REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Twitter Will Monitor Users Behavior 'Off Platform'

POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 02:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 408
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, November 23, 2017 7:36 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


How they intend to monitor you is anybody's guess.



Abusive Behavior

We believe in freedom of expression and open dialogue, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we prohibit behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice.



Context matters when evaluating for abusive behavior and determining appropriate enforcement actions. Factors we may take into consideration include, but are not limited to whether:

the behavior is targeted at an individual or group of people;
the report has been filed by the target of the abuse or a bystander;
the behavior is newsworthy and in the legitimate public interest.



Violence: You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people. This includes, but is not limited to, threatening or promoting terrorism.



You also may not affiliate with organizations that - whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform - use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 23, 2017 7:57 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I'm pretty sure just mentioning that you listen to somebody like Jordan Peterson could get you labeled Alt-Right and kicked off of Twitter.


Click here to listen to a recording of a disciplinary meeting between Lindsay Shepherd and Wilfrid Laurier University professors.

https://soundcloud.com/tristin-john-hopper/recording-of-meeting-betwee
n-lindsay-shepherd-and-wilfrid-laurier-university-professors


Smart woman.


My advice to anybody, anywhere, is whenever you're having a meeting with any SJW types, or even HR of the company you work for, for any reason, is to record the conversation.

You can always delete it after the fact if you don't need it, but you might end up wishing you had it if you didn't.

Lindsay Shepherd has since received apologies from the questioners in this audio as well as higher-ups from Wilfrid Laurier University.

What do you think the chances of that would have been had she not made this audio public?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 23, 2017 8:27 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.




alternate source




HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 23, 2017 8:33 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I find Twitter's policy dangerously intrusive and heavy-handed. My first question is 'why do they presume they have the right to track user's offline associations?'. My second question is 'and how do they intend to do that?'.




HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 23, 2017 10:00 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I find Twitter's policy dangerously intrusive and heavy-handed. My first question is 'why do they presume they have the right to track user's offline associations?'. My second question is 'and how do they intend to do that?'.



I'd like to think that it's a bit more innocuous than it sounds, but these days, who knows?

I'm an old school guy who hasn't had even a flip phone for the last 4 years and has a very minimal presence on social media. My first question would be "Oh yeah? And just how the hell do you propose to monitor my real life activities?".

But we live in a much different world online today than we used to, and the internet seems to get a little smaller with each passing day. They're doing their best to tie your email to your cell phone and slowly integrate your email account with many various social media platforms, even if you use a different username, and only God and the lawyers know what exactly you're saying "I Agree" to when you mindlessly click the button.

I doubt very much that anybody would have guys in trench coats peeking at your activities from dark alleys even if they could afford it. Chances are that most people voluntarily say everything they "need to know" electronically.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 23, 2017 11:20 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Just the fact that they feel they have the right to monitor your non-platform associations is bad enough. Whatever happened to that famous US right that I always heard about during the Red Scare? The one that made us different from the USSR because we had 'freedom of association'?

But HOW do they propose to monitor your off-Twitter associations? Snoop on your email? Scan your hard drive for histories? Download your links from your computer? Search the inet for your username? Or for your computer?




HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 23, 2017 11:56 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Just the fact that they feel they have the right to monitor your non-platform associations is bad enough. Whatever happened to that famous US right that I always heard about during the Red Scare? The one that made us different from the USSR because we had 'freedom of association'?

But HOW do they propose to monitor your off-Twitter associations? Snoop on your email? Scan your hard drive for histories? Download your links from your computer? Search the inet for your username? Or for your computer?



I agree with all of that, but really, what can you do about it except don't use Twitter and agree to their terms?

HOW? I dunno... Probably one or all of the above you mentioned. Technologically speaking, it's all stuff that can pretty easily be done today. Legally speaking.... My guess is that anything they do would be protected under the fine print of the agreement anybody using these servers "signed" when they clicked on that annoying "I Agree" popup.

