We have a word for this in the English language - ostracize. That's what Facebook is doing, practicing ostracizism. It's simply a matter of freedom to associate with a given person/group, or to not associate with them. Whether they are 'merely' charged, or found guilty should make no difference in how Fb makes their "associative" decisions. (Although I agree, one might well call them biased, and that may be well deserved. But is bias an ethics issue? Please Gawd, don't let the current crop of mouth-breathers get ahold of that idea, or I'll be long dead before that issue is resolved.)
Let me put it this way: Just because I don't wish to associate with Joe Flag-waver, how/why should anyone get upset with me and call me unethical? Now imagine that Joe was one of the insurrectionists.....
You dare to use the words Facebook and ethics in the same sentence? That's gotta be a mighty big pair of cohones you're carrying around there, me bucko.
If you're gonna go down that road, let me remind you that Facebook is big only because Zuckerberg didn't just admit, but openly bragged that he had no qualms about selling everybody's personal data to the highest bidder, come one, come all. And over and over, again and again. And that's Zuck's epitome of ethical behavior, it only gets worse from there. Sorta makes "kick 'em off" decisions kinda tame, doncha think?
Besides, advertisers are starting to take note of where their ads are appearing, and right about now, appearing next to a #45'er is isn't exactly the good PR that they were paying for.
They've rolled out these programs well ahead of required Privacy Impact Assessments or internal tracking/reporting measures in place.
And what would make anyone think that any of these agencies will willingly "reset" back to where they will first assess these risks? Their position will be "Hey, we've done just fine so far without all this folderol, why should we worry about it now?" Or, "That's too expensive", always a favorite government bug-a-boo.
But this does put the issue on the radar of Congress members ....
You'd think that it'd be of particular interest to a certain 28 members ....
I wonder why we don't see any quotes from Kinslow as to why took this action. My bet would be that he was watching to see if Cothran was going to bad-mouth him to others within the department, or possibly to a prospective new employer. The fact that Kinslow didn't initiate any lawsuit after several months tells me that Cothran didn't do so, and he clossed the email account.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes me laugh...
According to my readings, Locke was the mild-mannered one who countered the "more strident" speech of Demosthenes. Both were very well reasoned, but Demosthenes seemed to go for the "shout 'em down" approach.
Koby is hoping to keep hammering at us, and that we'll eventually give up out of sheer frustration. Were I him, I wouldn't take much of that to the bank. ;)
Oh, you're speaking of ODSR - Off-Site Data Retention.
Certainly for a business, the previous quarter's Master and G,F,S devices should be stored off-site, for a period of at least one year. For individuals, value of the data is a judgement call. My judgement has one value: how do I explain to the wife that I lost all of our kids pictures and grandkids videos, let alone our home business's records. And that's before I consider my personal media collection.... But YMMV.
These monopolies have taken the place of the Common Square....
Assumes facts not in evidence, and easily proven otherwise.
I can still go downtown and sit in any of a dozen public squares (within blocks of each other), and either listen to idiots like you make fools of themselves, or if I'm feeling particularly peckish, I can can also stand up and prove to the world that I am also a fool.
That poses a very poignant question - if Facebook is truly the 800 lb gorilla that some make it out to be, then why did #45 insist on using Twitter as his main sewage conduit, instead of Facebook? Moral of the story: if more than one reasonably healthy entity exists in a market sector, then by definition, neither of them is a monopoly.
If you can not see the difference, then maybe, just maybe, the problem is with you.
That's pretty large of you, giving him that undeserved benefit of the doubt.
In point of fact, Koby has always been capable of rational thought, he's just being obstinate for his own personal shits and grins. Personally, I consider him to be our token Demosthenes, going up against a collective Locke. And failing at it as we should expect. But he keeps coming back, so either he has a damnably thick skin, an even thicker skull, or he's really a high-bandwidth individual on par with any other malicious genius you might encounter in this wide, wide world. (You can pick any two, but not all three.)
Re: Re: 'It's obvious! ... so long as you already agree with me.
Ya know, Trump didn't lie about one thing - he claimed for months before the election that there would be fraud, and wouldn't you know it, there's been fraud aplenty since November 3rd. Giuliani is only the first to suffer the fate of a fraudster, and he won't be the last, mark my words.
Just about the first thing a PFY learns from the BOFH - Grandfather, Father, & Son. Not three copies of one thing, but three generations of copies of everything. Which means, three separate devices, rotating between them each backup period. For most users, once a week is probably enough. Highly critical data, once a day/night. I've even seen one case where it was twice daily! Applying that same scheme to differential backups (with a master copy) is also an acceptable practice.
I'm not so paranoid as to disconnect my laptop from the web when backing up, but I do remove the current generation device whenever I'm not backing up - I've made mistakes and set myself back (and wasted time recovering stuff) more than once, I don't need internet clowns to help me on that score.
