Great read, very insightful on the golden age that did not exist for the internet, which I think says so much about the internet especially today with social media.
I found this article extremely interesting, particularly when one user said she felt she became a republican within the game through her desire to continuously grow her city.
I was wondering if that was the decision. it is well known that apple products should not constantly stayed plugged in and I think putting the charging cable in this location allowed for the battery on the mouse to stay consistent over time.
If it'd been on the edge I'd have probably used it plugged in all the time, because I've been trained by years and years of shitty battery-powered peripherals to plug them in any time I possibly can. Turns out it's totally fine and the battery lasts ~forever, and since I couldn't plug it in I didn't stress about it.
This is honestly frustrating to see whenever massive corporations are responsible for creating a deal in which users will be given away data in order to receive a small compensation. Data, especially personal data should not be a means in which anyone can make any sort of financial compensation from. personal data is stolen every day and used against individuals - and by creating a means in which more people will give you their data, the larger target you have from individuals who are seeking to steal others data.
It's almost like a perfect storm. I feel like many of these issues are worsened by economic conditions in America or poor education. You have people hurting for money who don't realize what they're giving away. Due to this they are vulnerable to being exploited by powerful entities like Amazon.
I think this also contributes to a lot of what we see on the web or on mobile. You have multitudes of free apps that suck and sell your data and blast you with ads but they're free. You have multitudes of free online "news" sources that are basically billionaire backed propaganda but they're free. Good sources usually cost money- better to get your news from Facebook.
Free wins almost every time. I don't care if people are opting into this, Amazon knows exactly what they're doing. They're benefiting hugely from the uneducated and poor. The thing is I'm not sure there is anything that can be done. It's a symptom of poor education and economic factors.
I am A-OK with this. I don't want random companies using my data for whatever nefarious purpose they want, silently, without my consent. However, given a price, a user (of the data), and a choice, works for me.
On the other hand you could sell them pretty useless data for $10. You only need to make one purchase to get the money.
In some ways this seems like an error on Amazons part. They are telling people this data is worth $10, when most people think its worthless. How long before enough people cotton on and these companies start having to pay rates that reflect the actual value of the data.
Yeah, I thought this was a popular idea around here: ”We should have to explicitly opt-in to data collection, and when we do we should be compensated for our data!” Then Amazon actually does it and people are angry?
If anything, this is a great move in the right direction for both privacy and fair compensation: It’s opt-in (you’re opted out by default), AND you get monetary compensation!
What more could you want? More money? Yeah, but that could actually start to happen if a competitive market of such things grew (though I doubt that will happen so long as it’s legal to collect data without compensation or permission; for that we probably need regulation).
Regardless, $10 is far better than the $0 from others who take (and sell) your data without even asking first.
IMO the creepy and dangerous privacy violations come from the always-on tracking systems pervasive throughout the web from Google, Facebook, and others. With those, not only are they on by default without your permission, but you can’t opt out, and you receive no compensation!
Google actually does allow significant opting out, including for Google Analytics.
I do have problems with their defaults in many of these areas (in my main Google account I have disabled much of the tracking) and also with how certain features (e.g. Google Assistant) tie more of the functionality than necessary to extra permissions with dark pattern nags to grant them all. But the opt-outs are generally there.
(Disclosure: I used to work for Google, but I haven't in over 4 years, and I'm not speaking for them here.)
You may be right that Google and others technically offer some tracking opt-out capability (mostly because they were required to by GDPR), but it doesn’t seem to work, because I still regularly receive targeted ads (relating to recent web activity):
... Despite having painstakingly turned off every available tracking switch from every service I’ve ever signed up to.
... Despite no longer using any services from Google, Facebook, and many others (except when I must via a link from someone else).
... Despite using privacy oriented browsers with all privacy features turned on.
There are so many problems with the current “opt out” model:
1. They do not make it easy to find all these switches. (And it seems intentional, though I can’t prove it.) In addition to there being no global “off” switch, they nest countless switches behind deep hierarchical navigation graphs, where it is extremely difficult for a human to reach every node without missing some.
2. Even when you find the switch, it’s not always clear which choice is the “most off” position, and some switches do not have a “fully off” position.
3. Many switches use extortion to convince you to keep them on: For example, sometimes you’ll be shut entirely out of a service for turning off a tracking switch with dubious explanations as to why they can’t operate the service without it.
4. Many switches will automatically and silently turn back on if you so much as visit the wrong link to their service. Sometimes this happens silently, and sometimes it happens via confusing “dark pattern” prompts.
5. Google isn’t the only one. You have to repeat this whole process for every other service you use (if they even have the switches available).
