A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook(npr.org)
npr.org
A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/10/13/497820170/the-man-who-stood-up-to-facebook
125 comments
Power Ventures could probably start back up from the payout that will be coming from FB when things are resolved.
Uh, what payout? The 9th circuit essentially ruled that his attempts to access Facebook servers after the cease-and-desist letter were illegal. Unless I'm reading this wrong, he lost, and is criminally liable.
Facebook brought a malicious action under the CANSPAM act when it had no basis for doing so. That action, in part, resulted in the loss of Vachani's business and livelihood. Facebook will need to compensate for the loss they caused.
"Will need to be persuaded to compensate," i.e., sued, which will take probably 2-5 years to complete because it will be cheaper to bill lawyers than payout potentially millions to Vachani.
A big problem with our legal system is that it favors those with more money in every way - the rich can lever more cases, better cases, more often. They can afford to appeal at every level, to pay lawyers to look for hundreds of little loopholes. And they are essentially immune to being sued because not only can nobody afford to even begin procedures, once they do, all the more enriched party needs to do is fend off attacks long enough for their opponents' funds to run out.
A big problem with our legal system is that it favors those with more money in every way - the rich can lever more cases, better cases, more often. They can afford to appeal at every level, to pay lawyers to look for hundreds of little loopholes. And they are essentially immune to being sued because not only can nobody afford to even begin procedures, once they do, all the more enriched party needs to do is fend off attacks long enough for their opponents' funds to run out.
> A big problem with our legal system is that it favors those with more money in every way - the rich can lever more cases, better cases, more often.
The legal system is not the only institution affected by this.
The legal system is not the only institution affected by this.
Yes that is and has been the way of the world. But we at least like to pretend or want that to be not the case. Also legal system was suppose to be the place to go when in other system (administration and such) fails to protect the poor and weak.
> it had no basis for doing so
Several lower level judges disagreed with you. Although I think that the CANSPAM act ought not apply, there is no basis to claim that this was clearly settled law being ignored to make this into a malicious action.
Several lower level judges disagreed with you. Although I think that the CANSPAM act ought not apply, there is no basis to claim that this was clearly settled law being ignored to make this into a malicious action.
And high judges agree.
Facebook claimed[0] that emails it sent to its users were misleading, partly, because Facebook inserted "Thanks,\nThe Facebook Team" into messages it sent out as a result of Power.com's actions.
Facebook claimed[0],
[0] http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/technology/2009010...
[1] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/12/1...
Facebook claimed[0] that emails it sent to its users were misleading, partly, because Facebook inserted "Thanks,\nThe Facebook Team" into messages it sent out as a result of Power.com's actions.
Facebook claimed[0],
64. The message, drafted by Power.com, is signed by "The Facebook Team", which is both misleading and false.
[0] http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/technology/2009010...
[1] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/12/1...
The message is at page 10 of the PDF on link[0] above, page 12 of the complaint. (pdf and complaint page numbers don't match up)
It's clear to me that this was a spam/phishing message.
1. Comes from @facebookmail.com
2. Signed "The Facebook Team"
3. Includes only links to facebook.
4. In the footer, "Want to control which messages you receive from facebook..." facebook link.
--- Now, they obviously created a facebook event as a promotion and invited people on facebook to that event in order to generate those messages, so there is a bit of a grey area, but it's clearly a power.com email and there's no message of power.com other than:
Event: Bring 100 Friends and win 100 bucks
What: Reunion
Host: Power
Start Time: date
End Time: date
Where: Power
--- It's an unethical use of Facebook's systems at the very least, and spells out a pretty big hole (hopefully filled by now) that opens facebook users up to scams because the originator is obfuscated.
It's clear to me that this was a spam/phishing message.
1. Comes from @facebookmail.com
2. Signed "The Facebook Team"
3. Includes only links to facebook.
4. In the footer, "Want to control which messages you receive from facebook..." facebook link.
--- Now, they obviously created a facebook event as a promotion and invited people on facebook to that event in order to generate those messages, so there is a bit of a grey area, but it's clearly a power.com email and there's no message of power.com other than:
Event: Bring 100 Friends and win 100 bucks
What: Reunion
Host: Power
Start Time: date
End Time: date
Where: Power
--- It's an unethical use of Facebook's systems at the very least, and spells out a pretty big hole (hopefully filled by now) that opens facebook users up to scams because the originator is obfuscated.
The message was determined not to be spam, but regardless, Facebook constructed and sent that message.
As far as I can tell from these documents, Power setup a Facebook event, then Facebook added it's own text (eg. "The Facebook Team") to the event message and sent it as an email to its own users. Then, Facebook took down Vachani based on those emails.
As far as I can tell from these documents, Power setup a Facebook event, then Facebook added it's own text (eg. "The Facebook Team") to the event message and sent it as an email to its own users. Then, Facebook took down Vachani based on those emails.
I guess the question will be can Facebook block a user if they act on the behalf of another user. It seems unlikely.
Its resolved when SCOTUS rules, but I don't hold high hopes. I think a payout is unlikely, and anything much beyond legal fees is in lottery territory.
After Power's IP addresses were blocked by Facebook, couldn't Power use the user as proxy to access Facebook instead? In other words, have the user (through some Power provided tool I suppose) access Facebook and feed Power the information it wants to send.
The problem is that this probably violates Facebook's TOS. Enabling a TOS violation for users as a business model would make for a pretty easy tortious interference lawsuit by Facebook against Power.
It seems like it would be pretty hard to draft TOS that prohibit the user from running a program on their own machine that requests, processes, and outputs data on the user's behalf without banning more traditional user agents like web browsers and proxies.
If I remember correctly, Facebook prohibits users from supplying third parties with their Facebook Login credentials for the purpose of that third party logging in on their behalf.
Edit: From Section 4(8) of the Facebook TOS [1]:
"You will not share your password (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account."
[1] https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
Edit: From Section 4(8) of the Facebook TOS [1]:
"You will not share your password (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account."
[1] https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
Such a tool wouldn't need to provide the FB credentials to the third party, only in the application, or as-mentioned a browser itself, with an extension.
Usually the trick is to add in something like "...at Facebook's discretion...".
What would be at Facebook's discretion? Are you suggesting that their TOS could dictate what web browsers you're allowed to use to access Facebook, or whether you're allowed to store and make other personal use of the information they send you?
It's impossible for something like Facebook to use a whitelist model for determining what you use to interact with their service, and they can't retroactively add things to their blacklist. They usually have to rely on generic rules about causing harm to the service, but then it's no longer a pure whim.
It's impossible for something like Facebook to use a whitelist model for determining what you use to interact with their service, and they can't retroactively add things to their blacklist. They usually have to rely on generic rules about causing harm to the service, but then it's no longer a pure whim.
No, I'm suggesting that the TOS could dictate that whether you are allowed to do it or not is entirely at Facebook's discretion, and they could choose to say that it isn't okay.
A lot of software licenses have a clause that basically allows the licensor to revoke the license on a whim.
A lot of software licenses have a clause that basically allows the licensor to revoke the license on a whim.
Facebook can always give themselves the option to unilaterally decide to no longer serve you going forward. But that's not the same as Facebook being able to declare that arbitrary behavior is retroactively in violation of an open-ended clause of their TOS and therefore grounds for lawsuits and CFAA prosecution.
You could probably do so with a browser extension.
I made a quick hack to demonstrate this a few years ago. I didn't maintain it and couldn't find another developer to take over, so it doesn't work anymore. http://devesh.github.io/SuperShareBox/
The elephant in the room is that facebook wants to directly engage with their users in order to control the advertising aspect. This startup uses the side-effect of Facebook (platform for friends to share stuff) while cutting out the business value proposition (advertising).
This is sad because I'm increasingly getting annoyed at Facebook's positionning between me and my friends. It's promoting behavior that is different from real life as they stand to gain from stoking outrages and heated discussions: more active user engagement!
This is sad because I'm increasingly getting annoyed at Facebook's positionning between me and my friends. It's promoting behavior that is different from real life as they stand to gain from stoking outrages and heated discussions: more active user engagement!
>It's promoting behavior that is different from real life as they stand to gain from stoking outrages and heated discussions: more active user engagement!
This undoubtedly has very serious consequences beyond merely being annoying. Trending untrue news stories, encouraging post-true controversy and providing an echo chamber for these things to intensify and become ingrained.
And doing these things on a enormous scale to a huge percentage of the population such that vast swathes of people can no longer even agree on basic facts.
It would be interesting to see how much of the bizarre political events in the west are a result of social media in general and Facebook in particular.
This undoubtedly has very serious consequences beyond merely being annoying. Trending untrue news stories, encouraging post-true controversy and providing an echo chamber for these things to intensify and become ingrained.
And doing these things on a enormous scale to a huge percentage of the population such that vast swathes of people can no longer even agree on basic facts.
It would be interesting to see how much of the bizarre political events in the west are a result of social media in general and Facebook in particular.
I've recently started seeing what I can only call christian jihadi propaganda on my newsfeed.
The Clintons assassinated Scalia and they are going to force you to renounce God or put you on the cross.
The Clintons assassinated Scalia and they are going to force you to renounce God or put you on the cross.
Prevlcisely what ZainRiz said. Jihad is a striving for a good goal.
One can have a jihad for school fundraiser. One can jihad for personal weight loss. Or one can jihad for working on an open source project.
Yeah, the bad ones use it to support ill gains.
One can have a jihad for school fundraiser. One can jihad for personal weight loss. Or one can jihad for working on an open source project.
Yeah, the bad ones use it to support ill gains.
Sure, one can also go around yelling "Sieg Heil" at celebrations, but the phrase has been a little tainted by insane people.
To be honest there is probably very little difference between those people back in the 1930's and the polarized groups of US voters on both sides of the spectrum. They didn't know at the time what exactly they were voting for and the consequences that would play out.
Bro, I'd ask you to not use the word "jihadi" as a slur. The word means one who strives, physically or mentally, for the sake of good. The fact that it's been hijacked by deviant so-called "religious" groups doesn't change what the word really represents.
And reinforcing the notion that those deviant groups are jihadis just strengthens the claims of ISIS and Al-Qaida that they're the ones properly following their religion, when more than 99% of the muslim world rejects them completely.
And reinforcing the notion that those deviant groups are jihadis just strengthens the claims of ISIS and Al-Qaida that they're the ones properly following their religion, when more than 99% of the muslim world rejects them completely.
It's ways higher than 1%. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/...
Almost 1 in 10 supporting savage violence and meaningless destruction.
It's not the poster that made it a slur, it's the insane violence supported by a non-negligible portion of Muslims that made it a slur.
Almost 1 in 10 supporting savage violence and meaningless destruction.
It's not the poster that made it a slur, it's the insane violence supported by a non-negligible portion of Muslims that made it a slur.
Twice that rate of Germans (16%) and Americans (18%) think the Sun goes around the earth.[1]
So does 9% really indicate a key culturally defining characteristic?
[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-ge...
So does 9% really indicate a key culturally defining characteristic?
[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-ge...
As long as thinking the sun goes around the earth doesn't induce violent murders, I don't care.
Pretty sure more than 1% of Muslims don't completely reject ISIS. Definitely not Al Qaida.
If you don't use the term "jihadi" because it's too positive you also should refrain from using the word "ISIS/ISIL" because that gives them being a state and Islamic. I understand that "Daesh" has a much more negative meaning and those guys hate being called that way.
> "The word spam is kind of like calling someone a rapist. It has — in [the] digital world — calling someone a spammer is the worst thing you could possibly call them."
I really don't feel that spammer and rapist are even in the same league.
I really don't feel that spammer and rapist are even in the same league.
It's not the same, but it is a powerful metaphor. Wanted email is to consensual relations as spam is to physical violation.
It's a very bad metaphor, because the "spammer" term is thrown around casually in IT and is often false. For instance, someone might be called a "spammer" if they post a lot to some forum, by someone else who disagrees with them.
If you equate "rapist" with "spammer", you might be regarded as trivializing "rapist" accusations as being usually false and frivolous in the same way.
If you equate "rapist" with "spammer", you might be regarded as trivializing "rapist" accusations as being usually false and frivolous in the same way.
> If you equate "rapist" with "spammer", you might be regarded as trivializing "rapist" accusations as being usually false and frivolous in the same way.
I don't think he was equating the two at a legal or moral level, just presenting an analogy with regards to:
- The likelihood of false accusations being similar in both cases (higher than the norm)
- The devastating social consequences of falsely accusing someone of either crime, even where no proof exists
Having said that, there are circles where false accusations of "rape" are sometimes thrown around rather frivolously, and where the term is being stretched to include other lesser crimes, such as crimes of expression ("verbal rape") and sexual harassment. You may not be familiar with these circles, but they do exist. If you've ever heard someone use the term "he raped me with his eyes": this is the action that trivializes the actual crime of rape.
Making the observation that this subculture exists in no way trivializes actual cases of rape.
I think this may have been the intent of the analogy.
I don't think he was equating the two at a legal or moral level, just presenting an analogy with regards to:
- The likelihood of false accusations being similar in both cases (higher than the norm)
- The devastating social consequences of falsely accusing someone of either crime, even where no proof exists
Having said that, there are circles where false accusations of "rape" are sometimes thrown around rather frivolously, and where the term is being stretched to include other lesser crimes, such as crimes of expression ("verbal rape") and sexual harassment. You may not be familiar with these circles, but they do exist. If you've ever heard someone use the term "he raped me with his eyes": this is the action that trivializes the actual crime of rape.
Making the observation that this subculture exists in no way trivializes actual cases of rape.
I think this may have been the intent of the analogy.
Even when considered only as an analogy, and not the serious point about trivializing "rapist", it's a lousy analogy.
Consider a panhandler asking you for money on the street, someone passing out fliers in a mall, a street hawker, or even someone asking for directions. These can all be unwanted physical interactions.
Think also of the religious people who go door-to-door asking very politely if you've found everlasting life, or historically (thinking now of the Hare Krishnas and the movie 'Airplane') at an airport terminal.
Or for that matter, someone working in a boiler room call centers.
I submit that spamming is much closer to these unwanted public interactions than anything like rape.
Furthermore, calling someone a spammer does not have "devastating social consequences", despite what Vachani said. For example, stand up at a conference and yell "the speaker is a spammer!" What devastating social consequences might the speaker face? Is it as devastating as calling someone a speeder, a pot smoker, a thief, a rapist, or a murderer?
Consider a panhandler asking you for money on the street, someone passing out fliers in a mall, a street hawker, or even someone asking for directions. These can all be unwanted physical interactions.
Think also of the religious people who go door-to-door asking very politely if you've found everlasting life, or historically (thinking now of the Hare Krishnas and the movie 'Airplane') at an airport terminal.
Or for that matter, someone working in a boiler room call centers.
I submit that spamming is much closer to these unwanted public interactions than anything like rape.
Furthermore, calling someone a spammer does not have "devastating social consequences", despite what Vachani said. For example, stand up at a conference and yell "the speaker is a spammer!" What devastating social consequences might the speaker face? Is it as devastating as calling someone a speeder, a pot smoker, a thief, a rapist, or a murderer?
> I submit that spamming is much closer to these unwanted public interactions than anything like rape.
None of those things are illegal, so you've already failed the most basic test for the analogy. Furthermore, you still seem to be missing the point that this is not an analogy between spamming and rape, but between falsely accusing someone of spamming and falsely accusing someone of rape.
> Is it as devastating as calling someone a speeder, a pot smoker, a thief, a rapist, or a murderer?
In your contrived hypothetical, any of that name-calling (because nobody could seriously call that an "accusation") would have the same consequences: none whatsoever for the target and being laughed out of the room for the "accuser". I'm sure you already realize that.
Of course, this is not at all what anyone is talking about. We're talking about falsely accusing someone of spamming, in a credible manner, and from a position of authority, which is exactly what happened to the individual in the article. If you don't think this had any consequences for him, then may I suggest that you read the article.
Surely you understand that there is a very big difference in consequences between yelling "spammer!" at the next person you see vs a multibillion dollar corporation suing you for being a spammer and sending their hordes of lawyers after you.
None of those things are illegal, so you've already failed the most basic test for the analogy. Furthermore, you still seem to be missing the point that this is not an analogy between spamming and rape, but between falsely accusing someone of spamming and falsely accusing someone of rape.
> Is it as devastating as calling someone a speeder, a pot smoker, a thief, a rapist, or a murderer?
In your contrived hypothetical, any of that name-calling (because nobody could seriously call that an "accusation") would have the same consequences: none whatsoever for the target and being laughed out of the room for the "accuser". I'm sure you already realize that.
Of course, this is not at all what anyone is talking about. We're talking about falsely accusing someone of spamming, in a credible manner, and from a position of authority, which is exactly what happened to the individual in the article. If you don't think this had any consequences for him, then may I suggest that you read the article.
Surely you understand that there is a very big difference in consequences between yelling "spammer!" at the next person you see vs a multibillion dollar corporation suing you for being a spammer and sending their hordes of lawyers after you.
Spamming is not illegal, if it follows the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.
FB claimed that Power Ventures's actions fell under the CAN-SPAM Act, and was a violation of the act, and was a willful violation so FB could get 3x damages as restitution, plus attorney fees.
There is nothing like that in rape law, where some rapes are legal and some are illegal. There are things like that in anti-peddling laws, which might allow only licensed peddlers in a region, or in telephone solicitation laws, which might restrict when calls can be made or prevent solicitors from calling people on a no-call list, or anti-bill posting laws which restrict posting a few public bulletin boards or kiosks, or anti-begging laws which prohibit aggressive panhandling.
That's of course the legal distinction. Perhaps there is a cultural similarity in antipathy between the two that I don't recognize?
You point about my hypothetical is valid. I was thinking more of conferences with an anti-sexual harassment policy which obligates the organizers to be more responsive to claims of rape than claims of murder, even if there is no other evidence.
So, here's something more concrete. In http://www.swordandthescript.com/2014/06/linkedin-spam-reels... we see that Grant Crowell complained about "crass spam" by ReelSEO in advertising for their conference. He provided evidence of receiving on Linkedin, in one week, "the same message sent four different times, from three different people, including Greg Jarboe, co-founder of the marketing firm SEO-PR." ReelSEO (now known as Tubular Insights) responded to the complaint by by saying 'opt out'.
This is not illegal spam under CAN-SPAM. However, and IMO, Crowell does correctly refer to it as spam. This is within the usual cultural definition of spamming.
What are the "devastating social consequences" which resulted from that verified claim? I note that ReelSEO is still in business, under the new name "Tubular Insights". Should Crowell and others avoid using the term 'spammer' for anything other than verifiable CAN SPAM violations, because of these consequences?
Now, imagine that someone made a claim of being raped, and had evidence to prove it. Do you really think that the reactions would be the same? (Nor can one "opt out" of rape, showing yet again it's a poor analogy.)
As for "a multibillion dollar corporation suing you"; I look at how ACORN was shut down due to partially falsified and selectively edited videos when the ACORN members did nothing illegal or inappropriate. The devastation came from how FB's money and power could magnify any sort of FUD.
Now, I can be wrong. Wikipedia tells me that ~1% of all spam really meets CAN SPAM's requirements, so there are a lot of spammers out there. Who else has faced the devastating social consequences of being called a spammer?
FB claimed that Power Ventures's actions fell under the CAN-SPAM Act, and was a violation of the act, and was a willful violation so FB could get 3x damages as restitution, plus attorney fees.
There is nothing like that in rape law, where some rapes are legal and some are illegal. There are things like that in anti-peddling laws, which might allow only licensed peddlers in a region, or in telephone solicitation laws, which might restrict when calls can be made or prevent solicitors from calling people on a no-call list, or anti-bill posting laws which restrict posting a few public bulletin boards or kiosks, or anti-begging laws which prohibit aggressive panhandling.
That's of course the legal distinction. Perhaps there is a cultural similarity in antipathy between the two that I don't recognize?
You point about my hypothetical is valid. I was thinking more of conferences with an anti-sexual harassment policy which obligates the organizers to be more responsive to claims of rape than claims of murder, even if there is no other evidence.
So, here's something more concrete. In http://www.swordandthescript.com/2014/06/linkedin-spam-reels... we see that Grant Crowell complained about "crass spam" by ReelSEO in advertising for their conference. He provided evidence of receiving on Linkedin, in one week, "the same message sent four different times, from three different people, including Greg Jarboe, co-founder of the marketing firm SEO-PR." ReelSEO (now known as Tubular Insights) responded to the complaint by by saying 'opt out'.
This is not illegal spam under CAN-SPAM. However, and IMO, Crowell does correctly refer to it as spam. This is within the usual cultural definition of spamming.
What are the "devastating social consequences" which resulted from that verified claim? I note that ReelSEO is still in business, under the new name "Tubular Insights". Should Crowell and others avoid using the term 'spammer' for anything other than verifiable CAN SPAM violations, because of these consequences?
Now, imagine that someone made a claim of being raped, and had evidence to prove it. Do you really think that the reactions would be the same? (Nor can one "opt out" of rape, showing yet again it's a poor analogy.)
As for "a multibillion dollar corporation suing you"; I look at how ACORN was shut down due to partially falsified and selectively edited videos when the ACORN members did nothing illegal or inappropriate. The devastation came from how FB's money and power could magnify any sort of FUD.
Now, I can be wrong. Wikipedia tells me that ~1% of all spam really meets CAN SPAM's requirements, so there are a lot of spammers out there. Who else has faced the devastating social consequences of being called a spammer?
Some very valid points indeed.
> What are the "devastating social consequences" which resulted from that verified claim?
If there's one thing I can confidently back off from is having used the word "devastating". That was, in hindsight, rather hyperbolic.
I think at this point I'm defending the analogy far more than I intended to. I'm not in love with it, I just thought it was being misperceived as an analogy of consequences of the crime itself, when to me it was meant to illustrate a comparison between two crimes which (justly or not) are known for being associated with false accusations / low burden of proof.
> Who else has faced the devastating social consequences of being called a spammer?
If we drop the words "devastating" and "social" from the question (which I realize I introduced), the answer would be "any business who has unfairly been blacklisted by mail providers, blacklisted from Google search results, has had their hosting account suspended, or has been targeted by things like DDoS attacks". These cases do exist, and I've worked at companies affected by this. I do agree now that the consequences (specially at a personal level) are clearly not as serious as being falsely accused of rape.
Thanks for the discussion :)
> What are the "devastating social consequences" which resulted from that verified claim?
If there's one thing I can confidently back off from is having used the word "devastating". That was, in hindsight, rather hyperbolic.
I think at this point I'm defending the analogy far more than I intended to. I'm not in love with it, I just thought it was being misperceived as an analogy of consequences of the crime itself, when to me it was meant to illustrate a comparison between two crimes which (justly or not) are known for being associated with false accusations / low burden of proof.
> Who else has faced the devastating social consequences of being called a spammer?
If we drop the words "devastating" and "social" from the question (which I realize I introduced), the answer would be "any business who has unfairly been blacklisted by mail providers, blacklisted from Google search results, has had their hosting account suspended, or has been targeted by things like DDoS attacks". These cases do exist, and I've worked at companies affected by this. I do agree now that the consequences (specially at a personal level) are clearly not as serious as being falsely accused of rape.
Thanks for the discussion :)
Many municipalities have laws against panhandling. NYC has one against "aggressive forms of panhandling." It just tends to not get prosecuted, kind of like rape.
Spammers steal life a few seconds at a time.
Considering the amount of time wasted they literally waste lifetimes in aggregate. However, we don't equate say deaths from pollution as murder so it feels like a minor crime.
Considering the amount of time wasted they literally waste lifetimes in aggregate. However, we don't equate say deaths from pollution as murder so it feels like a minor crime.
No, spam is more akin to door-to-door soliciting.
Yeah, only door-to-door soliciting to a point where you have to jostle a crowd of people whenever you try to exit your property through the main door, and they try everything in their power not to budge.
> try everything in their power not to budge
The first part I get, but this I don't.
Deleting an email is a mouseclick. A lot easier than getting the pest control guy off my doorstep.
The first part I get, but this I don't.
Deleting an email is a mouseclick. A lot easier than getting the pest control guy off my doorstep.
I was thinking about the fact that the spammers always find new creative ways to dodge anti-spam, but you're right that second part wasn't great.
> The first part I get, but this I don't. Deleting an email is a mouseclick.
If you really believe it, please share your primary e-mail address here.
If you really believe it, please share your primary e-mail address here.
And share with me your residential address.
It's a fucking stupid metaphor that acts as a barrier to understanding.
People should stop casually making jokes about rape[1] or using rape as a metaphor.
[1] It's baffling to me that crimes of sexual violence are a common theme for jokes on US media.
People should stop casually making jokes about rape[1] or using rape as a metaphor.
[1] It's baffling to me that crimes of sexual violence are a common theme for jokes on US media.
IMHO what is really needed in this topic is for people to stop having a violent allergic reaction every time the word "rape" is mentioned.
This debases the conversation much more than all the jokes and inept metaphors that have ever been made about rape. At least those don't intentionally attempt to censor or silence others they disagree with.
This debases the conversation much more than all the jokes and inept metaphors that have ever been made about rape. At least those don't intentionally attempt to censor or silence others they disagree with.
"Words don't real. Don't analyze them. That's not important. You're the real problem."
[deleted]
As and aside, it also disgusts me that male-male rape is used as an additional punishment in prison, and is seen as a wide positive side effect in the "law-and-order" types.