That's why I don't really think they're going to do much at all with it, at least at first anyway. Wouldn't want to let that cat out of the bag. It would be much more valuable to legally be able to make all of these associations on the sly for years than to alert the public to the activity taking place by outing a few big internet names in this fashion.

This type of stuff literally drove me nuts in my mid to late 20's. Back then, nobody believed me that this stuff was happening when I told them. Now that it's almost expected, nobody really seems to care all that much.

All I can do really is try to limit my online exposure. Although, not too much, mind.... I'll bet there's a government list for that somewhere too.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2017 6:32 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I find Twitter's policy dangerously intrusive and heavy-handed. My first question is 'why do they presume they have the right to track user's offline associations?'. My second question is 'and how do they intend to do that?'.



Twitter is a private company and users are bound to their user policies - simple. If you come into my place of business you stay or leave based on your behavior. Thankfully most people are decent folk.

Off platform? I believe you have answered your own question in a way. It would be impossible for them to monitor everything someone does off platform - way too many man hours and logistics for one and too many privacy issues for two. But if someone tweets that they met with X and discussed Y, that could be something Twitter wants to protect themselves from. There are a myriad of legally devastating pitfalls for any business that deals with the public, dangers that they would be unwise not to address before the fact. Sometimes you throw the net really wide to make sure you cover your @ss.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2017 1:24 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"It would be impossible for them to monitor everything someone does off platform"

The NSA can also share the information they've been gathering, like they do with the other three letter agencies and local law enforcement. Even though they're not supposed to have the information, gather it, or share it.

And there's also the issue of TARGETED enforcement. Where they're enabled to spend resources on specific individuals to keep them off the platform, because they've written themselves the right to intrude on anyone's privacy, as they see fit. So we have freedom of association for some, as determined by Twitter, but not for all.

And finally, I see you're A-OK with businesses writing laws, like 'NO BLACKS ALLOWED'. Because ... business. At a certain point, doesn't business writing and enforcing its own laws over private citizens in their private lives concern you?




HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2017 5:38 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:

And finally, I see you're A-OK with businesses writing laws, like 'NO BLACKS ALLOWED'. Because ... business. At a certain point, doesn't business writing and enforcing its own laws over private citizens in their private lives concern you?



I know you were talking to G when you asked this, and I'm going to reply by first stating that I'm not at all happy about the way that Twitter worded this stuff, and it all sounds very Orwellian to me.

At the same time though, I have to say that it doesn't bother me at the moment because Twitter is something that is completely voluntary and I would say that a pretty large majority of Americans don't have an account there, even if they are aware of tweets by the President or big celebrities.

Again, I want to emphasize that I do not like the ideas presented here, but everybody clicks the "I Agree" button when they sign up for an account there, and I'm sure that whatever they are doing is within the law because of something buried in the reams of paper that you agree to when you use their service.


Rather than focusing your understandable dislike of these Twitter practices, I think we all need to do something to have our Government pass laws against the very common practice of companies writing up these novel-length contracts written in legalese that most people can't even read, and even more people don't ever bother to even try. They know full well that a majority of people don't, so they can get away with pretty much anything they want to put in there.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2017 6:18 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


South Park! ha ha ha ha .... !




HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2017 7:52 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


But anyway ... obviously private companies can't create their own laws without limit. That's why you no longer see signs saying "whites only".

I think this extremely heavy-handed behavior started with employer drug-testing back in the 80's. Aside from false positives, and environmental (contact) exposure, just because someone screens positive for detectable levels (detectable at the extraordinarily low levels of picograms/ dL) doesn't mean they're either currently using drugs, or impaired.

How COULD the employer determine if the employee is working impaired/ at reduced capacity, if not through drug testing? Well, through the unheard-of option called 'supervising'. And not only would that detect drug-impairment, but alcoholism, sleep apnea, insomnia, depression, and other medical, mental, and emotional factors that impair work performance.

