Re: Facebook censorship and internet porn
On Dec 26, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Julia wrote: On Dec 11, 2010, at 7:42 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: ..."net nanny" software block and report any search for any string containing the word "breast" ...that may prevent a woman from learning how to examine herself for cancer or her options if she is diagnosed... ...policy of removing pictures of breastfeeding. I know of a few images that disappeared even though they were privacy-restricted in such a way that the only possible audience was clothing-optional-aware and I doubt there were any complaints to speak of, so I may very well be wrong. The rules seem to be somewhat variable, and the only consistent cases seem to be ones with one or both nipples visible. one friend who pushed that about as close to the limit as they seem to tolerate -- the one of her in *only* a skirt and pasties is still up... Charlie thanks for the link, charlie all is explained: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/breastfeeding-facebook- photos/ i found this on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39521488436 evidently there are a lot of riled up women about this. evidently, some few were using breastfeeding as a way around the facebook restriction on frontal nudity. i still think this is a tempest in a teapot. personally, i think free speech is being abused on the internet. i do not want my eight year old to accidentally access porn when clicking on some spam site, or by googling white house. i don't want to censor the internet, but perhaps there should be a separate internet isolating any porn related material? jon This would be an excellent idea if the porn industry could be persuaded to go along with it. As perverse and counterproductive as this sounds, said industry, as a whole, seems bent on the exact opposite, and in fact, in many cases the less scrupulous players in the industry go to great lengths to invade inboxes and hijack web searches specifically to avoid being confined to the target market that would be happy to go find them wherever they are. This was made abundantly clear by the somewhat paradoxical maneuvering surrounding the proposed .xxx TLD for porn domains. The idea of a porn-specific TLD made perfect sense, as it would have provided a place where interested adults could easily have gone looking for whatever they wanted, and would have made the process of blocking porn from underage computer users (or any others whom society feels the need to protect from porn) relatively trivial and straightforward. * * * * * * * * * * Really? When I was first aware of an attempt to create the top-level domain .xxx, the porn industry was on board at the time, it was a bunch of religious leaders that were so vocal that it was blocked it then. At least, this was what I heard from someone who was in close communication with folks members of the ICANN board Said individual expressed disbelief and couldn't figure out why the *hell* any religious folks would get involved in trying to *block* something like that. Julia The porn industry was originally in favor of it, I believe, until there was discussion of the fact that porn sites would not be statutorily required to be in the .xxx TLD (and in fact might start a land-rush to register both in and out of .xxx and possibly crowd out more cooperative actors in the market who were trying to register new sites/domains in .xxx) , and then discussion of the possibility of *creating* such a statutory requirement (which was the gist of my devil's-advocate followup) was what spooked the industry, as I understand it. The religious groups seemed to object on the grounds that creating a TLD would somehow legitimize and/or admit the existence of pornography itself, which (disturbingly) was also the position of the US Commerce Dept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.xxx (this also jibes somewhat with my own memory of all this) Somewhere along the line (again, both from the article and my own recollection), ICANN made a statement to the effect that they don't regulate content of sites they provide registrations for, so discussion became somewhat moot at that point. I think I'm going to back away from my earlier statement that it would be an excellent idea. In retrospect, it would be an excellent idea on paper and implemented entirely by cooperative actors (like the ones who could be trusted not to use open SMTP relays to send mass quantities of unsolicited commercial email). In the real world, with a significant minority of cynical and pragmatic, if not outright dishonest, actors, within a dysfunctionally skewed framework of social perceptions and rules, I'm thinking it's not a good idea at all, just because there's no way to get to a fair implementation of it from here. The problem is a lot deeper than domain registration. ___
RE: Facebook censorship and internet porn
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Bostwick Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 8:56 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Facebook censorship and internet porn On Dec 11, 2010, at 7:42 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: >> ..."net nanny" software block and report any search for any string >> containing the word "breast" >> ...that may prevent a woman from learning how to examine herself for >> cancer or her options if she is diagnosed... >> ...policy of removing pictures of breastfeeding. I know of a few >> images that disappeared even though they were privacy-restricted in >> such a way that the only possible audience was >> clothing-optional-aware and I doubt there were any complaints to >> speak of, so I may very well be wrong. The rules seem to be somewhat >> variable, and the only consistent cases seem to be ones with one or >> both nipples visible. >> one friend who pushed that about as close to the limit as they seem >> to tolerate -- the one of her in *only* a skirt and pasties is still >> up... >> Charlie > > thanks for the link, charlie all is explained: > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/breastfeeding-facebook- > photos/ > > i found this on facebook: > http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39521488436 > evidently there are a lot of riled up women about this. evidently, > some few were using breastfeeding as a way around the facebook > restriction on frontal nudity. i still think this is a tempest in a > teapot. > personally, i think free speech is being abused on the internet. i do > not want my eight year old to accidentally access porn when clicking > on