John Fenderson 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (17316) comment rss

  • On the post: Enigma Software Countersued For Waging A 'Smear Campaign' Against Site It Claimed Defamed It

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2016 @ 02:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I dunno. I know a couple of assholes who are completely aware that they're assholes. They take pride in it, even. But if they're "insane", then "sane" has no meaning. They're not crazy, they're just assholes.

  • On the post: Think Tank Argues That Giving Up Privacy Is Good For The Poor

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2016 @ 02:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You can certainly give up rights by contract. You do it all the time! The contract can't be "unconscionable", so there is a limit to what you can give up, but privacy is certainly well within that limit.

  • On the post: Twitter Suspends Hundreds Of Thousands Of Terrorist Accounts, Gives Everyone Its 'Quality Filter'

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2016 @ 06:16pm

    Very uncomfortable

    Twitter can do what it wants, obviously, but I'm very uncomfortable with this business about "deleting terrorist accounts". How are they determining what counts as worthy of deletion? Twitter isn't saying, but they admit that it's a bit of a "know it when you see it" thing:

    As we mentioned in February, and other companies and experts have also noted, there is no one “magic algorithm” for identifying terrorist content on the Internet.


    Also, they seem to be combining two entirely different things: accounts which advocate violence, and accounts which appear to be supportive of terrorist groups. I'm OK with the former -- it's usually very clear when someone is urging violent action -- but I'm not OK with the latter. What counts as "supportive"? What counts as a "terrorist group"?

    What ensures that people won't be silenced just because they express strong criticism of their government, or because they were engaging in discussion about a terrorist group?

  • On the post: Donald Trump Says He'll Turn Off The Internet For Terrorists

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2016 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Trump Reality

    "Not exactly sure why, but the polling numbers indicate it's true."

    Except that they don't. His polling numbers have been falling. They are exceptionally low for a major party candidate at this stage in the campaign, and look to continue to fall, at least in the near term.

    I don't think that it's a coincidence that this started happening as a more general population started listening to him speak.

  • On the post: NPR The Latest Website To Prevent You From Commenting Because It Simply Adores 'Relationships' And 'Conversation'

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2016 @ 10:52am

    Re: What if their target audience isn't on Facebook?

    The median age of people going to NPR's website is about 40 (the median age of NPR listeners is 49). The average age of US Facebook users is also 40.

    I'm comparing a median with an average here, which is a bit of a yellow apple/red apple comparison, but the two demographics are in the same age ballpark.

  • On the post: NPR The Latest Website To Prevent You From Commenting Because It Simply Adores 'Relationships' And 'Conversation'

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2016 @ 10:44am

    Re: Stats

    I disagree. The hard numbers they used were to point out that less than 1% of site visitors leave comments. But I don't follow the logic that leads to "therefore, comments are without value".

  • On the post: News Sites Realizing That Relying On Facebook For Traffic Might Not Have Been Wise

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2016 @ 07:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "But, using social media then proudly claiming you don't use it when you want to socialise? That just seems strange."

    I see what you're saying, but I think it's not so strange. While I used to have a Facebook account, I canceled it precisely because I never used it to socialize.

    But I know a lot of people who who do just this. They have a Facebook account just to track announcements from those friends and family who only communicate through Facebook -- but they never actually post anything themselves.

    I think this is an attempt at a "middle road" by people who really don't want to be using Facebook at all, but feel forced to by those who use Facebook exclusively.

  • On the post: Think Tank Argues That Giving Up Privacy Is Good For The Poor

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2016 @ 07:21am

    Re:

    Because people have technically agreed to it by "agreeing" to the terms of service.

  • On the post: Donald Trump Says He'll Turn Off The Internet For Terrorists

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2016 @ 06:30am

    Re: Trump Reality

    "I'd agree with blocking Donald Trump from Twitter."

    Not me. I want Trump to have as many unfiltered outlets of expression as possible. The more he speaks his mind, the less likely he is to be president.

  • On the post: News Sites Realizing That Relying On Facebook For Traffic Might Not Have Been Wise

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2016 @ 06:24am

    Re: Re:

    "it's just interesting to me when people literally say they don't use social media to socialise."

    There are substantial segments of the population that don't use social sites at all. I'm one of them. I socialize online, all right, but I do so through email and, to a lesser extent, comment sections like I'm doing now.

    Most of my friends and colleagues have Facebook accounts, but none of them do social engagement exclusively through Facebook.

  • On the post: NPR The Latest Website To Prevent You From Commenting Because It Simply Adores 'Relationships' And 'Conversation'

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2016 @ 06:16am

    Re: You must be new around here

    On the surface, your three parts all seem unworkable to me, but perhaps there are missing details that changes that. I'm genuinely curious, though: how in the world is anyone going to judge the "maturity" or "sincerity" of comments?