And if you attach a really high value to your data, optical media every so often is also de rigueur. Spinning rust can surprise you in an entirely unacceptable manner, trust me on that one.
In my post above, I accidentally hit enter instead of preview, so the following got cut off:
My finishing thought was to be, the Bill introducers are really wanting just one thing: the legalization of breaking into a community and disrupting it beyond any and all repair. They want to authorize anyone to walk into your home (or community center) and pee all over the carpets, to the point where you'll leave of your own accord, because not even Serv-Pro will be able to get rid of the odiferous results.
The only law I'd like to see is one where if a Congress-critter proposes a law that is obviously repugnant to the Constitution, they are immediately expelled. And their State/District does not get to replace them until the next election. That last is meant to put a damper on replacing one asshat with another right away. Let them ponder for awhile their own stupidity in electing an asshat in the first place, and what it cost them (their voice in Congress).
On the post: Community Broadband Dominates List Of Fastest US ISPs
Re: Re:
Depends on how much Mary Jane was in the cookie dough, doesn't it?
On the post: It Can Always Get Dumber: Trump Sues Facebook, Twitter & YouTube, Claiming His Own Government Violated The Constitution
Re: Re: Snarter
Hell, even if the test doesn't fuck, it's still gonna embarrass the fuck out of you!
On the post: Judge Blocks FBI From Moving Forward With Forfeitures Of Property Seized In US Private Vaults Raid
Re: Re: Re: Re: That didn't take long
Thanks!
I've been able to write upside down for some time, but got out of the habit. I admit, doing a strikethrough with Unicode just never occurred to me.
On the post: Judge Blocks FBI From Moving Forward With Forfeitures Of Property Seized In US Private Vaults Raid
Re: Re: That didn't take long
(off topic)
OK, how did you get those strike-through's to show up?
On the post: Facebook Is Banning Anyone Charged With Participating In Capitol Hill Insurrection
Re:
We have a word for this in the English language - ostracize. That's what Facebook is doing, practicing ostracizism. It's simply a matter of freedom to associate with a given person/group, or to not associate with them. Whether they are 'merely' charged, or found guilty should make no difference in how Fb makes their "associative" decisions. (Although I agree, one might well call them biased, and that may be well deserved. But is bias an ethics issue? Please Gawd, don't let the current crop of mouth-breathers get ahold of that idea, or I'll be long dead before that issue is resolved.)
Let me put it this way: Just because I don't wish to associate with Joe Flag-waver, how/why should anyone get upset with me and call me unethical? Now imagine that Joe was one of the insurrectionists.....
On the post: Facebook Is Banning Anyone Charged With Participating In Capitol Hill Insurrection
Re:
Once again, Stephen exhibits a Zen that can be appreciated only by the adults in the room.
And yes, he did a double-entendre there, I invite you to stare at it a moment longer....
On the post: Facebook Is Banning Anyone Charged With Participating In Capitol Hill Insurrection
Re
You dare to use the words Facebook and ethics in the same sentence? That's gotta be a mighty big pair of cohones you're carrying around there, me bucko.
If you're gonna go down that road, let me remind you that Facebook is big only because Zuckerberg didn't just admit, but openly bragged that he had no qualms about selling everybody's personal data to the highest bidder, come one, come all. And over and over, again and again. And that's Zuck's epitome of ethical behavior, it only gets worse from there. Sorta makes "kick 'em off" decisions kinda tame, doncha think?
Besides, advertisers are starting to take note of where their ads are appearing, and right about now, appearing next to a #45'er is isn't exactly the good PR that they were paying for.
On the post: Facebook Is Banning Anyone Charged With Participating In Capitol Hill Insurrection
Re:
Damn, I felt the heat from that burn all the way over here!
On the post: Federal Watchdog Finds Lots Of Facial Recognition Use By Gov't Agencies, Very Little Internal Oversight
And what would make anyone think that any of these agencies will willingly "reset" back to where they will first assess these risks? Their position will be "Hey, we've done just fine so far without all this folderol, why should we worry about it now?" Or, "That's too expensive", always a favorite government bug-a-boo.
You'd think that it'd be of particular interest to a certain 28 members ....
On the post: Georgia Supreme Court Overturns Computer Crime Conviction For Man Who Copied Himself On Emails Sent To His Boss
I wonder why we don't see any quotes from Kinslow as to why took this action. My bet would be that he was watching to see if Cothran was going to bad-mouth him to others within the department, or possibly to a prospective new employer. The fact that Kinslow didn't initiate any lawsuit after several months tells me that Cothran didn't do so, and he clossed the email account.
On the post: 'Malicious' Actor Is Wiping The Data Of Countless Western Digital My Book Users
Re: Re: Re:
Dammit! OSDR, not ODSR. I wonder if that latest batch of meds are what they're all cracked up to be.....
On the post: Once Again: Content Moderation Often Mistakes Reporting On Bad Behavior With Celebrating Bad Behavior
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes me laugh...