some spam site, or by googling white house. > i don't want to censor the internet, but perhaps there should be a > separate internet isolating any porn related material? > jon This would be an excellent idea if the porn industry could be persuaded to go along with it. As perverse and counterproductive as this sounds, said industry, as a whole, seems bent on the exact opposite, and in fact, in many cases the less scrupulous players in the industry go to great lengths to invade inboxes and hijack web searches specifically to avoid being confined to the target market that would be happy to go find them wherever they are. This was made abundantly clear by the somewhat paradoxical maneuvering surrounding the proposed .xxx TLD for porn domains. The idea of a porn-specific TLD made perfect sense, as it would have provided a place where interested adults could easily have gone looking for whatever they wanted, and would have made the process of blocking porn from underage computer users (or any others whom society feels the need to protect from porn) relatively trivial and straightforward. * * * * * * * * * * Really? When I was first aware of an attempt to create the top-level domain .xxx, the porn industry was on board at the time, it was a bunch of religious leaders that were so vocal that it was blocked it then. At least, this was what I heard from someone who was in close communication with folks members of the ICANN board Said individual expressed disbelief and couldn't figure out why the *hell* any religious folks would get involved in trying to *block* something like that. Julia ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Breastfeeding on Facebook
>> I didn't say that. What I said is that only >> sociopaths, perverts and baby killers can think >> that breastfeeding is obscene. > Would you agree that it is in bad taste > to use foul language, even though it is an expression > of free speech that some feel is disrespectful and > offensive, or are they just prudes who don't deserve > to have an opinion? Non sequitur. How does the use of foul language correlate to breastfeeding? Do you think breastfeeding is some way disgusting or offensive? >> and another picture of the Google model: >> http://www.iamboredr.com/media/1645/Boobs/ >> The girl is fully clothed, what's the point? > NO way was she fully dressed! (although her nipples > were covered) QED. And I still can't see why you posted that image. Is it to protest against the induction of breast cancer caused by the use of tight bras? > I have never heard of a Facebook rule > outlawing pictures of women breast feeding in public. > Are you certain about this, Alberto? I was trying to make the point that there are far more important issues than a breast feeding ban on Facebook, such as privacy, or using foul language, which I have seen all over Facebook. I was a bottle baby myself, which may explain why I posted those cleavage pictures!~) Do you think I may harbor some deeply buried resentment because I was denied my own Mommy's breast?~) As for the Google girl with the giant titties; I was being ironic. I honestly had no idea tight bras caused breast cancer!~) Thanks to Charlie's link I recognize that Facebook truly is banning breast feeding pictures. I wonder who were the people who were posting the obscene pictures of breast feeding that prompted Facebook to take such drastic action. Nevertheless, I will continue to use Facebook and guard my privacy as best I can; which is what I consider to be a far more important reason to avoid using the electronic interface. Jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook breastfeeding ban
Jon Louis Mann wrote: > >> I didn't say that. What I said is that only >> sociopaths, perverts and babykillers can think >> that breastfeeding is obscene. > > Would you agree that it is in bad taste > to use foul language, even though it is an expression > of free speech that some feel is disrespectful and > offensive, or are they just prudes who don't deserve > to have an opinion? > Non sequitur. How does the use of foul language correlate to breastfeeding? Do you think breastfeeding is some way disgusting or offensive? >> and another picture of the Google model: >> http://www.iamboredr.com/media/1645/Boobs/ > >> The girl is fully clothed, what's the point? > > NO way was she fully dressed! (although her nipples > were covered) > QED. And I still can't see why you posted that image. Is it to protest against the induction of breast cancer caused by the use of tight bras? > I have never heard of a Facebook rule > outlawing pictures of women breast feeding in public. > Are you certain this, Alberto? > They removed _all_ breastfeeding images. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook censorship and internet porn
> Bruce Bostwick wrote: >> Charlie wrote: > > Jon wrote: >> ...that may prevent a woman from learning how to examine herself for >> cancer or her options if she is diagnosed... >> ...policy of removing pictures of breastfeeding. I glanced at the La Leche League site (an org. that promotes breastfeeding) - no easily accessible pix; perhaps one needs to join? Interesting article on age-of-weaning, which here in the US is typically less than one year, but in developing countries can be 3 or 4 yo. Huh! - I'd draw the line at teething! > > evidently there are a lot of riled up women about > > this. evidently, some few were using breastfeeding > > as a way around the facebook restriction on frontal nudity. [on facebook] Some people just can't deal with bodily functions in a non-kindergartener way, tittering instead of just acknowledging. Not that there isn't genuine humor to be found in many cases (I've _so_ had to adjust to living with a guy)... > The problem, and this seems to be endemic to the industry [porn] > as far as I can tell, is that the industry would very much > rather do business the way it does now and take every > possible tactical and/or strategic action available to make > sure they're not only net-ubiquitous, but that they actually > crowd out legitimate web search results for completely > unrelated subjects, and appear in your inbox even if your > junk mail filtering is strong enough that you end up > filtering out your friends before you filter out the porn > ads. Rather than target a perfectly willing and > sex-positive demographic that would be happy to pay for > their premium content, they would rather make the maximum > possible nuisance of themselves trying to convert maybe one > in a thousand or so of the largely sex-negative remainder of > the population that doesn't want to see anything they have to offer. Indeed. > As