Be that as it may - at the time Reagan was instituting DRGs in Medicare/ Medicaid, which severely limited government reimbursement per condition. It didn't matter how complicated the medical condition, you got so much for treating uncontrolled diabetes, and not a penny more. And that included medical testing. Going into DRGs, medical laboratories used to be 'profit center'.

So how to plug the financial hole left by DRGs? Along comes drug testing, to the rescue!

Very, very few people objected to the whole system of intrusive testing for individual actions OFF THE JOB, that was virtually unrelated to job performance.

But Twitter takes it to a whole new level. It aims at the very heart of democracy - freedom of association, and free speech, especially political speech.





HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2017 8:08 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Well first, let me say that South Park is one of the greatest shows ever made and seems to get better and more on point with current events every year. I love how they consistently do things like the gem above to inject ideas like this into the consciousness of the sheep through humor.



But back on topic....

You're right. Companies cannot create their own laws without limit (in theory). But... I'm sure that Twitter has a legal team larger than the Packers that put their user agreement out there and updates it from time to time, and they know how to take every single liberty they can without overstepping their bounds just by being able to say that you clicked "I Agree" when they do something you don't approve of after the fact.

As for drug testing, I'm in 100% agreement with you there as well. Not only is it a gross invasion of privacy for an employer to do this without having a valid reason to suspect you of drug or alcohol abuse, but when it comes to weed specifically it is a completely unfair practice. Somebody could drink enough to put themselves in a hospital and pass a drug test 2 days later. Somebody smokes weed once off the job though and depending on how fat they are that could still be in their system 6 weeks later. Even worse is hair follicle testing which could test as far back as 6 months or more.

My personal thoughts on the employer/employee relationship is this. As long as I show up to work on time, sober, and I haven't caused an accident such that it would be suspected that I was impaired by my own indulgences on or before the job, then it's none of their fucking business what I do when I'm not on the clock. After I'm punched out, that becomes strictly a law enforcement issue.

But... the way things are today, if you want a job, you have to click that very same "I Agree" button, which means not only do you submit to a drug test, but a thorough criminal history check as well as a credit score check. Nobody is "forcing" you to click on that button, mind you, but unless you want to actively break the law and find a job working under the table for cash then you actually are FORCED to click it.

THAT is where I have a problem with the I AGREE button.


I don't like the practice of what Twitter is doing for the same reasons that you don't... especially knowing that one day doing without social media might be completely unavoidable as we move more into the Brave New World of technology. But as it stands right now, it's a completely voluntary activity... so I can't really argue too much against it even if I don't like it.


Like I said, we need somebody who is a BIG NAME with some real clout to start championing the cause to put an end to these contracts that everybody knows that nobody reads before they sign them.

Strike right at the heart of the issue, and a lot of the other problems will just fade away.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2017 8:23 PM

OONJERAH


I have a Facebook account that I don't use often.

I never opened one on Twitter, perhaps because Facebook was too sprawling
and amorphous for me. Maybe TPTB won't notice me.

A structured forum like this feels more useful.


... oooOO}{OOooo ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2017 10:59 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I think it's short-sighted to say - well ** I ** don't use Twitter so ** I ** don't care about the rights they give themselves because it doesn't affect ** me **.

If nothing else, there's such a thing as precedent. If the Twitter precedent stands, it'll be Twitter today and Facebook tomorrow. And after Facebook, maybe email. After all, you're using a private service provided by a business.





HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 24, 2017 11:13 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Sure it's short-sighted. That's the underlying theme of 1984, after all.

It's not that I don't care... quite the contrary actually. My current attitude is more out of self preservation than anything else.

My question is, what do you propose to do about it? I saw stuff like this going on all around in my mid 20's and like I mentioned before it literally was driving me insane. Nobody believed me about things for years, and now that most of the things I was saying were going on have been proven true, nobody really seems to give a shit enough to do anything about it.

All I can really do is worry about me. I never had a Twitter account. I stopped using Facebook and a cell phone 2-3 years ago. I don't drunk post online anymore. Beyond that, there's really nothing that I can do about it. I'm not going to worry about it if nobody else is going to. I'm not the "Alex Jones" you're looking for. I've got enough crap in my life that I'm trying to sort out now.