According to my readings, Locke was the mild-mannered one who countered the "more strident" speech of Demosthenes. Both were very well reasoned, but Demosthenes seemed to go for the "shout 'em down" approach.
Koby is hoping to keep hammering at us, and that we'll eventually give up out of sheer frustration. Were I him, I wouldn't take much of that to the bank. ;)
On the post: 'Malicious' Actor Is Wiping The Data Of Countless Western Digital My Book Users
Re: Re:
Oh, you're speaking of ODSR - Off-Site Data Retention.
Certainly for a business, the previous quarter's Master and G,F,S devices should be stored off-site, for a period of at least one year. For individuals, value of the data is a judgement call. My judgement has one value: how do I explain to the wife that I lost all of our kids pictures and grandkids videos, let alone our home business's records. And that's before I consider my personal media collection.... But YMMV.
On the post: Creating State Action Via Antitrust Law And Making The People Who've Been Wrong About The Constitutionality Of Content Moderation Suddenly Right
Re: Wrong?
Assumes facts not in evidence, and easily proven otherwise.
I can still go downtown and sit in any of a dozen public squares (within blocks of each other), and either listen to idiots like you make fools of themselves, or if I'm feeling particularly peckish, I can can also stand up and prove to the world that I am also a fool.
That poses a very poignant question - if Facebook is truly the 800 lb gorilla that some make it out to be, then why did #45 insist on using Twitter as his main sewage conduit, instead of Facebook? Moral of the story: if more than one reasonably healthy entity exists in a market sector, then by definition, neither of them is a monopoly.
On the post: Once Again: Content Moderation Often Mistakes Reporting On Bad Behavior With Celebrating Bad Behavior
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes me laugh...
That's pretty large of you, giving him that undeserved benefit of the doubt.
In point of fact, Koby has always been capable of rational thought, he's just being obstinate for his own personal shits and grins. Personally, I consider him to be our token Demosthenes, going up against a collective Locke. And failing at it as we should expect. But he keeps coming back, so either he has a damnably thick skin, an even thicker skull, or he's really a high-bandwidth individual on par with any other malicious genius you might encounter in this wide, wide world. (You can pick any two, but not all three.)
On the post: Once Again: Content Moderation Often Mistakes Reporting On Bad Behavior With Celebrating Bad Behavior
Ouch! That my my head explode. I'd've rather that the headline read:
Much less time to parse and understand that latter iteration, doncha think?
On the post: Court Tosses Both FTC And States' Antitrust Cases Against Facebook; You Gotta Have More Than 'Big Facebook Bad'
Re: Re: 'It's obvious! ... so long as you already agree with me.
Ya know, Trump didn't lie about one thing - he claimed for months before the election that there would be fraud, and wouldn't you know it, there's been fraud aplenty since November 3rd. Giuliani is only the first to suffer the fate of a fraudster, and he won't be the last, mark my words.
On the post: Court Tosses Both FTC And States' Antitrust Cases Against Facebook; You Gotta Have More Than 'Big Facebook Bad'
Re: 'It's obvious! ... so long as you already agree with me.'
Now I wonder..... You wouldn't perchance be thinking of Big Telecom, would you?
On the post: 'Malicious' Actor Is Wiping The Data Of Countless Western Digital My Book Users
Re: #1
As to 3 copies, let me amplify thusly:
Just about the first thing a PFY learns from the BOFH - Grandfather, Father, & Son. Not three copies of one thing, but three generations of copies of everything. Which means, three separate devices, rotating between them each backup period. For most users, once a week is probably enough. Highly critical data, once a day/night. I've even seen one case where it was twice daily! Applying that same scheme to differential backups (with a master copy) is also an acceptable practice.
I'm not so paranoid as to disconnect my laptop from the web when backing up, but I do remove the current generation device whenever I'm not backing up - I've made mistakes and set myself back (and wasted time recovering stuff) more than once, I don't need internet clowns to help me on that score.
And if you attach a really high value to your data, optical media every so often is also de rigueur. Spinning rust can surprise you in an entirely unacceptable manner, trust me on that one.
On the post: Creating State Action Via Antitrust Law And Making The People Who've Been Wrong About The Constitutionality Of Content Moderation Suddenly Right
Re: s
In my post above, I accidentally hit enter instead of preview, so the following got cut off:
My finishing thought was to be, the Bill introducers are really wanting just one thing: the legalization of breaking into a community and disrupting it beyond any and all repair. They want to authorize anyone to walk into your home (or community center) and pee all over the carpets, to the point where you'll leave of your own accord, because not even Serv-Pro will be able to get rid of the odiferous results.
The only law I'd like to see is one where if a Congress-critter proposes a law that is obviously repugnant to the Constitution, they are immediately expelled. And their State/District does not get to replace them until the next election. That last is meant to put a damper on replacing one asshat with another right away. Let them ponder for awhile their own stupidity in electing an asshat in the first place, and what it cost them (their voice in Congress).
Next >>