6. Despite all this, you’ll still be tracked by trackers that don’t need or want you to have an account with them.
The last item can perhaps be summed up by the fact that I still get very targeted ads for things I’ve been searching for on DuckDuckGo even despite all these efforts. Clearly trackers are still embedded into various endpoint web pages and are figuring out what I’m doing despite it all.
It’s an interesting experiment to try yourself: try to actually not be tracked via a regular or even fairly privacy oriented browser.
As far as I can tell, aside from getting into something like Tor, it really can’t be done: If companies can track you, they will. And they can. So they do.
I'd only support what Amazon is doing if the converse were true: by choosing not to be paid, I'm guaranteed that I won't be tracked. That does not seem to be the case here:
"Amazon is also fine paying nothing for the data: New customers only get the $10 credit if they install the assistant from a particular landing page ..."
Let me clarify - I think massive companies should not have the ability to sell data, i think data has already taken such a massive role on our lives that it is bound to lead to some major incident.
Thanks for this clarification. My original read on your comment was "an individual should not be able to sell their data" which is clearly well within their rights. I wouldn't do it for $10, but if someone offered me enough to retire on they could probably have it. :)
I'm all for freedom of speech even if that speech includes ideas I vehemently disagree with (even hate speech). However, when speech incites physical violence and can be viewed as a legitimate threat, then it needs to be shut down.
Parents of children who were lost during Sandy Hook received physical threats and death threats because of Jones' comments. That's the line where free speech should be censored.
so then those people should be banned. A public individual cannot be held responsible for the actions of their followers unless they called for those actions to be taken.
>>A public individual cannot be held responsible for the actions of their followers
Which is why politics is such a dangerous minefield to traverse. Sure you are never going to have absolute of anything, but certain ideologies are inherently violent in nature. And sooner or later some lunatic will do bad things in your name.
Free speech only means you are allowed to say things, it doesn't mean you get immunity from the consequences of your speech.
I'd have to see the video myself - I'll probably look it up later in order to have an informed opinion. Because it could be meant in many ways, and my suspicion is that it was intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally calling for his followers to shoot up some offices.
> Because it could be meant in many ways, and my suspicion is that it was intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally calling for his followers to shoot up some offices
Welcome to the world of "plausible deniability". Deliberately speaking in a way that lets you defend yourself "oh I was only meaning metaphorically!" or "I was just joking!", where you intend a subset of your listeners to understand that you are speaking literally, is a common tactic. It's somewhat akin to the Motte and Bailey defense: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word...
that's a huge presumption on your part. What you're essentially saying is that you know what the internal motivation of Alex Jones is, and that his metaphor is definitely what he actually believes. I don't think even he knows what his internal motivation is, and to suggest that you know he's secretly harbouring these murderous thoughts is ridiculous.
plausible deniability is clear in cases where someone makes an actual argument for something then pulls the "haha I was only trolling" argument, but to say for example to be ready for battle, in the context of politics, should not be immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes. People use references to war, battle, fighting and so on all the time in the context of political conflict.
> should not be immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes
Is that what happened? I guess I'm behind on the news; I had heard his twitter account got suspended, I didn't realize he was lynched!
Or is that just hyperbole? Why do you feel the need to resort to hyperbole in this situation, instead of discussing what actually happened?
I find interesting the transformations you use in your language—"get your battle rifles ready" becomes "be prepared", but "twitter account suspended for a week" becomes "tying the lynching ropes".
[this was edited, btw, since you responded while I was editing it]
That's just my poor writing skills - I meant that someone calling for political battle may not actually be inciting lynching or shooting the media or whatever, but speaking in metaphor.
Its not even a "plausible deniability." Anyone who listens to Jones knows he speaks over over the top and is hyperbolic. Yes "Battle rifles" can be taken as literally, however in the article they state against the media without quoting the full video/statement. It's hard to take it literally that people will get their battle rifles and attack the media (an object). The media isn't a person so its is reaching.
what isn't provided in the article is the actual video that provides context. He is making the statement 'we' are under attack. The Battle rifle is being used in the context of defending yourself from these attacks.
In my opinion they are reaching here even in their own clip taken from Alex's periscope video. I see it as him saying 'we' need to be ready. Earlier in the clip he says the time is now to act but says economically, judiciously legally and criminally. I assume given the others he mentioned criminally meaning press charges on those who attack.
I defiantly urge people to seek out the actual video or at the very least the clip above before instantly going to the 'He deserves to be banned.
I hate that I have to say this but I'm not a fan of Alex Jones. I feel like I as well as many others have to say that (not just for this topic) otherwise its looked at as we're just followers and will defend him no matter what.
