I'm talking about the nasty stuff, not the innocent kid-in-the-tub-type photos that get mislabeled.
Sexual predators prey; they get off on wielding power over their victims. I therefore find it hard to believe that videos or images alone would satisfy that desire.
Eh, I'd be looking at the likelihood of further harm to an innocent party.
RE: the motorist rushing someone to hospital, surely to goodness that would come up in the report.
The public need to step up to the plate, too, voting with their money for the way forward -- deny some evil creep the publicity he craves or get his name out for ogling purposes later on. While I'm on the subject, the current spate of true crime TV, which seems to glorify killers, etc., by referring to their nicknames is just sickening. So I voted with my eyeballs by looking at other things. Unfortunately, where there is a market for this kind of thing it will proliferate.
Agreed. Now look to a future in which people who are more open about the daft things they did when they were younger are more likely to get the best responses than those who seem to be too good to be true.
Not really. Eye-catching headlines and dramatic images sell copies, it's as simple as that. These days it's clickbait. More speech, as I've pointed out before, is only as valuable as the volume compared to the initial speech.
As I stated earlier, where someone can get a court order, or sufficiently make the case, an interstitial can be overlaid on the damaging article with the retraction or update added. That way, selective clicking doesn't damn an innocent person.
I get where you're coming from, SirWired. What about a note of some kind, perhaps an interstitial, that comes up when the link is clicked, that states that the person was exonerated?
This is why I don't like the idea of publishing the name of the accused: the "innocent till proven guilty" principle goes flying out the window the minute the mugshot appears in the media. If you look guilty, chances are you'll be found guilty in the court of public opinion, if not by an actual court.
Agreed. Everyone requires a second chance sooner or later (can we PLEASE stop pretending that "requires" = "deserves"?); if you take that away from someone just because you don't like them, what happens when you need it? Not a world I want to live in.
Besides, it gives hope to others in similar situations to see how other people overcame a dodgy past. Isn't it better to be an inspiration and a Good Example than a jerk with a lot of skeletons in the ol' closet?
I've also argued that it's possible to make lemonade out of situations where you've fouled up so completely it's hard to see a way back to where you were before. Basically, explain what you've learned and show how you've moved on. I've had to, given the crap I've had flung at me in the last few years.
What I'm saying is, you don't have to get stuff disappeared from the internet to improve your reputation, you have to demonstrate what kind of person you are NOW as opposed to the person you were THEN.
We all do stupid things sooner or later. Anyone who can't accept that truth ought to take a look in the mirror.
1) the picture can't be shared around any more
2) protecting the victim from future embarrassment
Consider the adult entertainment world, if you will; are you satisfied with your existing collection / sites, etc., or are you always on the lookout for more interesting fare / new faces (as it were)? Don't you find that your usual haunts get a bit old after a while, and you want to see something new? That attitude is not confined to the adult stuff.
Re: Re: Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged
They exist in a deep state of denial in which the depths yet to be plumbed have no bottom. Trump could invite Taleban leaders to Camp David near the eve of the 9/11 anniversary and his zealot supporters would say he's doing it for peace, so that's okay.
Wallace went all racist nutjob to win votes; he didn't actually believe it, and apologised for it later. Doesn't make any of that okay, but let's get the rest of the story out there.
Eh, we use the term "people with learning difficulties" here in the UK. Works for me.
As for "wish to be called," there's little truth in that. What actually happens is some Ivy League scholars decide what the new politically correct term is and we're all expected to go along with it without question. If you're not sure how people actually wish to be described, it's perfectly reasonable to ask them (or in the case of people less able to speak for themselves, their carers or advocates). The arrant paternalism of the PC brigade annoys me no end. Let's not pretend they actually consult anybody on the receiving end of nomenclature choices -- per people I have actually spoken to (ethnic minority folks), they don't. And they're bemused at the idea that they find Christmas, etc., offensive since many of them celebrate it themselves. Well, the people I spoke to do. /End rant.
On the post: Chuck Yeager Sues Airbus For Mentioning That Chuck Yeager Broke The Sound Barrier
Re:
That's every newspaper ever screwed, right there. Every history book, every school...
On the post: Chuck Yeager Sues Airbus For Mentioning That Chuck Yeager Broke The Sound Barrier
Re:
Yeah, but what I'm seeing here is even our heroes can be jerks.
On the post: Should The Media Voluntarily Embrace A 'Right To Be Forgotten'?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Precisely. He can either admit it, apologise, and move on or get really defensive about it. His response to the coverage reveals his character.
It seems he meant no harm at the time and didn't consider that his actions may have been offensive.
On the post: Should The Media Voluntarily Embrace A 'Right To Be Forgotten'?
Re: Re: Re: Of course it's complicated
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. :)
On the post: Tech Companies Are Leading The Fight Against Child Porn While The FBI And DOJ Complain About Encryption Helping Child Abusers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Child porn Is a overblown issue
I'm talking about the nasty stuff, not the innocent kid-in-the-tub-type photos that get mislabeled.
Sexual predators prey; they get off on wielding power over their victims. I therefore find it hard to believe that videos or images alone would satisfy that desire.
On the post: Should The Media Voluntarily Embrace A 'Right To Be Forgotten'?
Re:
Eh, I'd be looking at the likelihood of further harm to an innocent party.
RE: the motorist rushing someone to hospital, surely to goodness that would come up in the report.
The public need to step up to the plate, too, voting with their money for the way forward -- deny some evil creep the publicity he craves or get his name out for ogling purposes later on. While I'm on the subject, the current spate of true crime TV, which seems to glorify killers, etc., by referring to their nicknames is just sickening. So I voted with my eyeballs by looking at other things. Unfortunately, where there is a market for this kind of thing it will proliferate.
