Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2017, 02:40 AM
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
(16-09-2017 02:31 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  
(16-09-2017 02:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Anybody who posts anything on Facebook with any expectation of privacy is, in a word, a fool.

Does it seem needlessly invasive? Sure. But they did put that information out there, available to the public. That's why I don't use Facebook.

We don't know it was a public post. It could well have been restricted to friends and aquaintances- like this idiot priest.

Doesn't matter. If you post it on Facebook at all, you cannot assume that people whom you don't want to see it won't actually see it. Accounts get hacked or left logged in, people in groups can share the content of a post with those outside of it. If you post anything on Facebook, regardless of whether you think it's private or not, assume it can be read by everyone and act accordingly (i.e. never upload nude pics of yourself, unless you don't mind the world seeing them).

Also, at the end of the day, Facebook itself owns your post and is data-mining you for their own benefit. Nothing on Facebook is truly private.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
16-09-2017, 03:16 AM
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
(16-09-2017 02:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(16-09-2017 02:31 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  We don't know it was a public post. It could well have been restricted to friends and aquaintances- like this idiot priest.

Doesn't matter. If you post it on Facebook at all, you cannot assume that people whom you don't want to see it won't actually see it. Accounts get hacked or left logged in, people in groups can share the content of a post with those outside of it. If you post anything on Facebook, regardless of whether you think it's private or not, assume it can be read by everyone and act accordingly (i.e. never upload nude pics of yourself, unless you don't mind the world seeing them).

Also, at the end of the day, Facebook itself owns your post and is data-mining you for their own benefit. Nothing on Facebook is truly private.

I think nude photos of a 52 year old woman would either terrify the world or force it to get real - real fast - but thanks for the tip.

I'm well aware of the dangers of Facebook which is why 99.9% of my posts are public: I use it to disseminate information, not to talk about my big night out or my shitty boss or the great latte I had at the new cafe. Very rarely I'll post something directly for family and/or friends.

I'd prefer to use S-MAP and keep meaning to check out the Dark Web, but they haven't Facebook's reach yet. I'm far more concerned by Facebook's (and Google's ) greed and largely successful efforts to destroy net neutrality. I read Facebook has introduced a TOR plug in to protect user anonymity. You just know it almost works, but not quite, doncha?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2017, 03:26 AM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2017 03:32 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
(16-09-2017 03:16 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  
(16-09-2017 02:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Doesn't matter. If you post it on Facebook at all, you cannot assume that people whom you don't want to see it won't actually see it. Accounts get hacked or left logged in, people in groups can share the content of a post with those outside of it. If you post anything on Facebook, regardless of whether you think it's private or not, assume it can be read by everyone and act accordingly (i.e. never upload nude pics of yourself, unless you don't mind the world seeing them).

Also, at the end of the day, Facebook itself owns your post and is data-mining you for their own benefit. Nothing on Facebook is truly private.

I think nude photos of a 52 year old woman would either terrify the world or force it to get real - real fast - but thanks for the tip.

I'm well aware of the dangers of Facebook which is why 99.9% of my posts are public: I use it to disseminate information, not to talk about my big night out or my shitty boss or the great latte I had at the new cafe. Very rarely I'll post something directly for family and/or friends.

I'd prefer to use S-MAP and keep meaning to check out the Dark Web, but they haven't Facebook's reach yet. I'm far more concerned by Facebook's (and Google's ) greed and largely successful efforts to destroy net neutrality. I read Facebook has introduced a TOR plug in to protect user anonymity. You just know it almost works, but not quite, doncha?


Google is actually pro-Net Neutrality, as is Facebook, and every other tech company that relies upon unfettered access to the internet. It is the Internet Service Providers (Comcast, Time-Warner Cable, etc.) who, having already carved up the US into noncompetitive monopolistic territories, now want to segregate the internet itself into separate speed categories in order to charge even more for faster access; as opposed to having a legitimate competitor offering better service/speed/price to drive down prices and up investment in costly infrastructure improvements. Google, Facebook, and Netflix are pro-Net Neutrality, because it prevents ISP's from using speed of access to their customers (and thus affecting their quality of service), allowing the ISP's to effectively extort them for more money using consumer dissatisfaction as leverage.

Net Neutrality is a separate, but related, issue from privacy on the net.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
16-09-2017, 05:28 AM
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
They wanted to marry in a church?

That's priceless. Big Grin

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2017, 06:39 AM
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
It sucks that they'll have to reschedule but they probably dodged a bullet, exposing the church's true colors at the same time.

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Loom's post
16-09-2017, 03:08 PM
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
I'll take "the Law of Unintended Consequences" for $500, Alex.

Hope the pastor enjoys the publicity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
16-09-2017, 09:34 PM
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
(16-09-2017 02:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(16-09-2017 02:31 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  We don't know it was a public post. It could well have been restricted to friends and aquaintances- like this idiot priest.

Doesn't matter. If you post it on Facebook at all, you cannot assume that people whom you don't want to see it won't actually see it. Accounts get hacked or left logged in, people in groups can share the content of a post with those outside of it. If you post anything on Facebook, regardless of whether you think it's private or not, assume it can be read by everyone and act accordingly (i.e. never upload nude pics of yourself, unless you don't mind the world seeing them).

