Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:53 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:12 pm

Jaymann wrote:On Firefox with DuckDuckGo, but apparently FF is also compromised? Recommendations from OO brain trust?

Brave
Vivaldi

I heard a rumor that Brave was bound up with Chinese surveillance. Is that bullshit?

I started a thread on this under general computing so as not to derail Pic & Vid.

I'm only 25 minutes in, but it seems quite unconvincing. One statement caught my attention - how are newspapers regulated in a way that these companies are not?

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:24 pm Sasse gettin’ sassy

That was a great message

I hope the right people hear that.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:51 am I'm only 25 minutes in, but it seems quite unconvincing. One statement caught my attention - how are newspapers regulated in a way that these companies are not?

I watched about half an hour, and didn't hear that specific thing, but having looked deeply into this during the early 2010s (in particular, on the novel methods used to collect data), here's my thoughts on this and the video:

The social media, online advertising, collecting data on users, etc. is much more of a wild west, without much in the way of regulations. At least, here in the US (the EU did do some work towards regulating this around 2015 or so). Some attempts have been made here, but little has come out of it.

By around 30 minutes in, it was pretty clear that the video had it's own agenda.

They make lots of assumptions, and assume the worst. They take what's theoretically possible and assume that Google and Facebook do that. While I do think Google and Facebook make bad and unethical choices from time to time, and should be wary about them, I don't think they make every bad choice they can.

It talks about both the collecting of data on users, and the filter bubble we're in - those are two different (if related) things, but I think it should be clear that they're separate things even though they seamlessly move from one to the other (because their agenda relates to one of them)

They focus only on Facebook and Google, ignoring that there are thousands upon thousands of companies that collect information on you. I'm more wary of the companies (like data brokers and ad exchanges, etc) that collect and buy and sell your data (even from the offline world) you don't even agree to a terms of service with because you never directly interact with them.

Anyway, there's a lesson to be learned. Be wary and use things like ghostery and duckduckgo and such (although you'll never realistically be able to prevent some data being collected on you if you use the internet, and even if you don't use the internet, data can still be collected from you). But the real solution is for the government to finally step in and do some regulating.

And their claim that fake news isn't a thing is bullshit.

Defiant wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:07 am

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:51 am I'm only 25 minutes in, but it seems quite unconvincing. One statement caught my attention - how are newspapers regulated in a way that these companies are not?

I watched about half an hour, and didn't hear that specific thing, but having looked deeply into this during the early 2010s (in particular, on the novel methods used to collect data), here's my thoughts on this and the video:

The social media, online advertising, collecting data on users, etc. is much more of a wild west, without much in the way of regulations. At least, here in the US (the EU did do some work towards regulating this around 2015 or so). Some attempts have been made here, but little has come out of it.

By around 30 minutes in, it was pretty clear that the video had it's own agenda.

They make lots of assumptions, and assume the worst. They take what's theoretically possible and assume that Google and Facebook do that. While I do think Google and Facebook make bad and unethical choices from time to time, and should be wary about them, I don't think they make every bad choice they can.

It talks about both the collecting of data on users, and the filter bubble we're in - those are two different (if related) things, but I think it should be clear that they're separate things even though they seamlessly move from one to the other (because their agenda relates to one of them)

Yeah, that was bugging me. It also suggests that the users have no agency or responsibility, which I have real problems with.

They focus only on Facebook and Google, ignoring that there are thousands upon thousands of companies that collect information on you.

Like credit card companies!

Anyway, there's a lesson to be learned. Be wary and use things like ghostery and duckduckgo and such (although you'll never realistically be able to prevent some data being collected on you if you use the internet, and even if you don't use the internet, data can still be collected from you). But the real solution is for the government to finally step in and do some regulating.

And their claim that fake news isn't a thing is bullshit.

I think regulation around informed consent is needed and reasonable. I'm wary of some of the other things I've seen suggested, though.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:04 am

It talks about both the collecting of data on users, and the filter bubble we're in - those are two different (if related) things, but I think it should be clear that they're separate things even though they seamlessly move from one to the other (because their agenda relates to one of them)

Yeah, that was bugging me. It also suggests that the users have no agency or responsibility, which I have real problems with.

There are absolutely ways around the filter bubble (provided you want to escape it).

It's much harder to escape having your data being collected. You can reduce it to a degree using easy to use stuff like ghostery and alternatives like duckduckgo, but you're going to lose some of the functionality of the internet (some things don't have good alternatives) and you're always going to have some data collected on you, even if it's less data.

