {success} else {failure}
I’m probably not a good person to have this conversation with, not just for the fact that I have no interest at all in churning on hypotheticals
There are huge problems and civilization-sized risks with social media and tech and nowhere fucking near the levels of accountability needed for its reach and impact
I think ideas have more upward mobility than opinions. Like, you can just totally dismiss my opinion because its merit is linked to its creator, but an idea has intrinsic merit that can be gifted or stolen, so its dissemination and success are not held back by the creator.
Likewise, I am not a good person to have a conversation with about opinion and sentiment, since I think in terms of the next step: assuming that your opinion is the right one or alternately the wrong one, what can we do in the real world?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I dunno, sounds like something a consumer privacy protection bureau may want to noodle on
The upside is that it's similar in structure to most administrations involved in research, so existing regulations can carry over. The downsides are that it becomes much harder for anybody to create a new version of any social media, and the government will eventually have access to the personal information of everybody that's registered with a popular social media network. That's what's probably going to happen to give teeth to audit power.
I’m sorry I have a hard time mustering up any fucking shits at all
I wouldn't have put it forward if it was a completely terrible idea, but it begs the question: how much do you trust the government? Like any regulatory solution, If (trust in government > increase in government power) {success} else {failure}
They sell the data currently. Functionally the government has access to all of it. They just gotta pay like anyone else.
So in other horrifying news, two former twitter employees were accused of spying for Saudi Arabia on dissidents. Sleep tight america.
Well I can safely say that we've reached the point where this kind of article doesn't register any sort of emotion from me. Like it should be scary that they're able to do that but it really isn't.
I dunno, sounds like something a consumer privacy protection bureau may want to noodle on
The upside is that it's similar in structure to most administrations involved in research, so existing regulations can carry over. The downsides are that it becomes much harder for anybody to create a new version of any social media, and the government will eventually have access to the personal information of everybody that's registered with a popular social media network. That's what's probably going to happen to give teeth to audit power.
I’m sorry I have a hard time mustering up any fucking shits at all
I wouldn't have put it forward if it was a completely terrible idea, but it begs the question: how much do you trust the government? Like any regulatory solution, If (trust in government > increase in government power) {success} else {failure}
They sell the data currently. Functionally the government has access to all of it. They just gotta pay like anyone else.
That's what facebook and twitter and stuff do, but regulation would not only affect Facebook and Twitter, but all social media. A regulation that would only affect them would basically need a clause "here's the hoops that you need to jump through to sell user data." If that is plain not allowed, then facebook and twitter are not special entities subject to special regulation, and other companies that do not currently sell user data would be subject to the same regulation. Do those companies exist? I dunno.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
No, the mistake was letting it be run by privileged techbros who have no comprehension of how it can be abused.
How do you make it so people don't own what they code?
A Microsoft contract?
The vast majority of programmers don’t own their own code
Hmm, but to address the problem, you've got to capture freelance. Not just coding, but any idea. If you develop a billion dollar idea, you must be forced to relinquish majority ownership interest you become a billionaire.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The easiest way is to develop a serum that erases specific memories and make drinking it at the end of a project a contractual requirement for every programmer.
I find myself thinking about two things pretty often in social media discussions.
1. Anything which is best served to the population by a monopoly should probably be provided by the government rather than a private corporation.
2. If we do that, it's much harder to be rid of the Nazis on social media (because we're not getting hate speech laws through any time soon).
We’re crossing the philanthropy and twitter streams
An idea that eventually becomes a billion dollar enterprise isn’t always a good idea.
And if it poses major risks of harm to society, society has every right to demand change or tear it down.
Bain Capitol and other vulture capitalistic companies have become billion dollar enterprises primarily by forcing production to low cost countries (e.g. China) and by coming up with schemes to extract a significant portion of the value from a business then killing said business (e.g. Toys'R'Us).
For businesses, money is THE metric, and the metrics drive. Which is why we see daily reports of executives and/or companies getting in trouble for corruption. The metric for ethics is pass/fail, and you only fail if you get caught. And even then, if your money metric is good enough, your failing the ethical metric will become a pass. Because the metrics drive.