All well, good, and true, but does not take away in the least SS's contention that it is seriously freaking creepy. FB posts mined by the person you want to conduct your own marriage for the purpose of determining your opinion of gay marriage?
Disgusting and reprehensible.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jerry mcmasters's post
16-09-2017, 09:51 PM
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
Unfortunately, our prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull—who's a practising Catholic—has publicly supported the minister Steven North's refusal to marry the couple. This is another example of the insidious effects of the Christian minority here in Australia surreptitiously influencing our parliamentary decision-making processes.

Turnbull should've known better than to comment on a purely religious matter, just as I expect the church to refrain from commenting on politics. Both however have abrogated their intended duties many times in the recent past.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
16-09-2017, 10:38 PM
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
(16-09-2017 09:34 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(16-09-2017 02:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Doesn't matter. If you post it on Facebook at all, you cannot assume that people whom you don't want to see it won't actually see it. Accounts get hacked or left logged in, people in groups can share the content of a post with those outside of it. If you post anything on Facebook, regardless of whether you think it's private or not, assume it can be read by everyone and act accordingly (i.e. never upload nude pics of yourself, unless you don't mind the world seeing them).

All well, good, and true, but does not take away in the least SS's contention that it is seriously freaking creepy. FB posts mined by the person you want to conduct your own marriage for the purpose of determining your opinion of gay marriage?
Disgusting and reprehensible.

I never said it wasn't, only that thinking nobody would is naive.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2017, 10:43 PM
RE: Church Cancels Wedding - Couple Supports Gay Marriage
(16-09-2017 03:26 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(16-09-2017 03:16 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  I think nude photos of a 52 year old woman would either terrify the world or force it to get real - real fast - but thanks for the tip.

I'm well aware of the dangers of Facebook which is why 99.9% of my posts are public: I use it to disseminate information, not to talk about my big night out or my shitty boss or the great latte I had at the new cafe. Very rarely I'll post something directly for family and/or friends.

I'd prefer to use S-MAP and keep meaning to check out the Dark Web, but they haven't Facebook's reach yet. I'm far more concerned by Facebook's (and Google's ) greed and largely successful efforts to destroy net neutrality. I read Facebook has introduced a TOR plug in to protect user anonymity. You just know it almost works, but not quite, doncha?


Google is actually pro-Net Neutrality, as is Facebook, and every other tech company that relies upon unfettered access to the internet. It is the Internet Service Providers (Comcast, Time-Warner Cable, etc.) who, having already carved up the US into noncompetitive monopolistic territories, now want to segregate the internet itself into separate speed categories in order to charge even more for faster access; as opposed to having a legitimate competitor offering better service/speed/price to drive down prices and up investment in costly infrastructure improvements. Google, Facebook, and Netflix are pro-Net Neutrality, because it prevents ISP's from using speed of access to their customers (and thus affecting their quality of service), allowing the ISP's to effectively extort them for more money using consumer dissatisfaction as leverage.

Net Neutrality is a separate, but related, issue from privacy on the net.

Unfettered access to the internet"? Laughat

When is net neutrality not net neutrality? When you control the content and your users accordingly. Massive tech companies are not net neutral, they just claim to be and mouth pieties to that effect. They have empires to protect.

" The Web as a freewheeling, democratic platform has been an illusory concept for the better part of a decade. Google has an 88 percent market share of the search-engine market. Facebook, a 77 percent share of mobile social media. Amazon, meanwhile, controls 70 percent of e-book sales, according to Jonathan Taplin, author of a new book on how these firms have “cornered” the Web.

In other words, if you are a typical consumer, your access to online content is already intermediated by the decisions made at a few companies to prioritize certain content based on their view of this information’s importance or its relevance to you. To make money, these firms sell targeted access to you based on data they’ve harvested from everything from your click patterns to the contents of your emails. By 2012, Google made more in ad revenue than all U.S. print media combined.

Google and Facebook are also the largest supporters of net neutrality, ostensible freedom fighters for the open Internet. Pull away the curtains on the high-minded rhetoric, though, and their corporate self-interest is plain. Well-capitalized Internet-service providers such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast are the only plausible rivals for their kind of dominance — and net neutrality applies only to ISPs, not to companies that run websites.

Where net-neutrality advocates have a point — sort of — is regarding the architecture of the system. You usually access the Internet through one entry point. Although you may have choices (the “cable” company or the “phone” company — now both broadband companies), you probably have at most two potential high-speed providers, and at any given time you are subscribed to only one. Meanwhile, you can always go to Yahoo if you don’t like Google, or replace Facebook with LinkedIn.

But most people don’t. The practical reality is that the dominant tech firms on the network’s “edge” loom as large in their control over customers as do the providers of the physical architecture through which consumers use the Internet."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...rnets-well

On Google's lack of net neutrality

http://www.netcompetition.org/conflict-o...ot-neutral


On Facebook's lack of net neutrality:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16050...ternet-org


On Google, Facebook, Netflix and Amazon's lack of net neutrality :

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/net-n...ess-2017-7

On Google, Facebook and Amazon's lack of net neutrality :

https://hackernoon.com/facebook-google-a...0cf8c5920e


https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/07...ality_day/


https://www.axios.com/one-proposal-for-r...62034.html


On Google, Facebook and Amazon's lack of net neutrality ( paywalled)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/neutrality-...1500591612
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: