RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
Dan Minette wrote: All the billions that g*vernments invest all the time to make mothers breastfeed, and those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. They should be exiled to Antarctica. Actually, it doesn't, Alberto. Facebook is free, last time I looked. I can choose to use it or not use it. If a network won't let me refer to physics, and takes all examples of QM off it, it's not criminalizing QM. Perhaps Facebook is making a business decision. Will disallowing pictures of breastfeeding on Facebook gain it more prudish members than allowing it would gain members interested in details of breastfeeding that can best be shown by pictures? Ok, replace breastfeeding with black men dating white girls. If a Social Network disallowed pictures of black men dating white girls it would gain more racist members than allowing it would gain members interested in details of interracial relationships that can best be shown by pictures. Not allowing women to breastfeed in, say, Mall of the Americas is one thing. That severely curtails breastfeeding mom's ability to go there. But, there are other ways to communicate such info on the web, so not allowing someone to post it on one's Facebook account can be seen as a purely business decision. Not allowing black men to date white girls in, say, Mall of the Americas is one thing. That severely curtails black-white couples ability to go there. But, there are other ways to communicate such info on the web, so not allowing someone to post it on one's Whitepowerbook account can be seen as a purely business decision. Alberto Monteiro (and I didn't even use the H-word or the I-word!) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: (Ignoring Murphy's Law) kills
Jo Anne wrote: What the heck *is* Vaseline in Brazil? Vasilina. That was not the problem. Here it is a thick ointment also known as petroleum jelly. And what is it used for there? It's placed on the skin to prevent skin dehidratation. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil
Jon Louis Mann wrote: Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. Alberto, please explain how Facebook is criminalizing breastfeeding and how you know this to be a fact? Did the owners of FB come out and specifically say that? Also, why can only sociopaths and perverts think that? Try replacing breastfeeding with something else, like Hammer and Sickle or cleft lip. They shouldn't be allowed to censor and criminalize something that is not criminal. If they want to censor images of people smoking marijuana, or images of children with guns (and I bet they don't attack those images with the fury they attack breastfeeding, but I may be wrong), then it's ok, but there's no ethical reason to criminalize breatfeeding. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil
On 08/12/2010, at 10:12 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Try replacing breastfeeding with something else, like Hammer and Sickle or cleft lip. They shouldn't be allowed to censor and criminalize something that is not criminal. If they want to censor images of people smoking marijuana, or images of children with guns (and I bet they don't attack those images with the fury they attack breastfeeding, but I may be wrong), then it's ok, but there's no ethical reason to criminalize breatfeeding. Alberto, I get your point, but I think it would be better if you substituted the word stigmatise for criminalise. That's what they're doing. They're stigmatising legal and natural behaviour. They're not criminalising it, but they are discriminating against it in a way that might well spread that discrimination. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Alberto, please explain how Facebook is criminalizing breastfeeding and how you know this to be a fact? Did the owners of FB come out and specifically say that? Also, why can only sociopaths and perverts think that? Try replacing breastfeeding with something else, like Hammer and Sickle or cleft lip. They shouldn't be allowed to censor and criminalize something that is not criminal. If they want to censor images of people smoking marijuana, or images of children with guns (and I bet they don't attack those images with the fury they attack breastfeeding, but I may be wrong), then it's ok, but there's no ethical reason to criminalize breastfeeding. Alberto Monteiro Alberto, I get your point, but I think it would be better if you substituted the word stigmatise for criminalise. That's what they're doing. They're stigmatising legal and natural behaviour. They're not criminalising it, but they are discriminating against it in a way that might well spread that discrimination. Charlie. Alberto, I'm curious why you feel so strongly about breastfeeding pictures being forbidden on Facebook. Until now I was not even aware nor cared. To ban breastfeeding in public places is more controversial. Were you a bottle baby and that explains your obsession, or are you just objecting to censorship?~) Really, this is a tempest in a teapot, and there are many far more legitimate reasons to hate Facebook. It is a threat to privacy, as is any electronic network receiving revenue from it's data banks on users. People so concerned about personal privacy should never use banks, credit cards, etc. They shouldn't register for social security, get a driver's license, or go online. (including this list!~) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook
Jon Louis Mann wrote: Try replacing breastfeeding with something else, like Hammer and Sickle or cleft lip. They shouldn't be allowed to censor and criminalize something that is not criminal. If they want to censor images of people smoking marijuana, or images of children with guns (and I bet they don't attack those images with the fury they attack breastfeeding, but I may be wrong), then it's ok, but there's no ethical reason to criminalize breastfeeding. Alberto, I'm curious why you feel so strongly about breastfeeding pictures being forbidden on Facebook. Until now I was not even aware nor cared. To ban breastfeeding in public places is more controversial. Were you a bottle baby and that explains your obsession, or are you just objecting to censorship?~) Yes, I am a hater of censorship. But it's not fun to get _here_ and distill hate against Iran's or China's censorship. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil
Alberto wrote: Try replacing breastfeeding with something else, like Hammer and Sickle or cleft lip. They shouldn't be allowed to censor and criminalize something that is not criminal. If they want to censor images of people smoking marijuana, or images of children with guns (and I bet they don't attack those images with the fury they attack breastfeeding, but I may be wrong), then it's ok, but there's no ethical reason to criminalize breatfeeding. How is different than, say, guidelines that discourage obscenities on a mailing list? Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