Ive seen plenty show and movies that talk how "Bubba is going to ravage you". Because a prison sentence needs to have a side source of rape.
Ive seen plenty show and movies that talk how "Bubba is going to ravage you". Because a prison sentence needs to have a side source of rape.
Have you actually ever been to prison? Rape inside is nowhere near as common as you think. Prison code and rules are often more fairly enforced than actual laws outside.
It's easier to get into prison than to get hurt inside for being innocent of your accused actions.
It's easier to get into prison than to get hurt inside for being innocent of your accused actions.
They are not and he wasn't talking about the magnitude of moral failure I think, but how it provokes an instinctual mistrust of the accused, more than other accusations.
Fair point. It was just a bit off putting and made me feel that the author has lost perspective a bit.
I don't think that's a remotely fair comparison either. I'm immensely more likely to respond with instinctual mistrust at an accused rapist than at an accused spammer. So much so that I don't think they're in the same league there either.
I hear, in jail, spammers get the same treatment as rapist.
Vachani is based in Brazil, where life is more affordable. He flies into San Francisco a lot, though, in an ongoing effort to stay in the tech biz.
So, open question, how much cheaper does it have to be in Brazil to make it worthwhile to live there because it's cheaper, if you are flying into SF a lot? I mean, I know SF is expensive, but presumably if you are willing to make ~$600 flights on a regular basis, you would be willing to commute a few hours. Within two hours of SF, things aren't exactly cheap, but they are cheap relative to SF. How much cheaper does Brazil have to be (living in at least a moderately sized city) for this to effective, assuming he flies into SF 8 times a year?
This of course ignores other reasons he may want to live in Brazil (such as family), because that wasn't how it was presented.
So, open question, how much cheaper does it have to be in Brazil to make it worthwhile to live there because it's cheaper, if you are flying into SF a lot? I mean, I know SF is expensive, but presumably if you are willing to make ~$600 flights on a regular basis, you would be willing to commute a few hours. Within two hours of SF, things aren't exactly cheap, but they are cheap relative to SF. How much cheaper does Brazil have to be (living in at least a moderately sized city) for this to effective, assuming he flies into SF 8 times a year?
This of course ignores other reasons he may want to live in Brazil (such as family), because that wasn't how it was presented.
Given the lawsuites it might make sense to stay out of USA too.
If you are interfacing with U.S.-based entities or your data crosses servers located in the U.S., you can be sued in a U.S. courts; at best, you'll increase the complexity of the case and the difficulty collecting on a judgment issued against you, but certainly not to the extent that a major corporation like Facebook would be at all deterred.
You can get high speed internet in many parts of the developing world for less than 20 dollars a month - its amazing really.
You can buy food, pay rent and utils - live near a sunny beach for less than 50 dollars a month.
Of course if all SF software engineers cut their debt shackle - and used global inequality for their advantage it would wreck havoc to the current pecking order of tech capitalists.
It would allow tech workers to turn into entrepreneurs and work full time on their own ideas, create new competition and scare wall street that is dependent on recycling your wage through rent so that you actually keep a small amount of your real income.
Ofcourse no one is going to do it besides radicals like Glenn Greenwald since freedom is not useful as prestige to the average person.
You can buy food, pay rent and utils - live near a sunny beach for less than 50 dollars a month.
Of course if all SF software engineers cut their debt shackle - and used global inequality for their advantage it would wreck havoc to the current pecking order of tech capitalists.
It would allow tech workers to turn into entrepreneurs and work full time on their own ideas, create new competition and scare wall street that is dependent on recycling your wage through rent so that you actually keep a small amount of your real income.
Ofcourse no one is going to do it besides radicals like Glenn Greenwald since freedom is not useful as prestige to the average person.
> You can buy food, pay rent and utils - live near a sunny beach for less than 50 dollars a month.
Can you give an example of such a place, where the total cost of rent, food and utilities (water, electricity) amounts to less than 50 USD per month?
Can you give an example of such a place, where the total cost of rent, food and utilities (water, electricity) amounts to less than 50 USD per month?
Hey !
I cannot give away the place I am connecting from without giving away too much information.
But within the EU I remember small Remote Romanian Towns.
http://www.hobotraveler.com/budgets/list-of-countries-where-...
here is a list that I just found.
The important think to remember is that a huge part of humanity lives on less than 2 dollars a day.
Wealth among the poorest has increased over the last 20 years but that does not matter. I think now about 1 billion people live on 2 dollars a day - It used to be 3 billion when I was younger.
If you go down the list above you will start to have to trade security for cheapness. However having a laptop does not make someone rich anymore these days.
Somalia for example, my friend who has been there has told me that fibre seems to be everywhere !
However You do not have to go to Somalia, you can choose a country based on factors that is important to you.
I cannot give away the place I am connecting from without giving away too much information.
But within the EU I remember small Remote Romanian Towns.
http://www.hobotraveler.com/budgets/list-of-countries-where-...
here is a list that I just found.
The important think to remember is that a huge part of humanity lives on less than 2 dollars a day.
Wealth among the poorest has increased over the last 20 years but that does not matter. I think now about 1 billion people live on 2 dollars a day - It used to be 3 billion when I was younger.
If you go down the list above you will start to have to trade security for cheapness. However having a laptop does not make someone rich anymore these days.
Somalia for example, my friend who has been there has told me that fibre seems to be everywhere !
However You do not have to go to Somalia, you can choose a country based on factors that is important to you.
I doubt the veracity of this list. As an example, a flat in Belgrade, Serbia would run you 400 euros a month if you're lucky. That's almost 14 eur/day. Food alone can be over the $12 daily limit.
I'd caution anyone from taking this list seriously because it is based on reported income alone. There is a combination of credit purchasing and unreported income (cash exchange), each of which means cost of living is higher.
According to this [0] cost of living is $400+ without rent, which is a bit steep but much closer to the actual cost.
[0] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Belgrade?seeThePric...
I'd caution anyone from taking this list seriously because it is based on reported income alone. There is a combination of credit purchasing and unreported income (cash exchange), each of which means cost of living is higher.
According to this [0] cost of living is $400+ without rent, which is a bit steep but much closer to the actual cost.
[0] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Belgrade?seeThePric...
I think he founded the company in Brazil. The article is not entirely right, he probably lives in Brazil because he likes. It is cheaper than SF or NY, but there are other countries and cities way more cheaper.
Rent is the killer in SF. Forget about Brazil and imagine even a cheap American city.