for free speech, deciding what's abuse of it and what's > legitimate use of it is a formitable philsophical problem > indeed. Likewise, which restrictions on it are > legitimate and which are overbroad and possibly > draconian. There's room for considerable debate along > that boundary... I personally find porn repugnant, but as long as only consenting adults are involved, I can't advocate banning it. As in the wikileaks dump - I don't want anyone endangered, but there's far too much being covered up by various govt's. > And I repeat my assertion that our society (particularly > that of the USA, and even more particularly that of some > regions of the USA and/or specific segments of the > population) is not exactly objective or even rational on > this subject, and is influenced by social and cultural > standards that I consider dysfunctional and destructive at > the very least. Not the least of which is the > perception that nudity == sex, or the related perception > that sex == bad/dirty/evil. Or a whole list of > others... We do seem to be schizoid and schizophrenic as a society WRT sexuality. > The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace > alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing > it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them > imaginary. - H.L. MENCKEN Good one! 'It's hard to fight the fire while you're feeding the flames' - Rush Debbi Condoms For The Mind? Maru Debbi ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Facebook, porn and the future
brilliant posts, bruce, you have excellent karma!~) I wish there was a happy medium in there somewhere, but finding a technical solution is futile as opposing social forces will most likely cancel each other out. The justice system often applies the law unfairly, but is still better than no law at all. > I have been working on a wiki about technological > progress & the future. > http://the-future.wikidot.com > Wayne Eddy I wouldn't have a clustart or modify a wiki site, but I admire you initiative. Perhaps you can include how the internet, FB, and the porn industry is affecting the future? Today's politics and economics will have a profound effect on the future. Jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook censorship and internet porn
On Dec 11, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: This was made abundantly clear by the somewhat paradoxical maneuvering surrounding the proposed .xxx TLD for porn domains. The idea of a porn-specific TLD made perfect sense, as it would have provided a place where interested adults could easily have gone looking for whatever they wanted, and would have made the process of blocking porn from underage computer users (or any others whom society feels the need to protect from porn) relatively trivial and straightforward. And -- accepts karma hit for responding to own post, but bear with me -- the devil's advocate position on the .xxx TLD case: The "any others whom society feels the need to protect from porn" is a *huge* loophole, and given some aspects of the current political climate, it's not entirely unreasonable to imagine a possible future society where that one clause amounts to everyone that certain religious sects have under their power at any given time, or in the worst case, everyone, period. Putting all the porn domains in one easily-filtered place could in some circumstances be a prelude to relatively simple total censorship of the entire industry. So there are extremes at both end of the spectrum, and the resistance to implementation of an .xxx TLD, specifically, is probably reasonable too, from at least some perspectives .. especially if it comes with the stipulation that all "porn", as legally defined, must only exist in domains within that TLD. And that simply because free speech only allowed in "free speech zones" is not truly free in any real sense, particularly if the "free speech zones" are then conveniently located where they can have no possible actual impact. There's a happy medium in there somewhere, and ultimately, it's futile to try to apply technical measures to problems that are more social than technical in nature. Law has never succeeded in addressing morality, or even ethics for that matter, and it's going to continue to fail. So I have no solution to the problem of bad actors making life miserable every way they can. As I said, it's a formidable philosophical problem .. "Listen, when you get home tonight, you're gonna be confronted by the instinct to drink a lot. Trust that instinct. Manage the pain. Don't try to be a hero." -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook censorship and internet porn
On Dec 11, 2010, at 7:42 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: ..."net nanny" software block and report any search for any string containing the word "breast" ...that may prevent a woman from learning how to examine herself for cancer or her options if she is diagnosed... ...policy of removing pictures of breastfeeding. I know of a few images that disappeared even though they were privacy-restricted in such a way that the only possible audience was clothing-optional-aware and I doubt there were any complaints to speak of, so I may very well be wrong. The rules seem to be somewhat variable, and the only consistent cases seem to be ones with one or both nipples visible. one friend who pushed that about as close to the limit as they seem to tolerate -- the one of her in *only* a skirt and pasties is still up... Charlie thanks for the link, charlie all is explained: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/breastfeeding-facebook- photos/ i found this on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39521488436 evidently there are a lot of riled up women about this. evidently, some few were using breastfeeding as a way around the facebook restriction on frontal nudity. i still think this is a tempest in a teapot. personally, i think free speech is being abused on the internet. i do not want my eight year old to accidentally access porn when clicking on some spam site, or by googling white house. i don't want to censor the internet, but perhaps there should be a separate internet isolating any porn related material? jon This would be an excellent idea if the porn industry could be persuaded to go along with it. As perverse and counterproductive as this sounds, said industry, as a whole, seems bent on the exact opposite, and in fact, in many cases the less scrupulous players in the industry go to great lengths to invade inboxes and hijack web searches specifically to avoid being confined to the target market that