No, the mistake was letting it be run by privileged techbros who have no comprehension of how it can be abused.
How do you make it so people don't own what they code?
A Microsoft contract?
The vast majority of programmers don’t own their own code
Hmm, but to address the problem, you've got to capture freelance. Not just coding, but any idea. If you develop a billion dollar idea, you must be forced to relinquish majority ownership interest you become a billionaire.
Im sort of lost here, are you arguing for the billionare freelancer? Is that a thing that exists?
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
The easiest way is to develop a serum that erases specific memories and make drinking it at the end of a project a contractual requirement for every programmer.
The easiest way is to develop a serum that erases specific memories and make drinking it at the end of a project a contractual requirement for every programmer.
Isn't this basically the plot to Phillip K Dick's Paycheck?
The easiest way is to develop a serum that erases specific memories and make drinking it at the end of a project a contractual requirement for every programmer.
Isn't this basically the plot to Phillip K Dick's Paycheck?
Yes. I believe they call this plague-ism.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
The easiest way is to develop a serum that erases specific memories and make drinking it at the end of a project a contractual requirement for every programmer.
Don't give them ideas you asshole!
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The easiest way is to develop a serum that erases specific memories and make drinking it at the end of a project a contractual requirement for every programmer.
Isn't this basically the plot to Phillip K Dick's Paycheck?
That's the name of the Ben Affleck movie I was thinking of.
The easiest way is to develop a serum that erases specific memories and make drinking it at the end of a project a contractual requirement for every programmer.
That would be great for all those gaming Me Too moments as well.
No, the mistake was letting it be run by privileged techbros who have no comprehension of how it can be abused.
How do you make it so people don't own what they code?
A Microsoft contract?
The vast majority of programmers don’t own their own code
Hmm, but to address the problem, you've got to capture freelance. Not just coding, but any idea. If you develop a billion dollar idea, you must be forced to relinquish majority ownership interest you become a billionaire.
Im sort of lost here, are you arguing for the billionare freelancer? Is that a thing that exists?
More like an entrepreneur. You have an idea, you make sure it is not the property of wherever you work, and you claim it for yourself before you build on it. I haven't been arguing for anything yet
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So, after the shitshow on Twitter last night thanks to the stunt that the UK Conservatives pulled last night (that being changing one of their official accounts to pretend to be a fact checking service), Jack is putting his best dissapointed dad face:
Twitter said that the Conservative Party had misled the public and warned that it would take "corrective action" if the party repeated the stunt.
"We have global rules in place that prohibit behaviour that can mislead people, including those with verified accounts," a spokesperson said."
Any further attempts to mislead people by editing verified profile information — in a manner seen during the UK Election Debate — will result in decisive corrective action."
Is simple, since this is a misuse of the verified tag, just remove it from that account and update your rules so people can't just game the system like that again. But, you know, is easier to do nothing.
So, after the shitshow on Twitter last night thanks to the stunt that the UK Conservatives pulled last night (that being changing one of their official accounts to pretend to be a fact checking service), Jack is putting his best dissapointed dad face:
Twitter said that the Conservative Party had misled the public and warned that it would take "corrective action" if the party repeated the stunt.
"We have global rules in place that prohibit behaviour that can mislead people, including those with verified accounts," a spokesperson said."
Any further attempts to mislead people by editing verified profile information — in a manner seen during the UK Election Debate — will result in decisive corrective action."
Is simple, since this is a misuse of the verified tag, just remove it from that account and update your rules so people can't just game the system like that again. But, you know, is easier to do nothing.
The account has been verified as an official account of a major party. This is one of those cases where the checkmark is in the public interest. That they broke the rules doesn't change that. Tories (✓) did this, and removing it just helps them deny it was an official action.
So, no, they shouldn't unverify the account for breaking the rules, they should ban the account for breaking the rules.