I've stated what I think the only solution to the problem is. I just don't even have a clue how to get that ball rolling, limited influence and power this completely un-extraordinary white male has.





I think the point you might be missing here is that none of this is new. This has been going on for a very long time and the fact that you're noticing Twitter literally getting away with something that isn't right doesn't mean that it began here.

This shit has been going on for at least the 15 or so years that I've noticed it, and given that 1984 was written 68 years ago, it can be assumed that it's been going on for at least that long as well.

I'd write a book about it, but even if it were any good all people would do is shoot it down as a lesser 1984 rip-off and the meaning would generally be lost. Maybe a few nutters like me would get it... but what good would that do anybody?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 25, 2017 12:31 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I'm just bemused, is all. Not at you, but at the other posters on the board who will insist 'they hate us for our freedoms'. Or worse, like GEEBERS, find reasons why it's OK. Meanwhile, 'our freedoms' are becoming a hollowed out, tissue thin facade.

Try arguing a line that isn't the mantra. You'll see how far 'freedom' goes here.




HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 25, 2017 1:48 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


lol... yeah. I don't really know what is worse though. Truly believing that this stuff is okay because currently the ones doing it are more like-minded to you than the ones currently being shut down, or outright advocating hate to the ones you don't agree with.

I've been called a lot of things since I've first posted here, and I admit that I deserve a lot of them, but I've always been right here with my feet on the ground, regardless of where the party lines of the powers that be have moved about. If anything, I'm quite a bit more empathetic and socially liberal than I was 10 or so years ago, but the core of me has been immobile since then.

It kind of amazes me how it seems that the entirety of the Republican and Democratic parties have completely switched sides when it comes to these types of things and hardly anybody notices it because they're so deep in their own echo chambers that they followed the leader across those lines and didn't even notice it.

Anybody I argue with today wouldn't know what I'm talking about, or wouldn't admit it if they did, but there are still a few here that I used to argue with a lot during the GWB years that would probably say so now that the tables have turned.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 25, 2017 6:53 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I'm just bemused, is all. Not at you, but at the other posters on the board who will insist 'they hate us for our freedoms'.



Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Or worse, like GEEBERS, find reasons why it's OK. Meanwhile, 'our freedoms' are becoming a hollowed out, tissue thin facade. Try arguing a line that isn't the mantra. You'll see how far 'freedom' goes here.



Kiki - as usual you can't make a point without fraud. And lately, it seems you can't help but be a flaming arsehole when doing so, putting words in people's mouths and then pointing and assigning phony guilt ("G hates blacks") and then posturing like you're doing it all for the good of mankind. I don't think you come here any more to have real discussions that might actually lead to greater understanding. Instead, you come here just to vent your self-loathing by pointing it at others.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 25, 2017 10:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

And finally, I see you're A-OK with businesses writing laws, like 'NO BLACKS ALLOWED'. Because ... business. At a certain point, doesn't business writing and enforcing its own laws over private citizens in their private lives concern you? - KIKI
The problem is that the Constitution only describes limits on the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT's behavior with regards to its citizens*, the Bill of Rights is not a guarantee of protection of your freedoms by --ALL-- entities ... not even the states which operate under the Federal Constitution. That's why slavery was allowed in the southern states, and Supreme Court Justices upheld its existence.

Only under extreme circumstances ... under duress, as it were ... does the Federal government impose limits on businesses and other institutions (like the Boy Scouts).

Part of the problems is that the Founding Fathers never envisioned the sprawling, monopolistic corporate structure that we have today. In THEIR day, corporations received their charters from each state, only existed for a limited time period (eg 20 years) and could only deal in ONE activity or ONE commodity.

They never envisioned media and communications empires (including the internet), they never envisioned that "corporations" would have been granted equal rights as citizens - without, of course, the same responsibilities and limits. So, for example, businesses have the right to cry "invasion of privacy" when whistleblower videos go public ... of animal abuse, or filthy restaurant kitchens, or assembly-line abuses, or hiring of illegal immigrants ... but they have the right to invade YOUR privacy at will, it seems.