would be happy to go find them wherever they are. This was made abundantly clear by the somewhat paradoxical maneuvering surrounding the proposed .xxx TLD for porn domains. The idea of a porn-specific TLD made perfect sense, as it would have provided a place where interested adults could easily have gone looking for whatever they wanted, and would have made the process of blocking porn from underage computer users (or any others whom society feels the need to protect from porn) relatively trivial and straightforward. The problem, and this seems to be endemic to the industry as far as I can tell, is that the industry would very much rather do business the way it does now and take every possible tactical and/or strategic action available to make sure they're not only net-ubiquitous, but that they actually crowd out legitimate web search results for completely unrelated subjects, and appear in your inbox even if your junk mail filtering is strong enough that you end up filtering out your friends before you filter out the porn ads. Rather than target a perfectly willing and sex-positive demographic that would be happy to pay for their premium content, they would rather make the maximum possible nuisance of themselves trying to convert maybe one in a thousand or so of the largely sex-negative remainder of the population that doesn't want to see anything they have to offer. As well as make themselves maximally available to your kids. I've observed this in relation to just about everything there is to do with the industry, and seen it time and time again. And it's always completely puzzled me, because to me it's always seemed to be a bad business policy as well as ensuring they remain marginalized. But I don't run that industry. As for free speech, deciding what's abuse of it and what's legitimate use of it is a formitable philsophical problem indeed. Likewise, which restrictions on it are legitimate and which are overbroad and possibly draconian. There's room for considerable debate along that boundary. I believe that there is, in many cases, abuse of freedom of speech in the industry, given their aggresively confrontational marketing strategies, but I would not dare point out specific examples as unambigiuously abusive or not, because I doubt I could debate either side to the extent that someone else could not come up with an equally or even more compelling opposing view. And I repeat my assertion that our society (particularly that of the USA, and even more particularly that of some regions of the USA and/or specific segments of the population) is not exactly objective or even rational on this subject, and is influenced by social and cultural standards that I consider dysfunctional and destructive at the very least. Not the least of which is the perception that nudity == sex, or the related perception that sex == bad/dirty/evil
Facebook censorship and internet porn
> ..."net nanny" software block and report any > search for any string containing the word "breast" > ...that may prevent a woman from learning how to > examine herself for cancer or her options if she > is diagnosed... > ...policy of removing pictures of breastfeeding. I > know of a few images that disappeared even though > they were privacy-restricted in such a way that the > only possible audience was clothing-optional-aware > and I doubt there were any complaints to speak of, > so I may very well be wrong. The rules seem to be > somewhat variable, and the only consistent cases > seem to be ones with one or both nipples visible. > one friend who pushed that about as close to the > limit as they seem to tolerate -- the one of her > in *only* a skirt and pasties is still up... > Charlie thanks for the link, charlie all is explained: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/breastfeeding-facebook-photos/ i found this on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39521488436 evidently there are a lot of riled up women about this. evidently, some few were using breastfeeding as a way around the facebook restriction on frontal nudity. i still think this is a tempest in a teapot. personally, i think free speech is being abused on the internet. i do not want my eight year old to accidentally access porn when clicking on some spam site, or by googling white house. i don't want to censor the internet, but perhaps there should be a separate internet isolating any porn related material? jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook breastfeeding ban
On Dec 10, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: I have never heard of a Facebook rule outlawing pictures of women breast feeding in public. I don't know of any publicly stated rule, but I do know photos of women topless tend to vanish fairly quickly, and I'm certain of it in the cases where the photos show visible nipples. I also know that any image can at any time be "reported" by anyone seeing it, and my suspicion is that it's less of an outright policy than it is a matter of how many people complain -- although i know of a few images that disappeared even though they were privacy-restricted in such a way that the only possible audience was clothing-optional-aware and I doubt there were any complaints to speak of, so I may very well be wrong. The rules seem to be somewhat variable, and the only consistent cases seem to be ones with one or both nipples visible. I know of one friend who has pushed that about as close to the limit as they seem to tolerate -- the one of her in *only* a skirt and pasties is still up, as far as I know. Again, for the audience in question, unlikely to be objectionable. Hard to say. It's like probing a black box in some ways .. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook breastfeeding ban
On 11/12/2010, at 11:11 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: > > > NO way was she fully dressed! (although her nipples > were covered) I have never heard of a Facebook rule > outlawing pictures of women breast feeding in public. > Are you certain this, Alberto? http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/breastfeeding-facebook-photos/ They have a policy of removing pictures of people breastfeeding. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Facebook breastfeeding ban