On the post: Should The Media Voluntarily Embrace A 'Right To Be Forgotten'?
Re: Re:
^This. I prefer to deal with honest people. I expect most people do.
On the post: Should The Media Voluntarily Embrace A 'Right To Be Forgotten'?
Re: Re:
Agreed. Now look to a future in which people who are more open about the daft things they did when they were younger are more likely to get the best responses than those who seem to be too good to be true.
On the post: Should The Media Voluntarily Embrace A 'Right To Be Forgotten'?
Re: It's complicated
Not really. Eye-catching headlines and dramatic images sell copies, it's as simple as that. These days it's clickbait. More speech, as I've pointed out before, is only as valuable as the volume compared to the initial speech.
As I stated earlier, where someone can get a court order, or sufficiently make the case, an interstitial can be overlaid on the damaging article with the retraction or update added. That way, selective clicking doesn't damn an innocent person.
On the post: Should The Media Voluntarily Embrace A 'Right To Be Forgotten'?
Re: Of course it's complicated
I get where you're coming from, SirWired. What about a note of some kind, perhaps an interstitial, that comes up when the link is clicked, that states that the person was exonerated?
This is why I don't like the idea of publishing the name of the accused: the "innocent till proven guilty" principle goes flying out the window the minute the mugshot appears in the media. If you look guilty, chances are you'll be found guilty in the court of public opinion, if not by an actual court.
On the post: Should The Media Voluntarily Embrace A 'Right To Be Forgotten'?
Re:
Agreed. Everyone requires a second chance sooner or later (can we PLEASE stop pretending that "requires" = "deserves"?); if you take that away from someone just because you don't like them, what happens when you need it? Not a world I want to live in.
Besides, it gives hope to others in similar situations to see how other people overcame a dodgy past. Isn't it better to be an inspiration and a Good Example than a jerk with a lot of skeletons in the ol' closet?
On the post: Should The Media Voluntarily Embrace A 'Right To Be Forgotten'?
Compelling Reasons
I repeat my comment of 2016: we all do stupid things, only some of us get caught.
I've also argued that it's possible to make lemonade out of situations where you've fouled up so completely it's hard to see a way back to where you were before. Basically, explain what you've learned and show how you've moved on. I've had to, given the crap I've had flung at me in the last few years.
What I'm saying is, you don't have to get stuff disappeared from the internet to improve your reputation, you have to demonstrate what kind of person you are NOW as opposed to the person you were THEN.
We all do stupid things sooner or later. Anyone who can't accept that truth ought to take a look in the mirror.
On the post: Tech Companies Are Leading The Fight Against Child Porn While The FBI And DOJ Complain About Encryption Helping Child Abusers
Re: If law enforcement et al really cared about child abuse
Perverse incentives; are they being paid for "results" or for actually upholding the law?
On the post: Tech Companies Are Leading The Fight Against Child Porn While The FBI And DOJ Complain About Encryption Helping Child Abusers
Re: Re: Child porn Is a overblown issue
Taking down pictures serves two purposes:
1) the picture can't be shared around any more
2) protecting the victim from future embarrassment
Consider the adult entertainment world, if you will; are you satisfied with your existing collection / sites, etc., or are you always on the lookout for more interesting fare / new faces (as it were)? Don't you find that your usual haunts get a bit old after a while, and you want to see something new? That attitude is not confined to the adult stuff.
On the post: California Senate Passes Statewide Ban On Facial Recognition Tech Use By Law Enforcement
Re:
Creepy. Please can you rely with a link to this?
On the post: California Senate Passes Statewide Ban On Facial Recognition Tech Use By Law Enforcement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words [puts on sunglasses] surveillance was crowdsourced.
On the post: Buried Whistleblower Report Apparently Involves President Trump's Conversations With A Foreign Leader
Re: Re: Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged
They exist in a deep state of denial in which the depths yet to be plumbed have no bottom. Trump could invite Taleban leaders to Camp David near the eve of the 9/11 anniversary and his zealot supporters would say he's doing it for peace, so that's okay.
Wait... at least one of them said that to me.
Per Rick Wilson, there is no bottom. Yuck!
On the post: Appeals Court Refuses To Grant Immunity To Sheriff Who Engaged In Extortion To Go After A Whistleblower
Re: Re:
Wallace went all racist nutjob to win votes; he didn't actually believe it, and apologised for it later. Doesn't make any of that okay, but let's get the rest of the story out there.
On the post: Senator Hawley Responds To Techdirt With A Bunch Of Nonsense And Lies About His Own Bill That He Doesn't Seem To Understand
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Eh, we use the term "people with learning difficulties" here in the UK. Works for me.
As for "wish to be called," there's little truth in that. What actually happens is some Ivy League scholars decide what the new politically correct term is and we're all expected to go along with it without question. If you're not sure how people actually wish to be described, it's perfectly reasonable to ask them (or in the case of people less able to speak for themselves, their carers or advocates). The arrant paternalism of the PC brigade annoys me no end. Let's not pretend they actually consult anybody on the receiving end of nomenclature choices -- per people I have actually spoken to (ethnic minority folks), they don't. And they're bemused at the idea that they find Christmas, etc., offensive since many of them celebrate it themselves. Well, the people I spoke to do. /End rant.
On the post: Senator Hawley Responds To Techdirt With A Bunch Of Nonsense And Lies About His Own Bill That He Doesn't Seem To Understand
How is this guy in a position of power
How is this guy in a position of power?
He's Republican in Missouri. 'Nuff said.
Next >>