Business professor Scott Galloway responds to Dorsey's plans to spend half of 2020 in Africa with an incredibly pointed burn:
It’s not Mr. Dorsey’s plans to move to Africa that constrain stakeholder value, but his plans to move back.
Ouch. But he definitely has a point - Dorsey is already a part time CEO (as most of his wealth is tied up in his actual job as CEO of Square) which has routinely left Twitter leaderless.
Facebook put zero thought in to this policy. There's no way to ensure veracity in political ads that doesn't disproportionately affect conservatives.
I really need to do something about my mobile experience but I finally saw one of these political ads on FB. Marked it as "False News" -- found it interesting that it gave me 6 to 8 choices as to why it was wrong, but only let me select one. Seems that FB doesn't want too much data coming in to help with whatever bot they have going through the ads. Oh. And the ad itself was an anti New Green Deal one. Claimed the NGD was going to kill jobs and so on. Odd in a sad sort of way. I have to wonder why it showed to me, given everything I "like" on the platform.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Facebook put zero thought in to this policy. There's no way to ensure veracity in political ads that doesn't disproportionately affect conservatives.
I really need to do something about my mobile experience but I finally saw one of these political ads on FB. Marked it as "False News" -- found it interesting that it gave me 6 to 8 choices as to why it was wrong, but only let me select one. Seems that FB doesn't want too much data coming in to help with whatever bot they have going through the ads. Oh. And the ad itself was an anti New Green Deal one. Claimed the NGD was going to kill jobs and so on. Odd in a sad sort of way. I have to wonder why it showed to me, given everything I "like" on the platform.
Sady Doyle is no stranger to trolls. But even she has had her fill.
On Wednesday, Doyle received a very direct threat on Twitter from the account MISOGYNY. The user, who later changed his name to Hcreampie and made his tweets private, sent Doyle an image of a hand holding a gun, along with the text, “when i see you homeboy, oh my god..”
Doyle reported the image to Twitter who went on to tell her that they “could not determine a clear violation of the Twitter Rules.”
Sady Doyle is no stranger to trolls. But even she has had her fill.
On Wednesday, Doyle received a very direct threat on Twitter from the account MISOGYNY. The user, who later changed his name to Hcreampie and made his tweets private, sent Doyle an image of a hand holding a gun, along with the text, “when i see you homeboy, oh my god..”
Doyle reported the image to Twitter who went on to tell her that they “could not determine a clear violation of the Twitter Rules.”
At this point I can’t even summon enough surprise in me to get more than a raised eyebrow. Any post that contains such incredulousness about Twitter is clearly rhetorical because we all already know the answer.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
At this point I can’t even summon enough surprise in me to get more than a raised eyebrow. Any post that contains such incredulousness about Twitter is clearly rhetorical because we all already know the answer.
I'm not that familiar with Twitter, but can these messages that have been rejected by Twitter's Rules Teams be edited (if referenced by name, change the name to Jack) and forwarded to @jack?
Hashtag "How do you fucking like it?".
Like I said, I'm not that familiar with Twitter.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Posts
I wouldn't have put it forward if it was a completely terrible idea, but it begs the question: how much do you trust the government? Like any regulatory solution, If (trust in government > increase in government power) {success} else {failure}
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
More than I trust techbros like Mark Zuckerberg.
I’m probably not a good person to have this conversation with, not just for the fact that I have no interest at all in churning on hypotheticals
There are huge problems and civilization-sized risks with social media and tech and nowhere fucking near the levels of accountability needed for its reach and impact
So in other horrifying news, two former twitter employees were accused of spying for Saudi Arabia on dissidents. Sleep tight america.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think ideas have more upward mobility than opinions. Like, you can just totally dismiss my opinion because its merit is linked to its creator, but an idea has intrinsic merit that can be gifted or stolen, so its dissemination and success are not held back by the creator.
Likewise, I am not a good person to have a conversation with about opinion and sentiment, since I think in terms of the next step: assuming that your opinion is the right one or alternately the wrong one, what can we do in the real world?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
They sell the data currently. Functionally the government has access to all of it. They just gotta pay like anyone else.