>> Alberto, are you saying it's okay to use >> obscenities on this list, rather than censor >> speech, no matter who may be offended by it? >> Jon > I didn't say that. What I said is that only > sociopaths, perverts and babykillers can think > that breastfeeding is obscene. Alberto, I am curious why your reaction is so harsh? Breast feeding in public is not porn, but I do not feel that someone who objects to it, or considers it inappropriate is a sociopath, pervert or baby killer. Nor do I feel that ONLY sociopaths, perverts and babykillers can think breastfeeding is obscene. Would you agree that it is in bad taste to use foul language, even though it is an expression of free speech that some feel is disrespectful and offensive, or are they just prudes who don't deserve to have an opinion? > A very beautiful image, full of meanings. She's > an animal rights activist, isn't she? I can't think > of a better way to express the idea of the imorality > of killing pigs than showing that they are like us. > and another picture of the Google model: > http://www.iamboredr.com/media/1645/Boobs/ > The girl is fully clothed, what's the point? > Alberto Monteiro NO way was she fully dressed! (although her nipples were covered) I have never heard of a Facebook rule outlawing pictures of women breast feeding in public. Are you certain this, Alberto? >> I found some even more perverted pictures on FB, >> but out of respect for Debbie, I won't put those up. > So you don't think any of the other women (or > maybe even some men) on the list would be offended? > Debbie (and only Debbie) has to be protected? . . . ronn! :) You got me there Ronn!~) Apologies for singling you out Debi, although you are the only woman who commented. I have spotted a few brinlisters who have jumped ship over to Dr. Brin's Facebook page, where the discussion can get rather heated. If David is on FB, it's can't be that bad!~) Jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Titties on Facebook
On 11/12/2010, at 1:35 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: And various types of "net nanny" software block and report any search for any string containing the word "breast," even though that may prevent a woman from learning about how to examine herself for cancer or about her options if she is diagnosed, primarily to keep junior-high-school-age males from using the computers in the school or public library to search for titillating images (p.i.), because whether one agrees or not, ...or, indeed, from recipes for chicken curry... Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Titties on Facebook
Jon Louis Mann wrote: > > HOWEVER, just for you, Alberto, I did find this picture > on FB, of a hottie suckling a piglet at her breast: > http://www.shoutmouth.com/index.php/news/Greatest_Cleavage_in_Music_History?page=7 > A very beautiful image, full of meanings. She's an animal rights activist, isn't she? I can't think of a better way to express the idea of the imorality of killing pigs than showing that they are like us. > and another picture of the Google model: > http://www.iamboredr.com/media/1645/Boobs/ > The girl is fully clothed, what's the point? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Titties on Facebook
At 01:46 AM Friday 12/10/2010, Jon Louis Mann wrote: > 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 > How is different than, say, guidelines that > discourage obscenities on a mailing list? > Doug > Because breastfeeding is not obscene - as those sociopaths > and perverts that own Facebook think, and try hard to push > this evil and babykilling meme into children and their > mothers. > Alberto Monteiro Alberto, are you saying it's okay to use obscenities on this list, rather than censor speech, no matter who may be offended by it? I disagree with you that the owners of FB are evil perverts and baby killers because they choose to respect the morals of some of their users who are offended by breast feeding pictures. I'm sure they personally don't have a moral position on breast feeding, but are going along with it for business reasons. I just don't understand why it is such an issue. What is going on with Wikileaks is a far more important issue of government censorship. The people who own FB can do whatever they want. They probably figure they will gain more users than if they allowed rampant porn on FB. My guess is that they are doing it because the laws in many locations across the U.S. at least used to (and probably still in some locations: there are any number of lists, many predating the Internet, of outdated laws that sound ridiculous to people today but are still on the books) say that having any part of the [female] nipple or areola (or in at least one case I heard of, "any differently-pigmented portion of the female breast," which perhaps applies to women with birthmarks or perhaps even tan lines) is legally considered "obscene" or "public indecency" or something like that. Not so much to discourage women from breastfeeding their infants, but to prevent them from walking around town or performing in various "gentlemen's clubs" topless. And various types of "net nanny" software block and report any search for any string containing the word "breast," even though that may prevent a woman from learning about how to examine herself for cancer or about her options if she is diagnosed, primarily to keep junior-high-school-age males from using the computers in the school or public library to search for titillating images (p.i.), because whether one agrees or not, or whether one objects to health information being unintentionally censored, it is still the law in most locations that such images must be kept out of the possible view of minors under the age of 18. (Hence why "Playboy" and other such "men's magazines" are generally kept behind the counter, or in a separate section of the book/magazine store, and only available for sale to adults who ask for them, at least in some states/cities.) I found some even more perverted pictures on FB, but out of respect for Debbie, I won't put those up. So you don't think any of the other women (or maybe even some men) on the list would be offended? Debbie (and only Debbie) has to be protected? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Titties on Facebook
Jon Louis Mann wrote: > >> Because breastfeeding is not obscene - as those sociopaths >> and perverts that own Facebook think, and try hard to push >> this evil and babykilling meme into children and their >> mothers. > > Alberto, are you saying it's okay to use obscenities on > this list, rather than censor speech, no matter who may > be offended by it? > I didn't say that. What I said is that only sociopaths, perverts and babykillers can think that breastfeeding is obscene. > I disagree with you that the owners > of FB are evil perverts and baby killers because they > choose to respect the morals of some of their users > who are offended by breast feeding pictures. I'm sure > they personally don't have a moral position on breast > feeding, but are going along with it for business reasons. > I just don't understand why it is such an issue. What is > going on with Wikileaks is a far more important issue of > government censorship. The people who own FB can do whatever > they want. They probably figure they will gain more users > than if they allowed rampant porn on FB. > Except that breastfeeding is not porn. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Titties on Facebook