1BR apartment in SF is ~$3300
1BR apartment in New Orleans is ~$1300.
$24K/yr in savings on rent alone. Even if you fly in 8 times per year, for a round trip cost of $1K with food and accommodations, you're still well ahead.
If you live abroad, and can earn USD and take advantage of the exchange rate, you're even farther ahead. A 1BR apartment in Sao Paolo is ~600USD.
1BR apartment in SF is ~$3300
1BR apartment in New Orleans is ~$1300.
$24K/yr in savings on rent alone. Even if you fly in 8 times per year, for a round trip cost of $1K with food and accommodations, you're still well ahead.
If you live abroad, and can earn USD and take advantage of the exchange rate, you're even farther ahead. A 1BR apartment in Sao Paolo is ~600USD.
You don't need to go as far as New Orleans to pay ~$1300 for a 1BR. There are lots of place in the Bay Area where you can get that, but you may have to sacrifice convenience, safety, age or condition of the apartment, commuting distance, or some other desirable traits.
The best, though, if you can swing it, is telecommuting. Then you can work most anywhere with an internet connection. And there are, arguably, far more interesting places to live (or at least visit) than the Bay Area.
Travel gets old after a while, but I think you're really missing out if you haven't at least gone to a few countries that are radically different from where you grew up.
The best, though, if you can swing it, is telecommuting. Then you can work most anywhere with an internet connection. And there are, arguably, far more interesting places to live (or at least visit) than the Bay Area.
Travel gets old after a while, but I think you're really missing out if you haven't at least gone to a few countries that are radically different from where you grew up.
[deleted]
LOL Silicon Valley
I can rent 1BR appartament in Rome or Milan for 600-700 euros/month.
Much less in a smaller city.
I have friends living close to Como lake that spend 500 euros for a private house with private garden.
> 1BR apartment in New Orleans is ~$1300.
Sure, but my point was that if you view SF as integral for some reason, you can find 1BR apartment rentals for ~$1300 (and 2 bedroom for $1400) an hour North of SF. If you're willing to go slightly over 2 hours from SF (which if you've considering flying in occasionally isn't bad at all), you can find 2 BR apartments for <$1000 in Ukiah.
It's not a beach in a tropical climate, but it sure is cheaper, and you could actually swing commuting in once or twice a week without too much strain (depending on whether you do it during rush hour). Too rural for you? Sacramento, the state capital, has apartments available for not much more (and a similar non-rush hour commute).
There's a trade-off going on here, and I'm wondering at what point it makes more sense to fly in from outside the country compared to just commuting a few hours occasionally.
Sure, but my point was that if you view SF as integral for some reason, you can find 1BR apartment rentals for ~$1300 (and 2 bedroom for $1400) an hour North of SF. If you're willing to go slightly over 2 hours from SF (which if you've considering flying in occasionally isn't bad at all), you can find 2 BR apartments for <$1000 in Ukiah.
It's not a beach in a tropical climate, but it sure is cheaper, and you could actually swing commuting in once or twice a week without too much strain (depending on whether you do it during rush hour). Too rural for you? Sacramento, the state capital, has apartments available for not much more (and a similar non-rush hour commute).
There's a trade-off going on here, and I'm wondering at what point it makes more sense to fly in from outside the country compared to just commuting a few hours occasionally.
I am sure living in Ukiah is different from Sao Paolo.
Well, yeah. But living in SF is different than Sao Paolo as well.
The point is one lets you get to SF (which we are assuming is important for the purposes of this discussion) within a couple hours with a car at the cost of gas and you can go back home a the end of the day. The other requires 12+ hours in a plane and costs of $600+ per trip, and you need to find a place to stay when you get into SF.
Each have benefits and drawbacks. I just thought it would be interesting to discuss those.
The point is one lets you get to SF (which we are assuming is important for the purposes of this discussion) within a couple hours with a car at the cost of gas and you can go back home a the end of the day. The other requires 12+ hours in a plane and costs of $600+ per trip, and you need to find a place to stay when you get into SF.
Each have benefits and drawbacks. I just thought it would be interesting to discuss those.
Because of this I discovered the book 'Chaos Monkeys' and immediately bought it!
The top Amazon review decided it for me..
Amazingly accurate coverage of Facebook's internal culture, the good, the bad, and the ugly. (Plus much, much more!) https://www.amazon.com/review/R2GQCWUZKVOY10/ref=cm_cr_dp_ti...
Amazingly accurate coverage of Facebook's internal culture, the good, the bad, and the ugly. (Plus much, much more!) https://www.amazon.com/review/R2GQCWUZKVOY10/ref=cm_cr_dp_ti...
I just finished reading it last week, will read it again.
Its been on my to read list as well. We need more insight into the business practices of big tech companies like FB and Google, that control so much wealth.
This book looks fascinating. Thanks for reinforcing the OP's author's opinion on it, I think I'll check it out!
So you own your data but they won't let just any app touch it. Apps need to comply with certain conditions and FB retains complete control.
Where it gets interesting is when someone like this guy tries to circumvent this arrangement by having the user willingly supply them with their credentials.
FB would never blame the user, even though that's arguably the correct way to respond, because that's a PR disaster. Whether the guy in this particular story seems shady or not, it seems inevitable that FB would take the path of litigation to destroy anyone who exposes the dissonance in the way they run their business.
Where it gets interesting is when someone like this guy tries to circumvent this arrangement by having the user willingly supply them with their credentials.
FB would never blame the user, even though that's arguably the correct way to respond, because that's a PR disaster. Whether the guy in this particular story seems shady or not, it seems inevitable that FB would take the path of litigation to destroy anyone who exposes the dissonance in the way they run their business.
If FB retains complete control, you don't own your data. If you own your data, FB (or any other party) cannot retain complete control. Otherwise, what is the meaning of "own" that you have redefined the word to mean?
Own in the very legal sense that it is your Intellectual Property, even though you have no real control over it once it gets into their hands.
After the license you give FB and most other such sites, yes, while legally you own the material, practically you no longer do because they are legally allowed to do whatever they want with it. I'm not going to address the stupidity of copyright law here, however.
This highlights two major issues, to me:
* Wow does the CFAA need reform.
* With the rate that tech is advancing, it's becoming a problem how unfamiliar with it many in the justice system are. It's not a knock on them at all - it's hard to keep up for those of us working in the industry. I'm not sure what the best solution is outside of trying to make sure that the laws are as correctly formulated as possible, and even that's only a partial fix.
* Wow does the CFAA need reform.
* With the rate that tech is advancing, it's becoming a problem how unfamiliar with it many in the justice system are. It's not a knock on them at all - it's hard to keep up for those of us working in the industry. I'm not sure what the best solution is outside of trying to make sure that the laws are as correctly formulated as possible, and even that's only a partial fix.
> With the rate that tech is advancing, it's becoming a problem how unfamiliar with it many in the justice system are.
People say that a lot. But yet you don't really hear doctors saying "how can a judge hear a case about a medical issue!" (look maybe some say that but not a lot).
The court has a solution for this -- they have expert witnesses and amicus briefs.
The problem is that technologists are allergic to politics (filing amicus briefs is basically politics as is lobbying), so they won't do what they need to do to make tech issues heard.
People say that a lot. But yet you don't really hear doctors saying "how can a judge hear a case about a medical issue!" (look maybe some say that but not a lot).
The court has a solution for this -- they have expert witnesses and amicus briefs.
The problem is that technologists are allergic to politics (filing amicus briefs is basically politics as is lobbying), so they won't do what they need to do to make tech issues heard.
> But yet you don't really hear doctors saying "how can a judge hear a case about a medical issue!"
This actually is something that comes up reasonably often. In fact, when I was in law school, an entire week of Torts was spent on precisely this issue. It's not unique to technology, but the frequency in which it comes up, as well as the total number of people directly (by that, I mean their day to day life could materially change overnight) is much higher.
You aren't wrong about technologists and politics, though. I hadn't really thought about amicus briefs as a solution, thanks for pointing it out.
This actually is something that comes up reasonably often. In fact, when I was in law school, an entire week of Torts was spent on precisely this issue. It's not unique to technology, but the frequency in which it comes up, as well as the total number of people directly (by that, I mean their day to day life could materially change overnight) is much higher.
You aren't wrong about technologists and politics, though. I hadn't really thought about amicus briefs as a solution, thanks for pointing it out.
> But yet you don't really hear doctors saying "how can a judge hear a case about a medical issue!" (look maybe some say that but not a lot).
I hear this all the time. (I am a doctor's son.) Heck, you could probably get judges to say the same thing; they've completely abdicated on the question of whether something is or isn't legally-permissible medical care. The legal question, when you are sued for malpractice, is whether you conformed to "the local standard of care", which is different everywhere. If the local standard of care is obviously harmful to patients, that's not your fault. They should have been local to somewhere else. Did something bad happen to your patient by chance? If you didn't conform to the standard of care, you're probably at fault, regardless of whether it could have been related to something you did.
This situation obtains because judges are incapable of judging medical issues. Judges know it, doctors know it, and I know it, but I guess you didn't know it.
See also the discussion a while ago about how forensic science is basically just 100% fraudulent court testimony, but the courts are too reliant on that to give it up.
I hear this all the time. (I am a doctor's son.) Heck, you could probably get judges to say the same thing; they've completely abdicated on the question of whether something is or isn't legally-permissible medical care. The legal question, when you are sued for malpractice, is whether you conformed to "the local standard of care", which is different everywhere. If the local standard of care is obviously harmful to patients, that's not your fault. They should have been local to somewhere else. Did something bad happen to your patient by chance? If you didn't conform to the standard of care, you're probably at fault, regardless of whether it could have been related to something you did.
This situation obtains because judges are incapable of judging medical issues. Judges know it, doctors know it, and I know it, but I guess you didn't know it.
See also the discussion a while ago about how forensic science is basically just 100% fraudulent court testimony, but the courts are too reliant on that to give it up.
Cross-network dashboards like the one described in the article help make the world more open and connected. Facebook ought to be supporting this guy.
you should watch Zuck's interview on esp here. https://youtu.be/GczC7q5NPrw?t=15m35s
private data is all facebook has, no way they'll give it up.
For those like me who missed it at first, "make the world more open and connected" is Facebook's "official mission" (i.e. what the PR department claims they do).
But it's directly in contrast with what makes them money, so obviously they won't.
But it's directly in contrast with what makes them money, so obviously they won't.
Facebook is not appealing the spam decision and, the spokesperson points out, it has won on hacking so far.
The wording of 'won on hacking' is extremely worrying, if it is verbatim. Facebook seem to act here as if they can steamroll over power-users who stray too far from the 'norm', so to speak, without consequence: while it is true that all companies must try to save face, accusing an app developer of hacking and spamming is too far.
I guess not appealing the spam decision is some small humility, but treating a lawsuit like a competition to 'win' has certain implications on Facebook's strategy.
The wording of 'won on hacking' is extremely worrying, if it is verbatim. Facebook seem to act here as if they can steamroll over power-users who stray too far from the 'norm', so to speak, without consequence: while it is true that all companies must try to save face, accusing an app developer of hacking and spamming is too far.
I guess not appealing the spam decision is some small humility, but treating a lawsuit like a competition to 'win' has certain implications on Facebook's strategy.
Didn't Facebook used to ask to log in to your email to import your contacts to look for friends? Sure, unlike LinkedIn they at least actually asked first, but I think it shows how there's one law for the incumbent and quite another for the rest.
Isn't this similar case as Zenefits vs ADP? Power Ventures accessing Facebook on behalf of their users, same way as Zenefits was accessing ADP? I did not follow the Z vs A case, just barely remember that it happened.
I wish all the articles had an unbiased TLDR attached to it.
I came here for the clickbait, not the story!!
I came here for the clickbait, not the story!!
Dude realized "hey, you own your content, not Facebook, even after you post it on Facebook. So with users' consent, I can download their data from Facebook and display it on my own website, right?" Thus he wrote something where people would enter their Facebook and other social network logins, and the site would aggregate their data. Basically a cross-platform social network.
Facebook was the only website to respond at all. They sued them for downloading data. (You own it, but when you try to get it out, you can't.) Facebook called it "spamming" and "hacking". The courts didn't really understand the topic (the article claims) but finally in the 9th district court the spam claim got thrown out and Facebook said they won't challenge that decision because there is still the hacking claim to be fought over.
How asking someone to give you a password for a specific purpose and then using that password for that specific purpose is hacking is beyond me. But then the article is fairly one-sided so I don't know the full story. The legal battle continues.
Facebook was the only website to respond at all. They sued them for downloading data. (You own it, but when you try to get it out, you can't.) Facebook called it "spamming" and "hacking". The courts didn't really understand the topic (the article claims) but finally in the 9th district court the spam claim got thrown out and Facebook said they won't challenge that decision because there is still the hacking claim to be fought over.
How asking someone to give you a password for a specific purpose and then using that password for that specific purpose is hacking is beyond me. But then the article is fairly one-sided so I don't know the full story. The legal battle continues.
Maybe they were scraping or abusing an API? That's a bit of a stretch of "hacking."
Wouldn't it (or couldn't) it be a violation of TOS to share your FB password with another site?
Does FB now have an option like Google to export your data? I thought that was a nice touch on Google's part; I vaguely remember reading it was championed by some people in the company who really wanted to avoid locking people in out of their own moral convictions.
I confess to not seeing the bigger picture here: I don't see how all of this can be equated to locking a user's data into Facebook. Would it be against TOS to write a FB app that crawled a user's graph and downloaded all of their data?
Does FB now have an option like Google to export your data? I thought that was a nice touch on Google's part; I vaguely remember reading it was championed by some people in the company who really wanted to avoid locking people in out of their own moral convictions.
I confess to not seeing the bigger picture here: I don't see how all of this can be equated to locking a user's data into Facebook. Would it be against TOS to write a FB app that crawled a user's graph and downloaded all of their data?
You can export your data:
https://www.facebook.com/help/131112897028467/
If I say you can put your diamond ring in my house and then give you a key, but tell you that if you want your ring you have to let me talk to you for five minutes every time you get it, and then you give your key to a friend who I don't like, don't I have the right to keep that person out, even though you gave them the key I gave you?
Basically this guy is your friend I don't like.
I understand not liking the walled garden, but if you don't like it, then you shouldn't enter it in the first place. Don't go into the garden and then give your friend a key to the place just to avoid me.
Basically this guy is your friend I don't like.
I understand not liking the walled garden, but if you don't like it, then you shouldn't enter it in the first place. Don't go into the garden and then give your friend a key to the place just to avoid me.
I think this is a poor analogy. You could get closer if you changed this:
> but tell you that if you want your ring you have to let me talk to you for five minutes every time you get it
to:
> but mumble to you (unintelligibly, interspersed with vast amounts of mumbling about other things) that if you want your ring you have to let me talk to you for five minutes every time you get it
While many on this site keep up with some of these things and can weigh the cost/benefit of using a walled garden, many do not. To tell someone "if you don't like it, don't do it" while completely avoiding the question of subversiveness on the part of the contract maker is disingenuous and not giving both sides of the argument a fair shake.
> but tell you that if you want your ring you have to let me talk to you for five minutes every time you get it
to:
> but mumble to you (unintelligibly, interspersed with vast amounts of mumbling about other things) that if you want your ring you have to let me talk to you for five minutes every time you get it
While many on this site keep up with some of these things and can weigh the cost/benefit of using a walled garden, many do not. To tell someone "if you don't like it, don't do it" while completely avoiding the question of subversiveness on the part of the contract maker is disingenuous and not giving both sides of the argument a fair shake.
Sounds a lot like the product in question relied on a Man-In-The-Middle-As-Service protocol and I can reasonably conclude why other service providers might find that approach as unwelcome and written-out of their Terms of Service. I don't see Facebook taking the same approach to something like LastPass. I'm not inclined to give either party in this one a whole lot of blanket endorsement or scorn, I think each side has some noteworthy concerns regarding both motivation and methods.
[deleted]
This man is a hero of our times. I am going to show his story to all of my Facebook friends. Fuck Zuck.
You can try but the facebook algorithm will have the final say on how many of your friends will see it ;)
Wait 'til NPR notices 10K shares, 0 referrals from facebook.com. That ought to start a whole new fire.
> Fuck Zuck.
Please don't include this in comments on Hacker News.
Please don't include this in comments on Hacker News.
I will phrase it differently in the future, but I stand by the sentiment.
That phrasing is certainly more incendiary than other possibilities, but just a watered-down version of that sentiment is problematic too: it doesn't teach us about anything other than how you feel, which is not part of our shared reality that is the basis of conversation. That's why we ask that comments not only be civil, but substantive, so that they're contributing to the discussion.
"That phrasing is certainly more incendiary than other possibilities"
I look at it as a direct non-verbatim usage of Zuckerberg's own words against himself. After all, Zuckerberg already has this sentiment for everyone using Facebook - "Fucking morons" IIRC.
Now, what do you consider a contribution to the conversation? I've seen plenty of comments that do not do that and yet they still remain either highly-voted or at least not in the grey.
I look at it as a direct non-verbatim usage of Zuckerberg's own words against himself. After all, Zuckerberg already has this sentiment for everyone using Facebook - "Fucking morons" IIRC.
Now, what do you consider a contribution to the conversation? I've seen plenty of comments that do not do that and yet they still remain either highly-voted or at least not in the grey.
Zuckerberg wasn't commenting on HN. Like everyone else, you can figure out what's constructive on a particular forum - a moderator is just pointing out something that isn't.
I think that particular comment is inappropriate for HN because it is uncivil and unnecessarily offensive/rude to a specific person.
To object to the comment because it "doesn't teach us anything other than how you feel" is to say that any statement which conveys only "how you feel" is inappropriate for HN.
Is that really the way it works here?
What if he had said "I wish Zuck all the best!" -- would the moderators have come out against that too?
To object to the comment because it "doesn't teach us anything other than how you feel" is to say that any statement which conveys only "how you feel" is inappropriate for HN.
Is that really the way it works here?
What if he had said "I wish Zuck all the best!" -- would the moderators have come out against that too?
No, certainly not. Just that such things can often safely be omitted, but should definitely be omitted when they would disrupt the conversation by being insulting, inflammatory, off-topic, etc.
why not?
Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I would say it to his face, but point taken. :)
Fair enough, but just because you'd say it to someone's face doesn't make it civil
But here's the problem with censorship (which you have said the previous writer should impose upon himself):
I consider what Facebook is doing to be far more uncivil than use of the word Fuck. Should the word Facebook be censored because what it refers to offends me?
I consider what Facebook is doing to be far more uncivil than use of the word Fuck. Should the word Facebook be censored because what it refers to offends me?
[deleted]
yes, use this instead:
Zuck: They "trust me", Dumb fucks.
Zuck: They "trust me", Dumb fucks.
I have said it before, and I will say it again.
Facebook is the folly of our generation. We are already paying the consequences of giving away our right to privacy, and it is only going to get worse.
Facebook is the folly of our generation. We are already paying the consequences of giving away our right to privacy, and it is only going to get worse.
Here is Orin Kerr writing about Power Ventures: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...