    "Not sure if this idea applies to BestNetTech."

    Yes, BestNetTech has no trolls. /sarc

  • On the post: Billionaire Backer Of Palantir & Facebook Insists He's Bankrupting Journalists To Protect Your Privacy

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2016 @ 08:47pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "So anybody can publish any fact about me as long as they didn't agree to keep it quiet?"

    It depends on how you count, but conceptually yes. The reason that it's not an unequivocal "yes" can be best illustrated by explaining why doxing is illegal.

    Doxing is illegal, by the way. However, the laws it breaks aren't about the plain act of publicly revealing private information. It's because doxing is almost always part of stalking and harassment.

    It seems to me that this is the way to approach the issue without unduly infringing on free speech rights. Don't focus on the speech itself, focus on the larger issue.

  • On the post: NPR The Latest Website To Prevent You From Commenting Because It Simply Adores 'Relationships' And 'Conversation'

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2016 @ 08:33pm

    Re: Why should News sites have comments?

    The most natural and logical place to discuss a story is where the story actually exists. You're absolutely right, people can (and will) go elsewhere to talk about stuff, but it seems pretty obvious that is something that is worse for both the commenters and the website.

    Speaking personally, the single thing that a website can have that makes it more likely that I'll go there every day is a vibrant comment section on the site itself. Without such a section, there is no community. Without community, there is no reason to frequent the site unless there is a specific story I'm interested in.

  • On the post: Donald Trump Says He'll Turn Off The Internet For Terrorists

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2016 @ 02:39pm

    Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people

    So this would accomplish the exact opposite of what Trump wants to accomplish.

  • On the post: Donald Trump Says He'll Turn Off The Internet For Terrorists

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2016 @ 02:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This.

    "Donald Trump is misunderstood" is not even close to an adequate explanation, even if it is true.

    The words a President speaks mean a lot more, and are analyzed a lot harder, than those spoken by others. Misunderstandings can cause major problems, including wars.

    The ability to make yourself clear is an essential skill for being President, and when Trump repeatedly shows that (at best) he cannot seem to accomplish even that, he shows that he has no business in the office.

  • On the post: NPR The Latest Website To Prevent You From Commenting Because It Simply Adores 'Relationships' And 'Conversation'

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2016 @ 08:28pm

    Much of the internet will be cut off

    74% of US internet users use at least one social networking site of any sort. Conversely, that means that 26% of US internet users will no longer be able to read or make comments for NPR stories.

    NPR loves conversations so much that they are happy to cut off a quarter of the population from being able to engage in them.

  • On the post: Dallas PD Asks Attorney General For Permission To Withhold 'Embarrassing' Documents About Its Bomb Robot

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2016 @ 10:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cops wanted Revenge

    It doesn't matter what he wants. What matters is what is in the best interest of the public.

    There is an extremely good reason why the police are not supposed to be the ones that determine guilt or innocence, nor are they the ones who are supposed to decide who gets punished for what, and what sort of punishment it will be.

    The police are supposed to investigate crime and bring suspects into court, not to assassinate people, no matter how awful those people may be.

  • On the post: Trademark Office Tosses Phyllis Schlafly's Opposition To Her Nephew's Brewery Name Trademark Application

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2016 @ 09:02am

    Re: Re: Re: What statute?

    Yes, it would -- but that wouldn't necessarily have an impact on the brewery's use of the name. Trademarks are industry-specific.

    If I have a trademark on, say, the name of a publication that does not preclude a company in a completely different business from registering the name as their trademark as well. (That's the legal baseline, but in practice there are a number of gotchas that make can make this a bit sticky.)

    As an example, remember the trademark dispute between Apple Records and Apple Computers? Apple Computers won and were able to keep using the name because they weren't in the music production business (at the time! After the iPod was released, Apple Computers and Apple Records reached an arrangement).

  • On the post: Billionaire Backer Of Palantir & Facebook Insists He's Bankrupting Journalists To Protect Your Privacy

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2016 @ 08:56am

    Re:

    Whether or not Denton deserved it is 100% irrelevant.

  • On the post: Billionaire Backer Of Palantir & Facebook Insists He's Bankrupting Journalists To Protect Your Privacy

    John Fenderson ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2016 @ 08:54am

    Re:

    "Is there a point to privacy protection if free speech eliminates implied confidentiality?"

    But it doesn't do this.

    Let's say I tell a secret to you under the terms of a contract that binds you to keep the secret. If you then reveal the secret, I have recourse against you for that.

    The concept of "free speech" in no way affects that.

    If you told my secret to, say, the press and they then published is -- that's fair game. The press never agreed to keep the secret, and their right to report it is totally a free speech issue.

    I should have no recourse against the press. My recourse is against you. And the amount of damage your breach of contract caused (including the damage from the press reports) affects the amount of recourse I get.

Next >>