It seems to me that one useful amendment would be to extend the Bill of Rights to include all entities, not including the various states which have their own constitutions.

* Not that the Federal government has done a bang-up job of respecting YOUR rights, either. Mass surveillance, star-chamber proceedings in which the President is judge jury and executioner are just two recent ways in which the Federal government has shredded its own Constitution.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 25, 2017 1:04 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Twitter is a private company and users are bound to their user policies - simple. If you come into my place of business you stay or leave based on your behavior.

This is you arguing for Twitter being able to make up its own rules. No?
Quote:

Off platform? I believe you have answered your own question in a way. It would be impossible for them to monitor everything someone does off platform - way too many man hours and logistics for one and too many privacy issues for two.
And now you're saying that despite the capability and stated intention to do so, they would NOT monitor offline behavior. No?

But your argument is SERIOUSLY flawed. Because they don't need to monitor EVERYTHING EVERYONE does to be a threat to freedom. All they need to do is focus on individuals and find ENOUGH and enforce their own policy. That's well within technical and budgetary means.

Your arguments for the status quo - as usual - are incomplete and misleading.

As for your extensive personal history of trolling - don't make me quote you, comrade troll.




HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 25, 2017 3:41 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I guess we're just going to turn this into another turd all over each other thread then?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 25, 2017 3:59 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I'm HOPING that G will come back and address my issues with his argument, with facts and logic of his own.

But I'm assuming he won't, because he never has in the past.




HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 25, 2017 4:31 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Yeah... well.....

That being said, I think Signy's post above was pretty spot on about the whole thing.

It really all boils down to "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission". That's what Twitter, and one would suspect, any major company is governed by these days. Those agreements cast a very wide net and allow them to do a lot of things they wouldn't normally be able to do without you clicking I AGREE, but they can't really just put anything in there obviously. (For example, they can't say that you agree to give us your first born son, or that we can turn you into a Human Centipad).

But where is the actual line? I don't know if anybody actually knows. This is kind of a new thing, and I'm sure like anything else the envelope is just being pushed as far as possible, one baby step at a time. If any of the companies get caught doing something outrageous, they'll feel the wrath of the public and the government will come down on them, but I'm sure there's a lot of questionable things in there that won't even come to light because when they're allowed to do stuff under the I AGREE blanket, they can do things on the sly without outing somebody or themselves for years.


Seriously..... Imagine ANY kid today growing up and trying to be a politician.

Can you imagine that shit show?

Thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of cell phone texts, tweets, facebook posts and other social media detailing what that person has said and who they were affiliated with under the microscope for the hypocritical public to judge?

Whoever held those cards in their hand could basically ensure whoever they wanted in office on any level would win, and pretty much ensures that they will play ball the entire time they're in office with vague threats of blackmail behind them.





No.... It's not being kicked off of Twitter that bothers me at this point, Kiki. It's being allowed to stay on and build a case against yourself for your entire life for those with power to exploit when and if they ever need to.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 25, 2017 4:41 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


That ship has sailed, my friend, with the NSA data collection center. And it doesn't even matter if there's nothing there. By piecing together suggestive bits of info out of context, they can make nothing look like something.

WHY DID YOU ORDER ONE POUND OF POTASSIUM NITRITE??? uh ... I was making corned beef and didn't want to use sodium and they only had the 1 lb USP size ???

Or, they can 'leak' non-existent 'facts' ad nauseam.




HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 25, 2017 5:55 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Well sure, but the NSA had to work for it.

Never before have we had a system in place where 10's or 100's of millions of people willingly put their thoughts on paper for the world to see.

99% of the time, nobody gives a shit what anybody else thinks. Social Media is really just a vanity project run amok. Most people would never have to worry about any of this if they're not going to run for office or maintain a high position at a corporation someday.