I agree that it is and I'm not arguing it isn't made up of people. It isn't the only thing it is made up of though. Its also made up of news coverage, editorial, opinions, bias, and agendas/direction as some examples. I'm sure there are more examples makes up media but these are just some I can think of. These things of course are created by people but there is a difference between attacking the people and attacking a platform/object or ideas. I can't speak for him (nor would I want to), but I think that is the question of what he means. It looks like Twitter decided it was inciting violence toward people and/or violated their rules and suspended him.
> I'm not arguing it isn't made up of people. It isn't the only thing it is made up of though. Its also made up of news coverage, editorial, opinions, bias, and agendas/direction as some examples.
Sure, but those are things that can't be attacked with guns. So when Jones talks about attacking them with guns, it's natural to understand it as attacking those parts which can be attacked with guns—the people, and the buildings (which contain people). And those parts have been attacked by guns recently.
Correct, they can't be attacked with literal guns, which means it could be a figure of speech. Could being the keyword since he is the only one who could settle that debate.
Lets assume it wasn't a figure of speech. I'm with you in that I don't condone if he calling for physical attacks on people be it with a gun or some other physical means. I don't condone or agree with that in general regardless of what side its on.
From the article:
"calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media and others,"
battle rifle is in part taken out of context of what he said in the video and is editorialized to an extent to paint it in a way that could be construed as him calling to attack.
Taken out of the video with a little more context:
"Because they're coming...This is it... So people need to have battle rifles ready at their bedsides..."
https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808
I didn't put everything in that quote, but linked the video where I listen to it from so you can hear it in whole. If you take it in those terms he isn't calling for attacks or acts of violence, but is saying they are coming for you and you need to be ready to defend yourself. You can argue that defending yourself could become violent, but I see defense a little different then the aggressor.
When people say "I'm all for freedom of speech, but..." it means they aren't actually for freedom of speech at all. In your case it seems you are willing to curtail a broadcaster's speech because of your arbitrary rule that some of that person's followers may have threatened violence or sent death threats. Alex Jones has indulged in conspiracy theories, but as far as I know he has not called for violence or anyone's death. If we apply your rule, then how do we deal with the many death threats against President Trump by ordinary people and even celebrities. Are we to ban their preferred newspapers, TV and YouTube channels too? After all, where could they have got such an idea? If your standard was applied consistently then then there would be no media.
>In your case it seems you are willing to curtail a broadcaster's speech because of your arbitrary rule that some of that person's followers may have threatened violence or sent death threats.
To be fair, that's not an "arbitrary rule" that kylesellas just made up. Censorship of speech which threatens or advocates violence is commonly accepted as a limitation to free speech necessary for maintaining civil society, and the premise is codified in law throughout the world.
>If your standard was applied consistently then then there would be no media.
The fact that the standard exists and that media also exists would imply that your definition of 'consistent application' isn't relevant.
There is no legal standard by which a broadcaster who doesn't incite violence can be held accountable by their followers who commit or threaten violence.
Brandenburg v. Ohio and Dennis v. United States provide a pretty clear legal standard for this:
"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
Twitter, of course, is not the State and can do what they want.
But if the State censored or in someway punished Jones, they would have to demonstrate that his speech constituted "inciting" "imminent" "lawless action." And there have been several cases since which have focused mostly on the "imminent" part.
The ones who said "All Men Are Created Equal", but really just meant landowning white males? And who explicitly defined the worth of a slave to be 3/5 of a non-slave?
You are mistating the 3/5 compromise, which does not define the worth of a slave as 3/5 of a non-slave. Your version makes it sound as if it would be better if dishes were fully counted for apportionment, when that would be worse.
The compromise gives additional representation to the free citizens of a slave state equal based on 3/5 of the number of slaves, but if voting power is worth, then it is saying that worth of those who enslave is enhanced by the number enslaved. The slaves themselves, though, are not recognized having any worth.
The only sense in which the 3/5 compromise makes a slave worth 3/5 of a non-slave is that it makes the marginal increase in voting power a free citizen derived from an additional slave in the state 3/5 of what they receive from a disenfranchised non-slave. (IOW, Jim Crow and it's modern successors are 67% more politically effective for the disenfranchisers per disenfranchised person than actual slavery under the 3/5 compromise.)
I've had this exact problem especially on nights before important or stessful events the next morning such as job interviews.
At first, the anxiety of the interview is what keeps me up. Then, as it gets later and I check the clock, I get stressed about the lack of sleep I'll have the next day.
Sometimes getting up, going to another room and getting a glass of water before returning to bed and resetting the process has helped.
