Facebook claims it will keep your personal data separate from your financial information when you use their new cryptocurrency, and holy crap I managed to type all that without my eyes rolling out of my head
Sign up today, and for the low, low cost of $1 you too can get weekly and monthly installments of fiction, microfiction, short stories and gaming material! Best of all, my Patreon is not looking at your life like it was some sort of panopticon (IT’S A REAL WORD, CHROME). I’m sure that you’re all fascinating people, but I have a blink reflex.
Facebook will drive a hard bargain with influencers and artists judging by the terms of service for the social network’s Patreon-like Fan Subscriptions feature that lets people pay a monthly fee for access to a creator’s exclusive content. The policy document attained by TechCrunch shows Facebook plans to take up to a 30 percent cut of subscription revenue minus fees, compared to 5 percent by Patreon, 30 percent by YouTube, which covers fees and 50 percent by Twitch.
It’s not happening to me, yet. Or maybe it did happen to me, months ago — and then I screamed, button-mashed my way into settings, turned that feature off, then carefully suppressed my memories of the experience in order to keep the trauma from eating my soul. It’s hard to tell; either way, I’d be still feeling this faint mix of nausea and horror. Auto-sound does not make it easier to enjoy video, Facebook. Quite the opposite, really.
I mean: really, Facebook? REALLY? Who told you that this was a good idea?
Twitter: We know the VERY BEST WAY to irritate every single user: 280 characters!
I mean, it’s almost as if I haven’t touched it in several years and didn’t know what the heck I was doing when I did maintain it. The feed is unreadable, I don’t know half the people on it, I’m not sure how to read anybody else’s stuff in a meaningful and sensible way, and apparently people can get upset if you post blog posts on your feed. I’m half-considering deleting the whole thing: not out of pique, but because I can’t figure out how to untangle it, so just junking the account then starting over seems, well, easier.
But I’m guessing that would be bad. Anybody got any suggestions?
‘Inadvertently.’ How droll. How abso-[expletive deleted]-lute-ly droll.
Let me set the scene: Russia – which has comfortably settled back into the patterns of bureaucratic autocracy that has more or less been its operating methodology for a millennium – has a problem. It’s that pesky Internet, which was created by those pesky Americans, and our pesky stubborn insistence that people have rights and needs that trumps the State’s. Worse, an American’s instinctive response to foreigners insisting the we shut up on the Internet traditionally involves a bodily function, a rope and directions on how do the former upon the latter. You can do that, when all the servers are on your soil. Sooo…
For Russian President Vladimir Putin, this was intolerable. In his mind the solution was simple: force the platforms — Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Apple among them — to locate their servers on Russian soil so Russian authorities could control them.
All of them: the rot has set in. To summarize… Marc Cooper, a journalism professor at USC (Annenberg), asked on Facebook what seems to be a fairly reasonable question: if the New York Times doesn’t think that Islamist fanatics killing a dozen people over the publication of satirical cartoons justifies showing said cartoons… hold on a minute.
Moving on… Marc Cooper asked: if the current number of murdered cartoonists, staffers, and cops weren’t enough to justify the NYT doing its job, then just how many murder victims would be sufficient? – Apparently, this question cooked off the NYT’s executive editor Dean Baquet, because Mr. Baquet went on Facebook to literally call Mr. Cooper an a*shole. Continue reading The New York Times needs to get all of their people off of Facebook.
Basically, it looks for all the world like Google and Facebook got some sort of recommended talking points memo designed to end this hullabaloo by giving them something suitably vacuous to say that would allow them to, I think, progress past this issue and move on.
Anyone signing up to Facebook agrees to their terms and conditions (which can be read here). In the same way that posting your own hotchpotch rental agreement in your lounge window makes no difference to your landlord once he’s got your original signed contract, neither does this status update amend your agreement with Facebook. You simply can’t retroactively alter the mutually-agreed terms by making a Facebook post.
So what should you do if you’ve already amended your Facebook privacy settings and you’re still unhappy with the site’s policies? Other than renegotiating your terms with them, your options are limited to this: lump it or leave.
It’s a miracle that everybody under 30 isn’t in jail for various forms of intellectual property rights violations. What the hell were they teaching these kids instead of respect for property rights, anyway?
Yeah, that was a loaded question, huh?
but can cure cancer … RT @bdomenech: Posting some dreck about copyright on your wall doesn’t do anything, folks. vlt.tc/l47
Just thought that I’d rewrite this title (“Facebook’s spam program catches innocent users“) into something a bit more accurate. Executive summary: anti-fracking* activists – and more general environmental… types… – have been discovering that their regular posting and commenting patterns on Facebook has been winning them two week spam-bans from Facebook. Now, Facebook obviously doesn’t particularly want to give out its anti-spambot protocols, but you can pickup some clues from the (somewhat confused, in a hilarious sort of way) complaints. It turns out that if you go on Facebook and: Continue reading AP: Facebook can’t tell anti-fracking fanatics from spambots.