> 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 > How is different than, say, guidelines that > discourage obscenities on a mailing list? > Doug > Because breastfeeding is not obscene - as those sociopaths > and perverts that own Facebook think, and try hard to push > this evil and babykilling meme into children and their > mothers. > Alberto Monteiro Alberto, are you saying it's okay to use obscenities on this list, rather than censor speech, no matter who may be offended by it? I disagree with you that the owners of FB are evil perverts and baby killers because they choose to respect the morals of some of their users who are offended by breast feeding pictures. I'm sure they personally don't have a moral position on breast feeding, but are going along with it for business reasons. I just don't understand why it is such an issue. What is going on with Wikileaks is a far more important issue of government censorship. The people who own FB can do whatever they want. They probably figure they will gain more users than if they allowed rampant porn on FB. HOWEVER, just for you, Alberto, I did find this picture on FB, of a hottie suckling a piglet at her breast: http://www.shoutmouth.com/index.php/news/Greatest_Cleavage_in_Music_History?page=7 and another picture of the Google model: http://www.iamboredr.com/media/1645/Boobs/ I found some even more perverted pictures on FB, but out of respect for Debbie, I won't put those up. I hope this doesn't get me kicked off brinlist!~} Jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil
Doug Pensinger 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? > Because breastfeeding is not obscene - as those sociopaths and perverts that own Facebook think, and try hard to push this evil and babykilling meme into children and their mothers. 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
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
> > 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 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
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, 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
Facebook is evil
> 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? QED Jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
On Dec 7, 2010, at 4:25 PM, trent shipley wrote: On Dec 7, 2010 3:15 PM, "Dan Minette" wrote: >Only a sociopath and pervert can think that >breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful >to... 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? 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. Dan M. A business decision that injures public health. Not directly. Indirectly, it reinforces prejudices against women and childrearing that require little if any persuasion to continue, and considerable effort to dispel. And playing to prejudices is irresponsible, at the very least. But very little of that is Facebook, which is simply doing its best to appeal to a paying audience and maximize its profit, and has done the math in terms of financial bottom-line impact of allowing vs. prohibiting such pictures and decided it can gain greater profits by doing the latter. They missed an opportunity to advance a more forward-thinking and tolerant attitude, is all, and as a corporate entity, did so purely on the basis of that profit/loss analysis. Facebook's customers and their cultural values are the driver behind that. If their target audience had different cultural values, they would play to those just as eagerly -- imagine an alternate-universe USA whose culture is clothing-optional and predominantly neo-Wiccan, in which an equally-profit-motivated "Facebook" system plays to those cultural values just as enthusiastically as Facebook does in this universe. They merely reflect the wider population's attitudes. And again, my opinion is that those attitudes themselves are the problem, in our universe .. The true paradox of democracy is that it is vulnerable to defeat from within -- Me ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
Ultimately, these sorts of issues are due to insufficient diversity. As long as there is a majority (or perhaps even a large uniform minority) who believe something strongly, there will be businesses or government policies that cater to this majority. Whether government representative or business leader, the thinking goes that restricting things that are disliked by the majority will be beneficial to one's position as politician or business leader. The people who complain about the restrictions are outnumbered or outweighed by those who support the restrictions. And even among those who do not support the restrictions, many will tolerate them because it is not important to them. In order to fight this sort of thing, you have to change the majority opinion. Good luck with that. An alternative is to support fringe or niche groups that do not believe in such restrictions. That is difficult with something like facebook, where much of the utility of the service comes from having a large, mainstream network of people as members. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
>A business decision that injures public health. Were facebook the internet, you might have something. But, I just typed breastfeeding videos into google, and got a zillion hits, checked the first one, and found a site with over a score of videos. Some had nothing to do with public health; others could be helpful. It took me 10 seconds to get there. How in the world does changing 10,001 sites with breastfeeding available to 10,000 do much of anything? It's like criticizing the food channel for not carrying cancer self-check instructions. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
A business decision that injures public health. On Dec 7, 2010 3:15 PM, "Dan Minette" wrote: >Only a sociopath and pervert can think that >breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful >to... 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? 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. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l... ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