They focus only on Facebook and Google, ignoring that there are thousands upon thousands of companies that collect information on you.

Like credit card companies!

Well, I was thinking specifically about the online world, but yes, credit card companies. Although I have to imagine credit card companies are far more regulated than the companies in the online landscape.

Defiant wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:20 am

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:04 am

It talks about both the collecting of data on users, and the filter bubble we're in - those are two different (if related) things, but I think it should be clear that they're separate things even though they seamlessly move from one to the other (because their agenda relates to one of them)

Yeah, that was bugging me. It also suggests that the users have no agency or responsibility, which I have real problems with.

There are absolutely ways around the filter bubble (provided you want to escape it).

It's much harder to escape having your data being collected. You can reduce it to a degree using easy to use stuff like ghostery and alternatives like duckduckgo, but you're going to lose some of the functionality of the internet (some things don't have good alternatives) and you're always going to have some data collected on you, even if it's less data.

They focus only on Facebook and Google, ignoring that there are thousands upon thousands of companies that collect information on you.

Like credit card companies!

Well, I was thinking specifically about the online world, but yes, credit card companies. Although I have to imagine credit card companies are far more regulated than the companies in the online landscape.

This seems relevant here (though not at all R&P).

Report: Google considering an iOS-style anti-tracking feature for Android

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:24 pm Sasse gettin’ sassy

And staying classy...

The weird worship of one dude.

Daehawk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:28 am The weird worship of one dude.

That phrase stood out to me as well. Not just due to the alliteration, but because he was SO close to getting the 4 shot!

Weird
Worship
(W)One
Dude?!? No, Ben Sasse, you screwed up.

While I appreciate your 80's vernacular, any of these below would have made your phrase much more memorable and epic IMO:
wanker (wank)
whiner
womanizer
wackadoodle
wingnut
windbag
wiener/weenie
whackjob
weasel
etc

My favorite superbowl commercial

It's an animal that shits out both ends, too.

Hate to be a pedantic asshole here, but is the cartoon suggesting that those committees were formed as a result? Doesn't he mean HEARINGS by those committees?

Or I could be totally missing it.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:35 pm Hate to be a pedantic asshole here, but is the cartoon suggesting that those committees were formed as a result? Doesn't he mean HEARINGS by those committees?

Or I could be totally missing it.

I'm pretty sure they already existed.

It's so weird to have a president who loves his wife and his dogs and isn't a snarling inhuman rageball of narcissism.

I'm confused.... the President isn't talking about how amazing he is and how much everyone thinks he's the best. This is weird.

Here is an interview with Mr. Fed. He talks about how RICO should generally only be used where the defendant's middle name is "the."

That video of the Bidens and their dogs was special. The kindness and decency . . . What a difference from Trump. Thanks for sharing.

Kurth wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 1:02 pm That video of the Bidens and their dogs was special. The kindness and decency . . . What a difference from Trump. Thanks for sharing.

Prez needs to put on his aviators to go with those jeans & leather jacket.

Still, yes, it was refreshing to see someone there with compassion for someone without trying to make a transaction out of it.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 12:48 pm Here is an interview with Mr. Fed. He talks about how RICO should generally only be used where the defendant's middle name is "the."

Thanks for posting that!

Are people really upset because they thought he would get convicted?!

Come on. We knew what would happen.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:15 pm Are people really upset because they thought he would get convicted?!

Come on. We knew what would happen.

Some people are not happy unless they're miserable.

To be clear, I’m upset that he was not convicted, in general. Not because I THOUGHT he was going to get convicted, but wasn’t. If that makes any sense.

I’m seeing a lot of teeth gnashing over what seems to be the latter.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:55 pm To be clear, I’m upset that he was not convicted, in general. Not because I THOUGHT he was going to get convicted, but wasn’t. If that makes any sense.

I’m seeing a lot of teeth gnashing over what seems to be the latter.

Absolutely makes sense.
What does not make sense these day is still thinking that any branch of our government works as it was intended.
Both sides are clueless.

John Oliver is back, covering the recent political events and pandemics.

What he needs is the "I really don't care, do u?" jacket.

*Edit: I don't normally subject myself to TV ads, but had to in order to watch Resident Alien ... and find myself deeply offended by Budweiser's "Lemon of a Year" ad re: 2020. It feels too much like they're making fun of all of the shit in that year - from forest fires to race riots to hundreds of thousands of dead Americans (let alone the global death toll) in order to shill some booze.

I LOL'd every time the narrator gave his full name.