I guess I'm wondering more about Facebook than about the users. I'm already thinking of leaving. Facebook, I'm pretty sure, wants us to stay. Thus, they don't want to push the users past the tolerance level, but right now, assuming I'm a prime specimen of the average Joe, we're pretty close.
I'm just confused as to the cost-benefits for Facebook here. Getting a track record for annoying users and badly handling their private data doesn't seem like a good business model to me. That is to say, unless they think they'll just get away with it and nobody will notice or care. But people do, and still they go down that road. Again and again.
From the article, it seems as if this new move is only useful to data miners, not Facebook users. So they're basically screwing with us (I use, albeit sparingly, Facebook).
Facebook's done similar things to user's data before, and we've have had some success in protesting those changes. But I'm getting fed up. I don't want to have to worry about every single time Facebook has some sort of an update, that my personal data is going to be distributed publicly. I've had to change my privacy settings before, where stuff that I previously had private was suddenly public. Now it seems I have no option but to delete part of my profile in order to keep my stuff private.
What I wonder is how long Facebook thinks they'll get away with this until everyone is fed up and leaves?
Oops, this tells me that I should not try to post responses on
I certainly am not on the "just punish" side, and I much prefer criminals, juveniles or older ones, to have all possible resources to make something better of their lives.
My point was (well, was supposed to be) if you and Joe commit a crime, you shouldn't have to endure a heavier punishment for it than Joe just because some computer program has calculated that you are at a higher risk to re-offend than Joe.
If the program doesn't do that, only opens up different resources for the juveniles/offenders to help them, then yeah, I'm all for it. It just sounded like "justice" was going to be meted out according to some probability analysis and that creeped me out.
Of course, if you'd bothered to read TFA (and were able to ignore the author's histrionics), you'd realize that the idea is to use this technology to differentially sentence offenders based on the likelihood of recidivism. That is, juveniles who have already committed a crime.
In my opinion, that's even worse. Even if person A has a higher risk of re-offending than person B, I thought the idea of justice was to give everyone the same treatment.
Why would an individual care if his or her browsing history is published online? Employers search for Facebook or MySpace pages because these websites contain 'proof' that you behaved in some way or other (e.g. pictures), but a browsing history does not tell them anything other than, 'a computer in my household has accessed these websites at some point in time or other,' which can easily be accounted for by explaining that a friend pranked your machine with tentacle porn or your children were just really excited about Misty and Ash Ketchum.
True, but if you are looking for a job, then this may be the thing that stops you from getting an interview. And in Japan, the competition is steep, I hear.
This is definitely possible. I don't understand the slightly derogatory tone in the article/summary.
Well, the derogatory tone in the article is par for the course for this particular rag. I think there is some kind of a rule that the Daily Star, the Daily Mail and a few others have to publish at least one perpetual arousal symptom story per month (the sufferer is always young, female and unattached). Then there is the story about the adulterer, from the mistress' point of view but trashing her nevertheless, the fat lady trying every diet possible story... etc. These stories are all pretty sordid, sad and derogatory toward women. I hate them, but they have a very distinct, disturbing pull...
And finally, since I'm on a rant, TFA isn't even an article, it's a friggin' blurb advertising an article in a magazine!
Seriously.
Ok. This freaks me out. It's a screensaver on my wall that tracks my movements via a fashion disaster.
I'll pass, thanks.
...would be widely embraced on campus. And much of the "truth is out there" stuff is little more than a religion.
Wait. Why would an atheist, on or off campus, want to embrace any sort of a religion? I thought the whole point of being an atheist was to be rid of all that shit.
This place just isn't big enough for all of us. We've got to find a way off this planet.