Well I can safely say that we've reached the point where this kind of article doesn't register any sort of emotion from me. Like it should be scary that they're able to do that but it really isn't.
That's what facebook and twitter and stuff do, but regulation would not only affect Facebook and Twitter, but all social media. A regulation that would only affect them would basically need a clause "here's the hoops that you need to jump through to sell user data." If that is plain not allowed, then facebook and twitter are not special entities subject to special regulation, and other companies that do not currently sell user data would be subject to the same regulation. Do those companies exist? I dunno.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A Microsoft contract?
The vast majority of programmers don’t own their own code
And most company owners who do own the code, don't code, even if they can, because they don't have the time.
I've never owned my own code at any place I've worked.
Some have laid claim to code I develop that's work-related outside of work.
"You didn't have to take a job that does that" or variants thereof.
Some companies are open to taking that out of your contract if you have a project (especially Open Source) you want to work on in your free time.
Hmm, but to address the problem, you've got to capture freelance. Not just coding, but any idea. If you develop a billion dollar idea, you must be forced to relinquish majority ownership interest you become a billionaire.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
An idea that eventually becomes a billion dollar enterprise isn’t always a good idea.
And if it poses major risks of harm to society, society has every right to demand change or tear it down.
1. Anything which is best served to the population by a monopoly should probably be provided by the government rather than a private corporation.
2. If we do that, it's much harder to be rid of the Nazis on social media (because we're not getting hate speech laws through any time soon).
Bain Capitol and other vulture capitalistic companies have become billion dollar enterprises primarily by forcing production to low cost countries (e.g. China) and by coming up with schemes to extract a significant portion of the value from a business then killing said business (e.g. Toys'R'Us).
For businesses, money is THE metric, and the metrics drive. Which is why we see daily reports of executives and/or companies getting in trouble for corruption. The metric for ethics is pass/fail, and you only fail if you get caught. And even then, if your money metric is good enough, your failing the ethical metric will become a pass. Because the metrics drive.
Im sort of lost here, are you arguing for the billionare freelancer? Is that a thing that exists?
So the celebratory happy “hour” after a release?
Isn't this basically the plot to Phillip K Dick's Paycheck?
Yes. I believe they call this plague-ism.
Don't give them ideas you asshole!
That's the name of the Ben Affleck movie I was thinking of.
That would be great for all those gaming Me Too moments as well.
More like an entrepreneur. You have an idea, you make sure it is not the property of wherever you work, and you claim it for yourself before you build on it. I haven't been arguing for anything yet
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Is simple, since this is a misuse of the verified tag, just remove it from that account and update your rules so people can't just game the system like that again. But, you know, is easier to do nothing.
The account has been verified as an official account of a major party. This is one of those cases where the checkmark is in the public interest. That they broke the rules doesn't change that. Tories (✓) did this, and removing it just helps them deny it was an official action.
So, no, they shouldn't unverify the account for breaking the rules, they should ban the account for breaking the rules.
Ouch. But he definitely has a point - Dorsey is already a part time CEO (as most of his wealth is tied up in his actual job as CEO of Square) which has routinely left Twitter leaderless.
Dorsey needs to go.
I really need to do something about my mobile experience but I finally saw one of these political ads on FB. Marked it as "False News" -- found it interesting that it gave me 6 to 8 choices as to why it was wrong, but only let me select one. Seems that FB doesn't want too much data coming in to help with whatever bot they have going through the ads. Oh. And the ad itself was an anti New Green Deal one. Claimed the NGD was going to kill jobs and so on. Odd in a sad sort of way. I have to wonder why it showed to me, given everything I "like" on the platform.
Are you not engaged?
When it's on Twitter, apparently:
How do they keep failing like this?
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
Because they don't care at best.
I'm not that familiar with Twitter, but can these messages that have been rejected by Twitter's Rules Teams be edited (if referenced by name, change the name to Jack) and forwarded to @jack?
Hashtag "How do you fucking like it?".
Like I said, I'm not that familiar with Twitter.