>Only a sociopath and pervert can think that >breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful >to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) >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? 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. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
Bruce Bostwick wrote: > >> It's not the people that join that are sociopaths >> and perverts, it's the people that control the site >> that are sociopaths and perverts. >> >> Only a sociopath and pervert can think that >> breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful >> to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) >> >> 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. > > It seemed to me that the initial post could have been an excellent > illustration of a trap question in the mold of "Have you stopped > beating your wife?", and left it alone, admiring the complex twists > of it semantic seductiveness. > > But this seems to be a much better question to answer in the real world. > > The answer is that the culture at large has some very unhealthy and > dysfunctional ideas about nudity and sex, and tends to perceive > women's exposed breasts (regardless of the reasons why they're > exposed) as a sexualized image. > This is sociopathological, pervert and infanticidal. > I don't know if this is more so, or > less so, in Brazil than it is in the USA (I've heard widely > conflicting reports), > The conflicting reports are accurate: Brazil _was_ more liberal, but we are slowly becoming more fanatical and mysogynist than Iran and Afghanistan. > but with only limited exceptions in some more > open-minded areas of the country, people are taught to consider > exposed female breasts a moral threat of sorts (under the guise of > "protecting children") and some websites run by people who adhere to > that belief system tend to discriminate in that way rather, > er, indiscriminately. > This is sick. It's ok for children to watch ultraviolence, hear rap songs that glorify prostitution, but not to watch breasts? > I don't like the paradigm, I strongly feel that the value system > that underlies it is ultimately more destructive and unhealthy than > anything else, but it's a very deep-rooted paradigm that would > require far more than my own meager efforts to shift. And whether > I happen to like it or not, Facebook is likely to continue this > behavior for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't necessarily call > the attitudes driving it sociopathic, but I suppose I could call > some of them perverted, for a fairly loose definition of perversion. > I guess there are other Social Networks with less perverted owners. Here in Brazil, the Social Network of Choice is Orkut (Orkut seems like a Brazil - India Social Network :-) ). > (A similar definition exists in a more extreme form in parts of the > Arab world where women are forced to wrap themselves in clothing to > the extent that they can barely even see, supposedly to avoid > tempting nearby men into acts of lust. Both are a form of blaming > the victim, and I think men who believe this about women need to > work on impulse control more than they need to harass the womenfolk > into covering themselves up, but that may just be me.) > Men that think so should do the way Oedipus did _after_ he found out he was a parricide and mfer. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:44 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Why do people join Facebook, when it's owned by sociopaths and perverts? and then wrote: It's not the people that join that are sociopaths and perverts, it's the people that control the site that are sociopaths and perverts. Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) 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. It seemed to me that the initial post could have been an excellent illustration of a trap question in the mold of "Have you stopped beating your wife?", and left it alone, admiring the complex twists of it semantic seductiveness. But this seems to be a much better question to answer in the real world. The answer is that the culture at large has some very unhealthy and dysfunctional ideas about nudity and sex, and tends to perceive women's exposed breasts (regardless of the reasons why they're exposed) as a sexualized image. I don't know if this is more so, or less so, in Brazil than it is in the USA (I've heard widely conflicting reports), but with only limited exceptions in some more open-minded areas of the country, people are taught to consider exposed female breasts a moral threat of sorts (under the guise of "protecting children") and some websites run by people who adhere to that belief system tend to discriminate in that way rather, er, indiscriminately. I don't like the paradigm, I strongly feel that the value system that underlies it is ultimately more destructive and unhealthy than anything else, but it's a very deep-rooted paradigm that would require far more than my own meager efforts to shift. And whether I happen to like it or not, Facebook is likely to continue this behavior for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't necessarily call the attitudes driving it sociopathic, but I suppose I could call some of them perverted, for a fairly loose definition of perversion. (A similar definition exists in a more extreme form in parts of the Arab world where women are forced to wrap themselves in clothing to the extent that they can barely even see, supposedly to avoid tempting nearby men into acts of lust. Both are a form of blaming the victim, and I think men who believe this about women need to work on impulse control more than they need to harass the womenfolk into covering themselves up, but that may just be me.) “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” -- Mahatma Gandhi ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook('s policy on breastfeeding) is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
