John Oliver has a wonderful gig and his show is fantastic, OP, what makes you possibly consider that as a 'solution' to Stewart's unfortunate departure?

Partisan word count?

Fox is the organisation who decided to post this video.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Fox made the decision, other news agencies refuse to post that shit, social media picks it up of course because anyone can grab everything and throw it online. Fox buys video rights, fox posts on their page, counts the clicks based on the obvious controversy, reaps reward. Yay, partisan criticism? Right.

I think that showing videos with the gruesome truth is perfectly fine - with the appropriate warnings.

What I don't think is fine is violating people's privacy just because they're not Americans and subject to the same privacy 'rights' under US law, and being allowed to identify such people in such a terrible and horrific way on the news is sensational voyeurism at BEST, just sensationalism for the most viewers tuning in. I'm of course guessing that these 'news' agencies didn't contact the victim's family and get permission, of course. You can guess what would happen if this was an American and their family wasn't contacted for permission, yes?

Yay for families that get to relive their loved ones' death repeatedly in full HD. Yay for the public who thinks this is 'free speech' - afterall, since the victims involved aren't Americans, they aren't really people, are they?

re: "isn't practically possible"

That may be the case - and social media/the internet at large may need to be part of a broader solution to help provide privacy for those individuals who are subject to this type of horror, but for an American news agency or even social media site to 'allow' these types of things, I'm saying, they should be forced to, by law, censor the individuals just as they would an American. Sure, there will still be lots of people who get ahold of an uncensored version or whatever -- but they'll likely have to seek it out, not be exposed to it just by watching primetime media or seeing it on a 'top watched' youtube summary or whatever.

Organisations like that, out of 'journalistic integrity', should do their best to facilitate individual's privacy and rights, not stomp on them just because it's the current landscape of media and they want to get the most viewers first.

I'm not entirely against showing these type of images or media, but I am absolutely of the mind that the publisher must censor the individual's identification - such as not presenting their name, blurring face or other identifying features, in any sort of media. Media would most definitely (in accordance with the law..) censor it's own citizens being murdered without approval from the deceased's family or next of kin, why should that common sense respect not apply to foreigners?

That being said, Fox didn't publish this video for any "journalistic integrity" or whatever nonsense reason they claimed - but for clickbait/viewer trash to bump their numbers. I, for one, haven't seen the video - and don't plan on seeing it, and Fuck Fox News for using journalistic integrity as a means of justifying something like this.

I'd be surprised, though, if someone had the time to take out their phone, unlock it, open the app, and hit the button mid-rape.

They could also add a "is a rapist" feedback item in the driver rating system..

Forget the shitting & pissing. The worst part, imo, is the carcasses floating down the Ganges.

I was being facetious.. there are some great potential applications, but the 'immediate' one - of being able to test someone you're *not* in a LTR with, seems impossible for many reasons. First of all it may give a very false level of confidence in that they may have contracted HIV and it hasn't yet gestated, and can you imagine if you meet some girl - take her home - say "Hey, mind if I prick your finger and we wait like, 20 min to continue?"...

The post was sort of a joke in terms of, NOT reliable, and could you imagine if you meet someone, and asked them "Hey do you mind if I prick your finger and we wait at least 15 minutes before we have sex?" I don't imagine it'd go down well, double entendre intended.

Imagine if you can prick the finger of a hooker in a Pattaya bar while you're drinking, "just as a joke!", and figure out whether you need to strap on a condom or not. Wonderful invention for all the people who need immediate HIV tests for their partners! Yay for sex tourism!

Until it goes wrong and doesn't work. This type of thing is a litigation nightmare. Looks like vaporware to me, and the actual legitimate applications seem few.

I'd also like to add the author is an idiot, and her article is pretty much full of speculation and garbage with copied stats to attempt to back it up, for example:

"the CNNIC said microblog users dropped 7.1 percent to 249 million—unsurprising, as social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are blocked in China." - yes, first of all, "dropped 7.1%" - what? Does this person really think Twitter Facebook or Youtube accounted for, at any point in time, any significant user base in mainland China? The more popular local microblog/other similar services have hundreds of millions of active users (like Weixin/Wechat), nobody gives a shit about twitter or facebook being blocked and Youku streams like 1billion+ hours of video a month. There is no relationship between age-old bans on Twitter/Facebook/Youtube and any decrease in microblog registered userbases. *sigh*

"haha" Yu so funy!

Vote down, overrated. Obviously you haven't travelled abroad very much, or you'd realize not every country writes exclusively in English. "Tang Li" is pinyin, when you register for services online in China you don't/can't use pinyin - you use Hanzi. Hanzi is the character system of which, to use your stupid example, "tang" has very many iterations of different characters, and li has even more.

If what you just wrote was said in a youtube video, you could expect mad hate for being an ignorant child - lucky for you it's just buried in a ./ post. "Haha".

This is more of an expansion on the law rather than a new law. Microblog type services have required real ID registration for a long time -- you must provide a national ID in order to access, however, the display name did not (and still doesn't) have to be a real name.

The news here is more about the affect on impersonations...which I don't entirely see as a negative. People should not be allowed to impersonate others or organisations online in any country, and I believe many countries have laws against this already. In California, for example, it's illegal - with heavier repercussions if one can prove intent to harm/defraud/defame/etc...

So, for any of those who outrage against this type of thing, get over it.

I'm assuming the principal is a she, not a he - "Roxanne Greer" -- women in education have to have an extra hard line in policy enforcement don'cha'kno', because they're often seen as being inferior/weak by their peers.

What pisses me off here isn't the action, it's the refusal to back up their action. If she truly believes she's doing something correct and proper, why refuse to comment. Should she be allowed to refuse to comment? As a publicly funded educator who has made a decision which impacts the child of a tax payer (I'm assuming) in such a ridiculous situation......can just 'refuse to comment'? Where's the accountability, she should back her decision up with reasoning and logic not silence.

Much like lobbyists and donations - it's obviously a well calculated cost. Spread around the freebies when you want something, because the upside once you get it is a thousand times more profitable! Yay for obvious corruption.