What's kind of sad is there could be somebody who really has some good things to say and good ideas to share that ends up getting a following and then information of stuff they posted 10 or 20 or more years ago gets leaked and basically destroys them. It wouldn't be that hard to do, and even if it were taken out of context the damage would be done, and the idea would die along with the person's reputation.

I have no desire to do anything of that nature in the future. It just so happens that one of the reasons is my previous behavior here and on other social media when I was drunk. I'd get murdered in the polls when that was inevitably brought up.

But it's not just about me... I've said personal stuff about people who I care about too, who at this point are just associations to some random semi-anonymous handle on a fireflyfans website. If I ever were to go public with anything, there's no doubt that things I've said could hurt other people too.

You can't put the shit back in the horse. Nobody can control that little space between your ears, at least not yet... But if you put it out there, even without your actual name attached, there's always somebody who can dig it up and put it all out there for everyone else to judge.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2017 12:26 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Never before have we had a system in place where 10's or 100's of millions of people willingly put their thoughts on paper for the world to see."

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3270149&itype=CMSID
https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/

But it's not just social media. Every credit card transaction, every car registration, every email, every time you're spotted with facial recognition software, every phone call ... if it's been captured or transmitted electronically, it's recorded, and stored.

And that's BECAUSE, as the argument goes, you are doing all that publicly. Therefore, you have no expectation of privacy, the same way police can search your trash once you set it out off your property.




HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2017 4:05 AM

OONJERAH


At my place, we put the trash into dumpsters & recycling into another one.

If the cops find something illegal in our trash, they won't know whose it is
until they run the fingerprints.

No doubt they know our trash is a waste of their time, since we are mostly
seniors in here.

We're never on the 5:00 news. :(


... oooOO}{OOooo ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2017 7:27 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Never before have we had a system in place where 10's or 100's of millions of people willingly put their thoughts on paper for the world to see."

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3270149&itype=CMSID
https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/

But it's not just social media. Every credit card transaction, every car registration, every email, every time you're spotted with facial recognition software, every phone call ... if it's been captured or transmitted electronically, it's recorded, and stored.

And that's BECAUSE, as the argument goes, you are doing all that publicly. Therefore, you have no expectation of privacy, the same way police can search your trash once you set it out off your property.




HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?


Sure. All of that is stuff that used to bother me. A lot.

I'm quite a bit less paranoid these days. Maybe it's because I'm not smoking weed on a regular basis. I dunno.

I absolutely hate sounding like the people in 1984, but I can't really worry about it because there's nothing I can do about it. About 10 years have passed since I used to drive myself nuts about this stuff for about a 5 year period, and life doesn't seem all that different. The only real difference is that most people know this stuff is going on now, when before I would tell them that it did and most of them thought I was crazy.

I buy most of my stuff with cash. I don't go into big cities for anything. I don't have a cell phone. I don't do facebook or twitter. Like OONJ, I burn all of my trash that has my name or any info on it. My fingerprint is about as minimal as you can get without going completely off the grid.



At the end of the day, I'm really not all that interesting of a person. I don't think I'd be paranoid about it anymore even if I was getting high everyday. I guess one day I woke up and realized that I'm not the bright shining center of the universe and that was one hell of a relief.

Am I squeaky clean? Nope. But here on the internet, I'm in good company.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2017 5:23 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


It used to be that people felt safe from the government and from hackers because there was safety in numbers. Why would they be interested in ME out of hundreds of millions?

Now that hackers are hacking hundreds of millions at a time, and government is collecting complete data on everyone, people are saying - does it even matter? Why would they focus on ME, anyway? And besides, there's nothing I can do about it.

The assumption that it's trivial is mistaken, that statistics offer protection is misguided, and that there's nothing 'we' can do as a group is self-defeating.

Let me hold up Greece as an example. After much protest and angst, the Greeks voted in Tsipras as PM in January 2015. He was going to be the vanguard, protecting Greeks from EU policy, saying oxi ! to EU-demanded austerity.