On Dec 7, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Dave Land wrote: Why do people join Facebook, when it's owned by sociopaths and perverts? Well, of course the sociopaths and perverts to which you refer are not on my friends list, so they don't have any meaningful impact on my Facebook experience. I mean "own" in the sense of ownership, not the game-world newspeak own. I knew that's what you meant: the people who founded it and run it and hold stock in it: that sort of ownership. Not "own" as in "I _own_ my inflated sense of importance and self-righteousness about the management of a certain social network." What I didn't know (because you didn't say 'til now) is that you had a specific axe to grind with them (their censorship of breastfeeding). And as to others who may actually enjoy the company of sociopaths and perverts: who are you to judge? :-) It's not the people that join that are sociopaths and perverts, it's the people that control the site that are sociopaths and perverts. Gotcha. The judges would also have accepted "misogynists and prudes". Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) One could create images of breastfeeding that are pornographic, and others that are not. These guys seem to think that the line lies further towards Victorian tastes than yours. You think that makes them sociopaths and perverts (see, I'm totally paying attention). 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. As long as the site continues and I can keep in touch with my friends and family on it, they can live in friggin' *Brazil*, for all I care. Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
Dave Land wrote: > >> Why do people join Facebook, when it's owned >> by sociopaths and perverts? > > Well, of course the sociopaths and perverts to which > you refer are not on my friends list, so they don't > have any meaningful impact on my Facebook experience. > I mean "own" in the sense of ownership, not the game-world newspeak own. > And as to others who may actually enjoy the company > of sociopaths and perverts: who are you to judge? :-) > It's not the people that join that are sociopaths and perverts, it's the people that control the site that are sociopaths and perverts. Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) 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. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
> Why do people join Facebook, when it's owned > by sociopaths and perverts? What sociopaths and perverts are you referring to, ALberto? I have many friends from SF Cons that would probably fit the category. In any case, there are perverts everywhere depending on your definition. What is yours? I didn't see the movie, but I joined FB after I read a post from Dr. Brin (on this list, I believe). You have been missing some fascinating discussion on his FB page, by being too proud to participate on a social network for whatever reason. I gave up my concerns about privacy after reading the "Transparent Society". It's too late... ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook Troll
Jon said: > I should have provided more clues... Forrest is correct, the particle with > no mass is the Higgs Boson. Forrest Higgs (no mass - doesn't exist!~) Higgs bosons, if they exist, are not massless: the current experimental lower limit on their mass is over a hundred times the mass of a proton. Rich ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Facebook Troll
> > Thanks Max, but the conversations on David's page are > fascinating. > > However, the problem seems to be solved; I simply > outed the troll, > > with his help. The fellow made himself rather > obvious with his > > profile picture of a troll like creature, a prenom > from a certain > > movie character who quotes aphorisms about life and > chocolate, and a > > surname from a theoretical particle with no mass. > Let me guess: Forest Photon? Gump Neutrino? > Still no help... > ---David I should have provided more clues... Forrest is correct, the particle with no mass is the Higgs Boson. Forrest Higgs (no mass - doesn't exist!~) Jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook troll
On 9/8/2010 2:42 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Thanks Max, but the conversations on David's page are fascinating. However, the problem seems to be solved; I simply outed the troll, with his help. The fellow made himself rather obvious with his profile picture of a troll like creature, a prenom from a certain movie character who quotes aphorisms about life and chocolate, and a surname from a theoretical particle with no mass. Let me guess: Forest Photon? Gump Neutrino? Still no help... ---David ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Facebook troll
> If there is nothing wrong with me, maybe > there's something wrong with the universe. > --ST:TNG, Dr. Beverly Crusher > John-- > Well, that was certainly "helpful". > ---David > I'm no help either, though. I certainly set myself up for that rejoinder!~) Jon > We both helped increase list traffic, which > has been quite low... > To be perfectly frank, I don't think > anyone can be of much help on this > matter with regard to Facebook. I > think Facebook has made it perfectly > clear that it is not in the business > of enabling discussion. It's in the > business of selling ads... Unfortunately, > trolls use adstoo. I suspect trolls > actually use more ads, thus "paying" for > the righto be jerks, but I certainly do > not have the ad metrics to data mine in > order to test that particular hypothesis. > The lesson: more "privately hosted" > mailing lists, less Facebook. Please. > --Max Battcher-- > http://worldmaker.net Thanks Max, but the conversations on David's page are fascinating. However, the problem seems to be solved; I simply outed the troll, with his help. The fellow made himself rather obvious with his profile picture of a troll like creature, a prenom from a certain movie character who quotes aphorisms about life and chocolate, and a surname from a theoretical particle with no mass. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Check out my photos on Facebook
Hi Brin, I set up a Facebook profile where I can post my pictures, videos and events and I want to add you as a friend so you can see it. First, you need to join Facebook! Once you join, you can also create your own profile. Thanks, Jon To sign up for Facebook, follow the link below: http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=1450086384&k=Z213YVQX4ZTFWA1BTFV4P5PQUQBD4X3A&r Already have an account? Add this email address to your account http://www.facebook.com/n/?merge_accounts.php&e=bri...@mccmedia.com&c=acc8b6eb645ee4d02d7643d78d034c38.bri...@mccmedia.com was invited to join Facebook by Jon Mann. If you do not wish to receive this type of email from Facebook in the future, please click on the link below to unsubscribe. http://www.facebook.com/o.php?k=b1da13&u=1834254911&mid=1c3bb2dG6d54823fG0G8 Facebook's offices are located at 1601 S. California Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Brin facebook fan page!
Reminder to join my Facebook fan page! http://www.facebook.com/pages/David-Brin/22358129265 Hoping U R all thriving! With cordial regards, David Brin http://www.davidbrin.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