But when he failed to put up even a pretense of a facade of opposition to the EU - did the Greeks say 'throw the bum out!' No, they reelected him, and he's been presenting austerity package after austerity package to parliament ever since.

I guess the Greeks just sighed, folded their hands and said - we tried, we voted once, watcha'gonna'do? Since then Greece has slid into economic decline and poverty. But, watcha'gonna'do?
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/578991/IPOL_BRI
%282016%29578991_EN.pdf

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/greece/



It looks like the US will go the same way after Trump.

We voted once, and it didn't work. Sigh. We tried. Watcha'gonna'do?




HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2017 6:09 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


It's not out of laziness though, at least for me it's not.

Like I said, it's more out of self preservation than anything else. I have absolutely no power and influence over anything "big picture". My "white male privlidge" doesn't actually do anything in real life.

I had several emails a while back with some local politicians voicing my argument against a local income tax increase and though several of them did respond a few times, the end result was them telling me "we're going to have to agree to disagree" and it happened anyhow. I voted against them. They're still in office.

I'm done with "causes". At the end of the day, life here isn't that bad. I'm 38, and I don't really want to live much older than 70, so I don't have a lot of time left here, and with no children all I can do is try to do what I can to support my niece who I love more than anything in the world. She's already going to get whatever proceeds from the sale of my house in a trust, as well as any money I had saved up. Hopefully the world is a better place for her when that time comes and we aren't living some Orwellian/Huxleyian nightmare dystopia.



Though I share your unease and disgust for what is going on, I don't share your opinion that there is anything in the world that can actually be done about it. I'm open to hear any suggestions that you might have though.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2017 7:38 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I know that I've said this before - but as a county, we have never REALLY tested the power of voting the hell out of the country. So to speak.




HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2017 9:03 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I know that I've said this before - but as a county, we have never REALLY tested the power of voting the hell out of the country. So to speak.




That's what my grandma always says.

I do vote. Even in non presidential elections.

Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. Over time though, it always manages to get worse. We should talk about this again in 3 years when the idiots vote The Rock for president because he's pretty.

I think voting doesn't work is because a majority of the people doing it are idiots.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2017 9:38 PM

OONJERAH


Agreed: Not the Rock.

I want to have a woman for president next time ...
But not Hillary & not Angelina Jolie. ... TYVM.


... oooOO}{OOooo ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2017 10:38 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I'd settle for somebody who wasn't evil and was halfway competent. A-Okay with me if it happens to be a woman.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


If wishes were horses we'd all b e eating steak.

We won't get the chance to settle for someone who isn't evil. The best we can find is "Nouveau corrupt versus entrenched corrupt."

Trump represents national capitalists. Hillary represented the globalists. (I believe I've said this before more than once.) I voted for the loose cannon because I wanted to pit the nationalists against the one-world-order-ists.

And, personally, I hope the nationalists win.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Where are the democrats? Waiting for the Deep State to get rid of Trump?
Mon, December 11, 2017 14:07 - 20 posts
Accusing Someone You Disagree With Of Being A Russian Troll Is Admitting You Have No Argument
Mon, December 11, 2017 13:53 - 83 posts
Bomb Exploded Times Square
Mon, December 11, 2017 13:13 - 5 posts
Putin Orders Withdrawal Of Russian Troops During Surprise Syria Visit
Mon, December 11, 2017 11:23 - 1 posts
Game Companies are Morons.
Mon, December 11, 2017 10:27 - 45 posts
Male Role Models
Mon, December 11, 2017 10:25 - 108 posts
New Alabama Motto Contest
Mon, December 11, 2017 08:09 - 6 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Sun, December 10, 2017 23:25 - 236 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Sun, December 10, 2017 16:12 - 265 posts
Shout out to Second - hope you are doing well
Sun, December 10, 2017 10:02 - 210 posts
Trump not invited to Paris December climate change summit for now, says France
Sun, December 10, 2017 08:59 - 5 posts
Trump moves US Embassy to Jerusalem
Sun, December 10, 2017 01:16 - 28 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL