i fucking hate youtube page 2

75 posts

Flag Post

The social revolutionaries of tomorrow will know their shit well enough not to browse unprotected.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

so youtube just gave me a popup asking me my real name to give to people rather than some stupid nick. i denied, and got a new popup that couldn’t be closed, that forced me to make a choice why i didn’t want it, with no option for “fuck off with your incessent attempts at compromising my internet anonymity and safety”.

it didn’t look like spyware.

so anyway, what do you people believe we should do about these evil, corrupt organisations incessently trying to ruin the internet for us?

(i’m really, really, really, really sick of it)

I got one of those from Facebook the other day…and I wasn’t even on facebook. Facebook sucks too. One time Kongregate took me to facebook and wanted me to sign on so they could get my information. These sites are getting pretty brazen anymore.

 
Flag Post

Just restart your computer or something.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
come on now, isn’t these knee-jerk PC defences a little purile?

Actually, what I find a little puerile is young internet peepz ‘victimized’ by mildly annoying internet congloms who then go into conspiracy theory hysterics about how evil and insane and a threat to FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY™ YouTube is.

Wait, did I say ‘puerile’? Because I meant ‘fucking retarded’.

if you try to not play into it, it really is more than a little annoying. they do everything they can to make it impossible. this latest disruptive pop-up shit that youtube itself forced onto me really made it more than i can tolerate, after they already make pop-ups every time about filling in a phone number where you have to find a whole detour to avoid it. hotmail does the same thing, basically every website has crap like that, and i’m really, really sick of it. there’s nothing puerile about that, so really, YOU are the fucking retard here.


@vikatae

There are many of them. The term refers to any new technology that breaks the old ways of doing things; opening up new possibilities we did not have before. It hits like a wave, up and down our society.

oh, that’s what you meant by wave. lol, i thought you meant “wave technology” like a sonic wave or something like that.

New disruptive technologies are appearing faster than ever before, and year on year that pace of appearance is accellerating. That’s what ‘the singularity’ that many people refer to, actually is. As these new disruptive technologies come closer and closer together, there is a projected point in the mid 2030s where they will be coming virtually instantaneously after one another – at that point all bets are off, and all our previous models for our society go completely out the window.

i’ll dread that. some years ago, i saw a youtube video suggesting this is what the Mayans calculated would happen 21 12 2012. which, btw, is a month from now, heh.

For you, there is better access than ever to items of niche interest to you.

or, there is far too much repetition, and an absense of information outside of your own sphere, hence you get stimulated to get rutted in your ways, and have a skewed conception of reality.

It doesn’t match your name. It matches an ID number in the system, that may or may not have an actual human name attached to it. That ID number is associated with all these people, all these preferences, and a specific geographic area. S’why I use proxies to throw mine off. That and I like to keep my business and personal lives separate – they have separate interests.

yes, i know that. but if that data includes any email adress that is a contact with anyone you know by name, especially someone, for instance, that shares your last name, a sister or father or something like that, or anywhere where your real name is registered like a list of students or employers, they’ll be able to match it to your name.

also what good are proxies really? on the same token, the proxy can sell your information, and the whole thing would just be counter-productive.

unless maybe if you try proxy to proxy to proxy…

it’s that they’ve made things so that they now know everything about everyone.

We are a LONG way from that point, assuming we ever reach it.

… if i take a look at websites like facebook, i can pretty much know everything about everyone i know. so that means anyone with the same access should be able to do the same. there are a few people that are less active in the whole thing with facebook and all that, just like me, that are less easy to track down etc. but they’re making it harder and harder to do that. they seem to specifically be combatting this. that is what worries me so much…in fact what pisses me off.

they clearly want EVERYONE to do as these people, that tell the internet everything, pics and names included. THIS should be dreaded. we used to dread this 10 years ago. people were actually afraid of this…

On the flipside, it makes it far easier to tell if someone is conducting such a search. That is the whole point of data mining – its an enabling technology, meant to make everything easier to find.

yeah, only if your some mega hacker. i’m pretty sure the CIA has a lot of clandistine access to information. besides, even if the government openly is gathering all this information, what are you gonna do about it? you’re getting the picture now?


Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

The People’s Republic of China

and to try to stay on topic…I agree with Omegadoom, I although my dislike is (was) towards Facebook and their annoying request or what have you.

But I also suppose Vika is right, there are ways to stop whatever annoys you on the internet…if you have the know how.

yeah, China is trying to stop the positive side of it all. and in essence, youtube is a great tool. i used to love it. the way the people can share information to one-another in such a non-organised fashion is great, especially as a tool against oppressive overheads. but they’re perverting it now. Jewish-Americans are, for some reason, instead of just blocking it and pretending it’s for your own good or something, like China.

they have their own strategies.

Originally posted by qwerber:

Just don’t use youtube if you don’t like it.

but the service is awesome. that is, the service of simply people being able to share video data with eachother. youtube originally didn’t do any of that crap, and it was great. no time-wasting advertisement either. it was during this period that youtube was built, by the USERS. now they’re exploiting that.

although, the only two competitors to Youtube that come anywhere close, Metacafe and Dailymotion, have become equally horrible. they’re not even trying to compete with one-another, and no way can those two ever come close to youtube in amount of data. so youtube has a monopoly. monopolies are never good.

the only wesbite that didn’t corrupt is Wikipedia…


@jhco

I got one of those from Facebook the other day…and I wasn’t even on facebook. Facebook sucks too. One time Kongregate took me to facebook and wanted me to sign on so they could get my information. These sites are getting pretty brazen anymore.

yes. that’s what i’m talking about. this trying to make you link your Kongregate account to Facebook is definitely part of it. it’s no longer seperate companies anymore, where you have information A with company A, and information B with company B… the fact that almost nobody seems worried about this worries me.

imagine that the police, the GP, the physiotherapist, the Psychotherapist, the supermarket, everything would all collect all of their data on you in one pile, right in front of your nose without even trying to be subtle about it. then you’d worry, everyone would worry. but when it’s done by internet companies, where you’re not so face-to-face, somehow everyone stops worrying.

 
Flag Post

it’s no longer seperate companies anymore, where you have information A with company A, and information B with company B… the fact that almost nobody seems worried about this worries me.

You are naive if you think this is anything new. Companies have always traded in peoples details for the purposes of targeted marketing.

I’m not sure what the point of this debate is, companies share or sell peoples details to other companies who buy the details because they want to sell you something, but you have said you don’t wish to discuss the sharing of personal details for marketing purposes so I guess all that is left to discuss is if there is really some Jewish plot to take over the world!

[spoiler] there isn’t [/spoiler]

 
Flag Post

ugh. i don’t care about any “Jewish plot to take over the world”. i care about what’s going on on the internet.

i’d like you to point out where i said i didn’t want to discuss the sharing of personal details for marketing purposes, because the very thing we’re discussing is basically the side-effects of just that.

as for companies sharing information on you with eachother, i believe there are laws against that, actually. at least, i know in the Netherlands it is illegal for supermarkets to use custumer membership to even keep track of peoples’ buying habits, much less sell that information.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

ugh. i don’t care about any “Jewish plot to take over the world”. i care about what’s going on on the internet.

i’d like you to point out where i said i didn’t want to discuss the sharing of personal details for marketing purposes, because the very thing we’re discussing is basically the side-effects of just that.

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

uhm…details being sold for marketing purposes is very old news by now. […]i’m talking about the bigger issue here. it doesn’t have to be a formal conspiracy, but it is a big change, effected by a group of people, all within the Jewish community for some reason.

That’s where you dismissed the sale of details for marketing as “old news” and suggested there was a bigger plot at work, in the Jewish community

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

as for companies sharing information on you with eachother, i believe there are laws against that, actually. at least, i know in the Netherlands it is illegal for supermarkets to use custumer membership to even keep track of peoples’ buying habits, much less sell that information.

International laws work differently to national laws. I don’t claim to be a commerce or law expert so couldn’t say for sure but I think a big issue with these things is that most countries laws take so long to pass they are becoming hopelessly outdated by the speed the world is changing.

 
Flag Post
That’s where you dismissed the sale of details for marketing as “old news” and suggested there was a bigger plot at work, in the Jewish community

well there’s a different debate about the morality of targeted advertising. that’s not my direct worry. also, you just added the word “plot”. why do you think this is a plot? you think Jews are plotting something? that’s your inference.

i certainly don’t think it’s wise to auto-dismiss anything Jews may be doing on such a stupid knee-jerk anti-semetism bullshit. imagine we’d do the same thing for Christians, and we would automatically dismiss any antagonation about child-molestations by clergy as “anti-clericism”, and never get any debate going about that beyond that point…

but again i don’t give a flying fund if this is or isn’t a Jewish conspiracy or not. the cause is not as important to discuss as the effects. i want to talk about the effects.

International laws work differently to national laws. I don’t claim to be a commerce or law expert so couldn’t say for sure but I think a big issue with these things is that most countries laws take so long to pass they are becoming hopelessly outdated by the speed the world is changing.

i agree with that.

 
Flag Post

If you didn’t care about Jewish involvement in these “evil” info-harvesting websites, you wouldn’t be mentioning Jews every second post.

I really don’t understand why you’re getting so riled up about this. If the police, firemen, and employees of my local grocery store came over to my house and wanted my information I’d throw it all at their feet. Why?

I don’t care. Few people do nowadays. If I DID care, I’d put in like an hour of research and figure out how to protect my information.

The gradual loss of personal information or “identity” is a by-product of technological change that has been in the mind’s eye of the general public for some time. Usually it’s presented as an extreme dystopian development – the Borg of Star Trek, for example, or Orwell’s 1984.

The fact is that it’s a necessary change. We, as North Americans, are simply adapting ourselves to our newest and most communication-friendly medium to date; the internet. For every person who keeps to themselves and likes their anonymity, there are ten that post every fucking thing about their lives on the internet, including the food they eat and the places they go every day.

Youtube becoming more corporate all the time is another one of those unavoidable facts of internet usage. Every medium starts a little less organized, and a little less corporate, until corporations realize the optimal way of making money from the service. In TV’s case you got ad placements every few minutes; on the internet you get pop-ups that can be done away with in a second, but bits of your information are siphoned if you haven’t taken measures to protect it.

If you disagree with the internet functioning this way, go ahead and start up a Youtube equivalent without selling adspace or accepting a multi-million dollar buyout when big business comes calling to gain control of your site. I’m guessing you wouldn’t stick to either practise for long.

At the end of the day, the internet doesn’t survive on good will and the user’s comfort alone. The flow of dollars and personal information is what keeps it alive; begrudging it that fact is nothing but an exercise in futility. You could be using that effort to plug the leak on your personal information instead of basing conspiracies around corporate practises that no one can change.

 
Flag Post
If you didn’t care about Jewish involvement in these “evil” info-harvesting websites, you wouldn’t be mentioning Jews every second post.

i didn’t. other people keep mentioning it, and i respond to them.

I don’t care. Few people do nowadays

hence the problem.

Usually it’s presented as an extreme dystopian development – the Borg of Star Trek, for example, or Orwell’s 1984.

right. that’s how we used to think about it. we don’t anymore. within 10 years we changed all the way. for what reason?

For every person who keeps to themselves and likes their anonymity, there are ten that post every fucking thing about their lives on the internet, including the food they eat and the places they go every day

hence the problem

Every medium starts a little less organized, and a little less corporate, until corporations realize the optimal way of making money from the service

hence the problem. also, Wikipedia didn’t. why would we put up with that? Youtube did perfectly fine, so none of that is necessary. it was built up by the community, now they exploit that. it’s clearly not necessary because it did fine without, it’s clearly detrimental to society that we now have to wait 20 seconds every little video we open, so why do we put up with it?

If you disagree with the internet functioning this way, go ahead and start up a Youtube equivalent without selling adspace or accepting a multi-million dollar buyout when big business comes calling to gain control of your site. I’m guessing you wouldn’t stick to either practise for long.

i don’t know how to do any of that. but it should be possible, Youtube 5 years ago and Wikipedia today proves it.

At the end of the day, the internet doesn’t survive on good will and the user’s comfort alone. The flow of dollars and personal information is what keeps it alive; begrudging it that fact is nothing but an exercise in futility. You could be using that effort to plug the leak on your personal information instead of basing conspiracies around corporate practises that no one can change.

that is completely defeatist. it’s the way it is and therefor it’s the way it should be, and we shouldn’t try to change anything about it, because it will never change, because we won’t try to change it. imagine everyone in history said that…

 
Flag Post

i didn’t. other people keep mentioning it, and i respond to them.

Here’s a tip; stop if you want to be taken more seriously.

hence the problem.

Or maybe public opinion is shifting and you want to be left behind?

right. that’s how we used to think about it. we don’t anymore. within 10 years we changed all the way. for what reason?

Because alarmism is the earliest and most natural human response to new technology, and the closer we get to that technology being reality, the less sense the alarmist POV tends to make. Makes for a ripping good read, though.

hence the problem

That’s just it; I’m telling you that nobody else considers it a problem. Are they all stupid, and you’re the only one who knows that our information being siphoned by corporations will lead to the downfall of society as we know it?

hence the problem. also, Wikipedia didn’t.

Wikipedia makes a point of avoiding corporate interests; unlike most other sites out there, Wikipedia’s creators have a goal of enshrining all human knowledge so that anyone can access it. This is an incredibly rare choice, by far the exception to the rule, and the ONLY reason it’s occurring at all is because it’s primarily a knowledge resource rather than an entertainment resource.

There’s also the fact that its goal is so noble that the site can be sustained, at least in part, by user donations. Few other sites would command that sort of good will from its users.

it was built up by the community, now they exploit that. it’s clearly not necessary because it did fine without

Youtube was built up by the original owners and the community, and was eventually sold to Google who began using it as the cash cow that it was always destined to be.

it’s clearly detrimental to society that we now have to wait 20 seconds every little video we open

Well, shit. Time to march on Washington.

i don’t know how to do any of that. but it should be possible, Youtube 5 years ago and Wikipedia today proves it.

Wikipedia is a unique animal, and the good cause it serves attracts all sorts of donations. I guarantee a site like Youtube will not be able to sustain itself on donations alone; starting with a fat wallet, selling adspace, and selling out to corporations entirely are virtually the only ways of an entertainment site’s survival being assured on the internet.

that is completely defeatist. it’s the way it is and therefor it’s the way it should be, and we shouldn’t try to change anything about it, because it will never change, because we won’t try to change it. imagine everyone in history said that…

What I’m telling you is that nobody wants to change it. You’re vastly outnumbered by people who understand that their personal information is an insignificant price to pay for the excellent resources that the internet has to offer. Historically, revolutions happen when many band together under a single cause; I don’t see your cause attracting anywhere near that sort of publicity or acceptance.

 
Flag Post
Here’s a tip; stop if you want to be taken more seriously.

stop with what?

That’s just it; I’m telling you that nobody else considers it a problem. Are they all stupid, and you’re the only one who knows that our information being siphoned by corporations will lead to the downfall of society as we know it?

not nobody else. this is also circular logic.

Wikipedia makes a point of avoiding corporate interests; unlike most other sites out there, Wikipedia’s creators have a goal of enshrining all human knowledge so that anyone can access it. This is an incredibly rare choice, by far the exception to the rule, and the ONLY reason it’s occurring at all is because it’s primarily a knowledge resource rather than an entertainment resource.

There’s also the fact that its goal is so noble that the site can be sustained, at least in part, by user donations. Few other sites would command that sort of good will from its users.

hence the problem. why do you insist on justifying things being the way they are by saying that’s the way they are?

Youtube was built up by the original owners and the community, and was eventually sold to Google who began using it as the cash cow that it was always destined to be.

case in point.

Well, shit. Time to march on Washington.

that doesn’t answer the question, does it?

Wikipedia is a unique animal, and the good cause it serves attracts all sorts of donations. I guarantee a site like Youtube will not be able to sustain itself on donations alone; starting with a fat wallet, selling adspace, and selling out to corporations entirely are virtually the only ways of an entertainment site’s survival being assured on the internet.

and yet, Youtube did not start out with a fat wallet, for a long time did not or hardly sell adspace, until they chose for the quick money and sold it to corps.

the reason Youtube can’t survive on donations is because it sucks. again, you are justifying the suckiness of something by saying it sucks.

What I’m telling you is that nobody wants to change it. You’re vastly outnumbered by people who understand that their personal information is an insignificant price to pay for the excellent resources that the internet has to offer. Historically, revolutions happen when many band together under a single cause; I don’t see your cause attracting anywhere near that sort of publicity or acceptance.

for now…

 
Flag Post

stop with what?

Implying the the Jews have some sort of elite monopoly on corporatizing various websites. There’s no GOOD way to do that; it just makes you look fringe and damages your credibility.

not nobody else. this is also circular logic.

Intentional hyperbole. Also, my conclusion with this paragraph is that your view is unpopular, and my evidence is that the majority of internet users clearly do not share your perspective, judging by the relative absence of wingnut threads like this one. How is that circular logic?

hence the problem. why do you insist on justifying things being the way they are by saying that’s the way they are?

I’m not justifying anything. I’m telling you the way things are because you don’t seem to know.

case in point.

…Of people creating some great intellectual property and selling it for lots of money, as such people usually do. I wish people made great things for free and kept them free and devoid of ads for every user everywhere, but that’s just not the way things go. Is your platform that people should be nicer and more charitable when creating content on the internet? Great; just remove our innate tendency toward greed and providing for ourselves and you’ll have one hell of a concept.

that doesn’t answer the question, does it?

You didn’t ask a question.

and yet, Youtube did not start out with a fat wallet, for a long time did not or hardly sell adspace, until they chose for the quick money and sold it to corps. the reason Youtube can’t survive on donations is because it sucks. again, you are justifying the suckiness of something by saying it sucks.

It didn’t suck before, and it couldn’t survive on handouts then either; hence why it sold out to Google.

I can’t believe I actually have to tell you that most people don’t have the time, interest, or moral fibre to offer great things for free on the internet. If you want a better internet, you’re going to need better people, and corporations who are less ambitious in the ways they get customer information… And it would help if they didn’t give independent website owners so much fucking money for their intellectual property, too.

for now…

The internet has had time to grow and develop, and we have seen it become progressively more commercial over the years. Everything points to this trend continuing. I can’t prove you wrong; you’re entitled to your opinion of what you think the internet should be. I’m simply telling you that what you want is extremely unrealistic given the circumstances.

 
Flag Post

the reason Youtube can’t survive on donations is because it sucks.

No, it’s because people don’t want to pay for anything online.

Some, I grant you, do donate to shit online. Hell, I even donated towards a kong game once. ONCE. And it was like 4 kreds worth (50 cents?). But some people donating once isn’t going to keep an overhead up. Hence (as you like to overuse the word) the necessity for corporations. Which, by the way, is the same reason why Kongregate ‘sold out’.

You know what I find most annoying about this argument? It’s not your casual anti-semitism (and yes, mentioning a shadowy jewish financial monopoly is a staple of anti-semitism), nor is it the retarded insignificance of the topic (Wah! YouTube sux!). It’s that you got all this great idealism for how you think the world should work, and you’re damning everyone else (the ‘defeatists’) for pointing out ‘well, no, it doesn’t actually work like that’…but you have no practical solution to make your social beliefs a reality.

By all means be idealistic. But it’s clear from your back and forth with vika that you really have no idea how this thing works, so you chalk it off to identity theft and all of us as sheep for letting it happen. That makes you not only idealistic, but ignorant too.

Finally, as Retneug pointed out, try not to sound like a tinfoil hat flake and you won’t be treated like one.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:
For you, there is better access than ever to items of niche interest to you.

or, there is far too much repetition, and an absense of information outside of your own sphere, hence you get stimulated to get rutted in your ways, and have a skewed conception of reality.

What?

Where are you pulling this from? Just because the way data mining systems work make it easier for you to access (or even find) material of interest, does not mean that everything else is suddenly ‘shut out’. Instead a passive record is kept of the types of thing you are visiting, and the frequency of your visits by type of content. As you visit a given subject matter more and more so it’ll be offered to you more and more. However, this does not mean other material is shut out. You still have access to everything.

This is also why I maintain two separate identities online. My work interests are heavily into sensory integration efforts (big surprise there), whilst in my personal life, the greatest single theme, is probably kink.

The last thing I need professionally, is for the kink links to show up to contacts as ‘vika is interested in resources on the tongulator and platinum fuckhammer’ when I’m trying to bid on a contract for embodiment interfaces for a military combat simulator. Instead, I’d rather have the other projects I’ve worked with, show up. On the flipside, when talking with friends outside of work, the kink devices are going to be well received, and none of them are the least bit interested in knowing which conferences I have signed up for.

Both identities still have access to the entire internet. There’s no walled garden syndrome going on. More an understanding of how these technologies work and leveraging them for my own benefit. You could quite easily do the same.

It doesn’t match your name. It matches an ID number in the system, that may or may not have an actual human name attached to it. That ID number is associated with all these people, all these preferences, and a specific geographic area. S’why I use proxies to throw mine off. That and I like to keep my business and personal lives separate – they have separate interests.

yes, i know that. but if that data includes any email adress that is a contact with anyone you know by name, especially someone, for instance, that shares your last name, a sister or father or something like that, or anywhere where your real name is registered like a list of students or employers, they’ll be able to match it to your name.

Who is this nebulous ‘they’? Do you honestly believe that these companies hire employees to dig through the records and try to match up various browsing habits with individual users? Even when such a search is court mandated, it takes dozens of individuals a week or more to dig up the information – and it costs several thousand dollars a pop. What kind of paranoid world are you living in, where you believe that an evil ‘they’ are stalking your browsing habits?

I would also like to point out that more than one family tends to have a given last name. If you are Bob Smith, and you email a person called Jane Smith, this does not mean your identity is suddenly compromised as ‘Oh Nos!’ you have mailed someone with the same last name as you, and now, the evil corporation knows who you truly are.

also what good are proxies really? on the same token, the proxy can sell your information, and the whole thing would just be counter-productive.

If the woman who runs my usual proxy does sell the information on, I’m not sure what she’ll get out of it, beyond the ending of our friendship. It’s not some great conglomerate proxy service I use, Omega. These are friends, clients, places I’ve worked that I still have backdoor access to. If I need real security, I’ll hack into and take over a random badly-secured PC on the internet.

I don’t tend to do that, partially as its illegal, partially as I really have no need. That kind of proxy is called a zebra, and tend to be used by the criminal element. They have no idea they’re serving as a proxy, and should a crime be detected, the police will trace it right back to the owner of the zebra proxy and no further. It’s a bit hard to sell information on if you’re not aware you’re acting as a proxy.

unless maybe if you try proxy to proxy to proxy…

Common method. More jumps slows the connection down, but greatly increases security. The old Tor network functioned that way.

it’s that they’ve made things so that they now know everything about everyone.

We are a LONG way from that point, assuming we ever reach it.

… if i take a look at websites like facebook, i can pretty much know everything about everyone i know. so that means anyone with the same access should be able to do the same. there are a few people that are less active in the whole thing with facebook and all that, just like me, that are less easy to track down etc. but they’re making it harder and harder to do that. they seem to specifically be combatting this. that is what worries me so much…in fact what pisses me off.

Really? So they can tell when you last went to the doctor can they? They can tell what that doctor said? They know your genetic blueprint? They can access your chance to develop testicular cancer? No? Then we’re a LONG way from them knowing everything. Basic identity and contact information is the full extent of it.

A long time ago, one of the posters here, I think it was Arbitor, joked about a toilet that could tell if you were sick when you pissed into it. That piqued my interest and I’ve spent quite a bit of time researching the possibilities. The prototype works, if crudely. However, this kind of information isn’t automatically uploaded to your facebook profile, or anywhere else on the web. It will take a long old time before personalised healthcare information makes its way onto the general data mining system. It needs to, for a plethora of reasons, but at the same time it needs to be behind a general-user privacy wall.

Speaking of privacy walls, have you heard about a thing called the semantic web? It’s a next-generation internet that a lot of people are trying to create. Currently a great deal of informaion about all sorts of things is locked away in databases, that use proprietory data storage formats (they and they alone know how the tables are linked together). The semantic web is an effort to connect to any database regardless of storage format, and pull off pertinent information.

So when we finally have that, then yes it will be easier to track you down, once someone has a name, and a second piece of data like an address or a phone number (a name alone is not enough). They’ll be able to access your student records, your medical data (dependant on access level), your criminal record (dependant on access level), etcetera. Nobody who is not authorised to do so will be able to add new information about you to these official lists, or change what is already there.

HOWEVER. NONE of it is not already accessible with the proper credentials, and access to a car. Making data mining more accessible will never change that. So, if you do not wish your identity to be public, perhaps you should make the effort not to make it public knowledge on Facebook and LinkedIn in the first place. Or, use multiple identities, like others do.

yeah, only if your some mega hacker. i’m pretty sure the CIA has a lot of clandistine access to information. besides, even if the government openly is gathering all this information, what are you gonna do about it? you’re getting the picture now?

What I’m going to do about it, is not give a shit. That’s how completely unimportant the issue is.

ALL the information this kind of interlinking gives to ‘the secret government’ is information they already had access to anyway. There is no new ability for that level of access.

Where there is new ability, and where the focus is, is on collecting useful aggregate data. Tens of thousands of people, or millions of people, and tracking their activity habits en-masse. Some fascinating, and truly groundbreaking work is being done, with access to this kind of bulk informaion being so easy. Predicting (accurately) the infection pattern of diseases. Identifying trends and capitalising on them early. Pinpointing where new information services are desperately required, and modelling ground traffic patterns for entire cities at a time.

This is where all the focus is, and where the results are often truly astounding – not your tin-foil conspiracy to track down OmegaDoom.

 
Flag Post
Implying the the Jews have some sort of elite monopoly on corporatizing various websites. There’s no GOOD way to do that; it just makes you look fringe and damages your credibility.

they don’t have any official monopoly of course. but what i said is true: all major english language websites are primarily owned by Jews, with the exception of Wikipedia. i don’t give a fuck what you think about that, i’m just stating reality. please fuck off with that AAAAHH ANTISEMETISM, because it’s fucking stupid.

i don’t give a shit about religions, ethnicities or any of that crap. but i’m not gonna pretend like something isn’t true based on retarded PC sensitivities. if that means some idiots are going to put me in a Nazi corner, then fuck those idiots.

Intentional hyperbole. Also, my conclusion with this paragraph is that your view is unpopular, and my evidence is that the majority of internet users clearly do not share your perspective, judging by the relative absence of wingnut threads like this one. How is that circular logic?

as per your typical logic. it is, therefor it’s right. i am questioning the common attitude towards internet anonymity and privacy. you are trying to counter my argument simply by stating the situation i am questioning.

you tell me how that is a valid argument.

I’m not justifying anything. I’m telling you the way things are because you don’t seem to know.

lol.

You didn’t ask a question.

yes i did. you just didn’t quote the questionmark at the end of the sentence.

I can’t believe I actually have to tell you that most people don’t have the time, interest, or moral fibre to offer great things for free on the internet

i can’t believe you still believe that shit. all of youtubes contend was uploaded by people, the community. they built it. of course, a lot of it is copyright infringement, but much of it is not.

and as copyright infringement it’s not very different from many other peer-to-peer websites, none of whom are this crappy. i recognise Youtube is based on video-streams, which perhaps is more server intensive, but non-the-less.

there are three issues here: first of all it was built up when it was still not so capitalised off of, by the community, so essentially they sold out. you may try to justify it by saying that’s the way things go, but it’s still a sell out, and therefor should be criticised as such. and there really should be a community-run video-stream-sharing website. call me a utopic idealist but non-the-less.

secondly, Youtube has no viable competitor. which is because of it’s community/public-based origin, that they sold out on. no competition means no need to have a good product, which almost inevitably leads to crappy quality and shady business.

third, the way they force you to have the same password for youtube, gmail, google-account and Chrome, and the bigger issue of how all websites do that, that i want to discuss that Youtube’s shit is just an example of.
just because they need to make money, doesn’t justify any way they seek to make money. they’re doing something quite bad and dangerous, that i really don’t like, and saying they “need it” to make money is a patent lie obviously they don’t “need” it, and justifying it by saying “that’s how they make money” is also ridiculous.

you can’t justify a bad way of making money by saying “that’s how they make money”. so please stop using that argument. cigarettes were ones sold without any warning and people didn’t realise the hazards. any criticism of that could also be “countered” with the exact same non-arguments you are using: “they need to make money; they’re not saints; you try to run a business” blabla bullshit cop outs.

The internet has had time to grow and develop, and we have seen it become progressively more commercial over the years. Everything points to this trend continuing. I can’t prove you wrong; you’re entitled to your opinion of what you think the internet should be. I’m simply telling you that what you want is extremely unrealistic given the circumstances.

so? so therefor i shouldn’t complain about it? what’s your point? again you just keep justifying things by saying that’s how things are. where do people come up with arguments like that?


and yes, mentioning a shadowy jewish financial monopoly is a staple of anti-semitism

oh, that’s an easy defence. i guess accusing the USA of state terrorism would similarly be a staple of anti-americanism eh? so then, what about accusing Middle-Eastern nations of accomodating terrorist groups?
stupid arguments are stupid.

It’s that you got all this great idealism for how you think the world should work, and you’re damning everyone else (the ‘defeatists’) for pointing out ‘well, no, it doesn’t actually work like that’…but you have no practical solution to make your social beliefs a reality.

brniging up a solution is not essential to criticism. if the condition for criticism is having a solution, nothing would ever get criticised; everyone would just walk around angry and mad at all the slavery and oppression that never went away, because for some reason, no-one is allowed to share criticism unless they single-handedly come up with a practicable solution that people will also want.

it’s another stupid way of thinking.

but, i have something of a solution. Wikimedia has dabbled in all sorts of other projects, none as popular as wikipedia but non-the-less. like Wiktionary, Wikiquotes and the Wikias. i don’t see how a wiki-based video-streaming site would work, but non-the-less, wikistreams would be awesome, i hope they’d find a way.

another way is simply changing the whole economic system. much of the arguments in this thread are based on capitalism, so what if we change that?

but i’ll repeat such solutions are tengantial. not putting up with it would be the solution. of course you would then argue that most people don’t have a problem with it, but then that’s the problem.


Where are you pulling this from? Just because the way data mining systems work make it easier for you to access (or even find) material of interest, does not mean that everything else is suddenly ‘shut out’. Instead a passive record is kept of the types of thing you are visiting, and the frequency of your visits by type of content. As you visit a given subject matter more and more so it’ll be offered to you more and more. However, this does not mean other material is shut out. You still have access to everything.

meh. it’s not an important issue, but it does lead to a skewed way of thinking. i bet lots of people don’t even realise they’re being targeted by selected advertisements, so then they think that everyone sees the same ads as they do, which skews their perception of what things are prevalent or popular in society towards their own interests (even further than they naturally are)

Who is this nebulous ‘they’? Do you honestly believe that these companies hire employees to dig through the records and try to match up various browsing habits with individual users? Even when such a search is court mandated, it takes dozens of individuals a week or more to dig up the information – and it costs several thousand dollars a pop. What kind of paranoid world are you living in, where you believe that an evil ‘they’ are stalking your browsing habits?

people would have said so 70 years ago as well, but it still happened. we take our freedoms, prosperity and democracy for granted, but the whole system is still based on oppressive democracies, just with concessions made to it. in history, democracies have turned into dictatorships quite often, and it would be very foolish to just assume it’s never going to happen.

when it does, it will be too late to start worrying about this stuff.

I would also like to point out that more than one family tends to have a given last name. If you are Bob Smith, and you email a person called Jane Smith, this does not mean your identity is suddenly compromised as ‘Oh Nos!’ you have mailed someone with the same last name as you, and now, the evil corporation knows who you truly are.

doesnt matter. if they know all your contacts, hobbies, employment, education etc, it’s not that hard to find your identity to match that to.

If the woman who runs my usual proxy does sell the information on, I’m not sure what she’ll get out of it, beyond the ending of our friendship. It’s not some great conglomerate proxy service I use, Omega. These are friends, clients, places I’ve worked that I still have backdoor access to. If I need real security, I’ll hack into and take over a random badly-secured PC on the internet.

oh well, that’s a little more advanced than most people have available to them. and also furthers my point really, about what i said with regards to…how society is now changed, and we’ll rely on hackers…

Really? So they can tell when you last went to the doctor can they? They can tell what that doctor said? They know your genetic blueprint? They can access your chance to develop testicular cancer? No? Then we’re a LONG way from them knowing everything. Basic identity and contact information is the full extent of it.

not unless you put it on the internet. or they hack the medical database.

ALL the information this kind of interlinking gives to ‘the secret government’ is information they already had access to anyway. There is no new ability for that level of access.

Where there is new ability, and where the focus is, is on collecting useful aggregate data. Tens of thousands of people, or millions of people, and tracking their activity habits en-masse. Some fascinating, and truly groundbreaking work is being done, with access to this kind of bulk informaion being so easy. Predicting (accurately) the infection pattern of diseases. Identifying trends and capitalising on them early. Pinpointing where new information services are desperately required, and modelling ground traffic patterns for entire cities at a time.

so, this “useful aggregate data” is new then? you just said that. this same “useful” (to whom?) data can be used for evil. or more likely, for “good intentions”. but you just keep assuming shit will never get real. meanwhile, shit had gotten real in the USA not too long ago, where innocent people were illegally imprisoned and tortured, btw… :/

 
Flag Post

as per your typical logic. it is, therefor it’s right. i am questioning the common attitude towards internet anonymity and privacy. you are trying to counter my argument simply by stating the situation i am questioning.you tell me how that is a valid argument.

You’re saying Youtube is adding twenty second ads to videos and Jews run some English-language websites, so all of our information will be harvested and we’ll be made into corporate/government slaves or whatever crazy scenario you envision for the future of our current society and internet.

THAT isn’t a valid argument; not even close. And I’m not telling you your view is wrong; I’m telling you it will be rejected by the vast majority of internet users. You’re free to disagree with that, but you’ll never learn it yourself anyway because I highly doubt you’ll ever take any steps to see it through. You’re free, of course, to bitch and complain on forums about it, but by the same token I’ll try my best to help you accept reality and understand why your position won’t be widely accepted anytime soon.

yes i did. you just didn’t quote the questionmark at the end of the sentence.

My mistake, I thought I got the whole sentence. I will now answer the question.

Nobody gives a shit. It’s 20 seconds of their life. Revolutions require MUCH more of a basis than that, which is exactly what you’d need to sway public opinion and change the economic state of the US as you propose.

i can’t believe you still believe that shit.

That people will more often than not try to make money with their intellectual property in a capitalist society? I feel pretty good about that one, actually.

i recognise Youtube is based on video-streams, which perhaps is more server intensive, but non-the-less.

It’s probably the most central factor in why there aren’t more free, high-quality video streaming sites on the internet. The monthly fees required to keep such a site running are no joke.

and there really should be a community-run video-stream-sharing website.

I want that too. I want most of the excellent internet developments you’ve proposed… I just don’t think it’s feasible that they’ll manifest in reality, (at least, not on a large scale) given the general public’s current acceptance of a highly commercial internet. You can possibly change that, and I invite you to try.

secondly, Youtube has no viable competitor. which is because of it’s community/public-based origin, that they sold out on. no competition means no need to have a good product, which almost inevitably leads to crappy quality and shady business.

Other, less-obtrusive video-streaming sites exist, but I continue to use Youtube for several reasons. Google can afford to pay for lots of bandwidth, the site runs incredibly smoothly and is laid out better than anything I’ve found, and Youtube was one of the first; this means it has MUCH more content than its competitors, and probably always will, (unless, of course, Youtube disbands) since it`s always generating more and started with more to begin with.

Commercialism isn`t all bad. Sure, you get ads and siphoning of your information, but quality of service will generally be far beyond anything you`d find on a less commercial site. The continued popularity of Youtube suggests that most users consider this a suitable exchange.

just because they need to make money, doesn’t justify any way they seek to make money. they’re doing something quite bad and dangerous, that i really don’t like, and saying they “need it” to make money is a patent lie obviously they don’t “need” it, and justifying it by saying “that’s how they make money” is also ridiculous.

I would never justify how corporations make their money, unless it`s something indisputably good like Girl Guides making cash off their cookies.

They certainly don’t “need” to siphon information to make money either. But that IS how they currently make money. That’s just a fact. I don’t want to justify it, and I’m not trying to counter your arguments with it. I’m telling you that their business philosophy is a certain way right now, and SOMEONE is going to have to do an ass-load of work to change their minds. I would personally suggest forming some kind of coalition.

cigarettes were ones sold without any warning and people didn’t realise the hazards. any criticism of that could also be “countered” with the exact same non-arguments you are using: “they need to make money; they’re not saints; you try to run a business” blabla bullshit cop outs.

Different situation. Advances in medical science confirmed that smoking is bad for you, and the enhancement of technology allowed awareness on this subject to be spread more easily.

If you can show me proof that a commercial internet will necessarily lead to whatever doomsday scenario you’re thinking of, like how the inhalation of toxic smoke will necessarily destroy your lungs, I will sign on as a member of your glorious rebellion right now.

so? so therefor i shouldn’t complain about it? what’s your point? again you just keep justifying things by saying that’s how things are. where do people come up with arguments like that?

I’ve told you in this post and the one before it that you’re free to spout as much of your opinion as you wish. And again, the fact that lots of people clearly disagree with it and you have no actual proof to back your conclusion doesn’t make it inherently wrong; it just gives it a very slim chance of actually having an impact in reality.

 
Flag Post

meh. it’s not an important issue, but it does lead to a skewed way of thinking.
i bet lots of people don’t even realise they’re being targeted by selected
advertisements, so then they think that everyone sees the same ads as they
do, which skews their perception of what things are prevalent or popular in
society towards their own interests (even further than they naturally are)

I wasn’t talking about targetted advertising. Most people run ad-blockers these
days, so they can target however much they like: Nothing’s going to get through.
Rather, I was speaking of targetted linking; offering services and news hyperlinks
based on your established preferences. Telling other users who use the service
what your favorite types of links are, and so on.

people would have said so 70 years ago as well, but it still happened. we
take our freedoms, prosperity and democracy for granted, but the whole system
is still based on oppressive democracies, just with concessions made to it.
in history, democracies have turned into dictatorships quite often, and it
would be very foolish to just assume it’s never going to happen. when it does,
it will be too late to start worrying about this stuff.

You are not going to get an ‘oppressive democracy’ based on link targetting,
Omega. That’s never going to happen. Sure information can be misused, but the
best way to fight it is to know yourself what information and links are out
there.Even your own argument relies on increasing access to information, and
not on censoring it.

doesnt matter. if they know all your contacts, hobbies, employment, education
etc, it’s not that hard to find your identity to match that to.

Yeah. You don’t even need access to a computer to figure all that out. That
was my whole point, Omega. The new services do not create new links, they just
organise it in a far better fashion. You can still find the exact same information
by wandering down to city hall and asking those who know you.

oh well, that’s a little more advanced than most people have available to
them. and also furthers my point really, about what i said with regards to…how
society is now changed, and we’ll rely on hackers…

Society changes. What, you’re only just now figuring that one out? Be nice
(for you) if it always stayed the same, static, unchanging for eternity, but
it does not. My best advice would be to go and join Jhco in moping at how that
is not the case.

All hacking is, is computer knowledge and the will to use it. Most youngsters
these days have a smattering of such, and access to education is one of the
things to be fought for.

not unless you put it on the internet. or they hack the medical database.

LOL@’hack the medical database’

1. You make that sound so easy.

2. You assume that kind of information is on there (its not).

Face it Omega, we’re a long, long, LONG way from ‘knowing everything about
everyone’, and any claim you make to the contrary is taken as what it is – meaningless
hyperbole.

so, this “useful aggregate data” is new then? you just said that. this same
“useful” (to whom?) data can be used for evil. or more likely, for “good intentions”.
but you just keep assuming shit will never get real. meanwhile, shit had gotten
real in the USA not too long ago, where innocent people were illegally imprisoned
and tortured, btw… :/

Yup, brand new. Data isn’t ‘good’ or ‘evil’. There is just data and how you
use it. The more data you have access to the better a picture you can build
up. That goes just as well for your aleged ‘internet oppressed’ as it does your
aleged ‘internet dictators’ by the way.

 
Flag Post

Nobody gives a shit. It’s 20 seconds of their life. Revolutions require MUCH more of a basis than that, which is exactly what you’d need to sway public opinion and change the economic state of the US as you propose.

Ehh. I do. I find it bloody annoying. Especially in a social setting. As OmegaDoom also pointed out, it is not necessary. Profitable sure, but not integral to sustaining the model. Youtube is a product. It’s major selling point for a long time was that it was big. If you looked for something, it was probably there. It had, and even more so now, hit that critical mass where it’s bigness led to it getting bigger.

At the time, that was the selling point versus competitors. However the timed ads are detrimental to the product. I’d like to see a Youtube clone with comparable size, sans embedded video ads, but I don’t think there is the inertia behind such an idea for it to become viable. I can’t imagine enough people will ever get sufficiently annoyed to restart the process, but it would be nice.

As for targeted advertising, I’m in the “meh” boat. If things get bad enough for stoom troopers to start knocking down my door, then I guess I bite it. I am not seriously concerned. I don’t have any money or a history of violence so anyone’s interest in me is going to be pretty trivial. If I start freedom fighting or earning millions I might take some more precautions.

On the flip side, when looking at some music videos, Youtube informed me that the artist at question was going to be having a concert in my city soon. That was really cool. That was information that both I, and the artist, wanted me to have and was facilitated directly through Youtube. It was directly in line with my interests and in no way interrupted what I was doing. Quite pleased with that personally.

It’s probably the most central factor in why there aren’t more free, high-quality video streaming sites on the internet. The monthly fees required to keep such a site running are no joke.

No, but compared to the revenue they pull it’s peanuts.

 
Flag Post
You’re saying Youtube is adding twenty second ads to videos and Jews run some English-language websites, so all of our information will be harvested and we’ll be made into corporate/government slaves or whatever crazy scenario you envision for the future of our current society and internet.

THAT isn’t a valid argument; not even close. And I’m not telling you your view is wrong; I’m telling you it will be rejected by the vast majority of internet users. You’re free to disagree with that, but you’ll never learn it yourself anyway because I highly doubt you’ll ever take any steps to see it through. You’re free, of course, to bitch and complain on forums about it, but by the same token I’ll try my best to help you accept reality and understand why your position won’t be widely accepted anytime soon.

what? look, you’re totally misrepresenting me. forget it ok. you’re just not gonna get it.

My mistake, I thought I got the whole sentence. I will now answer the question.

Nobody gives a shit. It’s 20 seconds of their life. Revolutions require MUCH more of a basis than that, which is exactly what you’d need to sway public opinion and change the economic state of the US as you propose.

when did i claim to be able to sway any public opinion? what kind of argument is that? i mean, i also don’t think i can drive a car around the block in 60 seconds, but what the fuck do you mean by that?

That people will more often than not try to make money with their intellectual property in a capitalist society? I feel pretty good about that one, actually

seriously. start talking to a lake or something. you’re repeating the obvious, which in no way counters anything i’ve been saying. i won’t keep repeating myself.

It’s probably the most central factor in why there aren’t more free, high-quality video streaming sites on the internet. The monthly fees required to keep such a site running are no joke.

they managed for years. they’d be able to.

I want that too. I want most of the excellent internet developments you’ve proposed… I just don’t think it’s feasible that they’ll manifest in reality, (at least, not on a large scale) given the general public’s current acceptance of a highly commercial internet. You can possibly change that, and I invite you to try.

what do you think i’m doing right now? well…it’s a very half-assed attempt anyway.

but i don’t understand your opposition, if your opposition is merely based on that it’s unlikely to change. is all this just your way of saying “isn’t gonna change so get used to it”?

look, the more people dislike youtube for doing shit like that, the less youtube will being able to pull it off. every little bit helps. defeatism sure doesn’t help, though.

Other, less-obtrusive video-streaming sites exist

i found that Dailymotion (the second largest) is even more obtrusive with it’s advertisement, and Metacafe (third largest) doesn’t seem to be working properly. and anyway, neither of them have even 10% the content, and most of their content is simply tunneled youtube videos.

I would never justify how corporations make their money, unless it`s something indisputably good like Girl Guides making cash off their cookies.

They certainly don’t “need” to siphon information to make money either. But that IS how they currently make money. That’s just a fact. I don’t want to justify it, and I’m not trying to counter your arguments with it. I’m telling you that their business philosophy is a certain way right now, and SOMEONE is going to have to do an ass-load of work to change their minds. I would personally suggest forming some kind of coalition.

lol. you start agreeing with me now? anyway, yes, that would be awesome. but i’m not a big social networker. í’m more interested in public opinion.

If you can show me proof that a commercial internet will necessarily lead to whatever doomsday scenario you’re thinking of, like how the inhalation of toxic smoke will necessarily destroy your lungs, I will sign on as a member of your glorious rebellion right now.

well no, i don’t think i have proof of that. i’m just worried about the unpresidented uniqueness of the current situation, and how we blindly go where we would have never dared to go 10 years ago, or even woul dhave imagined ourselves to go. i don’t know if it will lead to any thing so bad, but we also don’t know it won’t.

it has served as a tool to organize public resistence, but i also worry about it being used to put down public resistence, or to mitigate the propensity for such to arise. for instance, propoganda is a form of advertisement. targeted advertisement could also lead to targeted propoganda. just as an example.

t just gives it a very slim chance of actually having an impact in reality

there’s a Dutch expression, that translates to “never shot is always missed”. i’ll take a long shot when i can. beats sitting idle and angry.


I was speaking of targetted linking; offering services and news hyperlinks
based on your established preferences. Telling other users who use the service
what your favorite types of links are, and so on.

i’m not familiar.

You are not going to get an ‘oppressive democracy’ based on link targetting,
Omega. That’s never going to happen. Sure information can be misused, but the
best way to fight it is to know yourself what information and links are out
there.Even your own argument relies on increasing access to information, and
not on censoring it.

it’s not the “link targeting”. it’s the omniscience. i’m just not gonna go on an anonymous site like Youtube, and use my real name. i’m just not gonna. and i shouldn’t be forced to. and although i’m not technically forced to, they’re making it very difficult not to.

Yeah. You don’t even need access to a computer to figure all that out. That
was my whole point, Omega. The new services do not create new links, they just
organise it in a far better fashion. You can still find the exact same information
by wandering down to city hall and asking those who know you.

how much does city hall really know about me, and how much of that will they give you? certainly not that much. that won’t give you an idea of who i am, of what my wishes are, who i talk to… anything. and asking people i know is…i mean… that’s totally not the same. that’s not clicking a button and voila.

Society changes. What, you’re only just now figuring that one out? Be nice
(for you) if it always stayed the same, static, unchanging for eternity, but
it does not. My best advice would be to go and join Jhco in moping at how that
is not the case.

All hacking is, is computer knowledge and the will to use it. Most youngsters
these days have a smattering of such, and access to education is one of the
things to be fought for.

yeah, thanks for equating me to jhco. but that’s quite besides the point. you said yourself you like to have two identities on the internet. that requires anomymity. so i’m pretty sure you actually agree with me, but somehow don’t realise it. because you know your way around digital technology, so you know how to deal with this stuff. you use your expertese to dodge precisely that which i oppose. i’m sorry i don’t have your expertese. most people don’t.

LOL@’hack the medical database’

1. You make that sound so easy.

that wasn’t my intention.

2. You assume that kind of information is on there (its not).

Face it Omega, we’re a long, long, LONG way from ‘knowing everything about
everyone’, and any claim you make to the contrary is taken as what it is – meaningless
hyperbole.

it’s not? you sure of that? i’d swear they doctors can dig it out of a computer.

and you may call it a “meaningless hyperbole”, but i’d say it’s quite a lot. and whatever, i just don’t want to use my real name on stupid sites, i don’t want to my accounts across different sites to be matched, i don’t want to use the same password for all my accounts, and i and everyone else should be free to do so without being bloody harassed for it by these websites. and by now it totally feels like harassment. all i’m saying is that, and why it may be important.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

i’m not familiar.

It is a service you often see on Myspace, or systems such as Fora, where other people can look at your profile, and see what sort of thing you have been looking at, or what sort of thing you have recently been involved in. Potential clients seeing you have been involved in other efforts along the same sort of lines as they are seeking, and that you regularly keep abreast of the industry, are more likely to be impressed, than clients who see the last five links you looked at were sex toys.

it’s not the “link targeting”. it’s the omniscience. i’m just not gonna go on an anonymous site like Youtube, and use my real name. i’m just not gonna. and i shouldn’t be forced to. and although i’m not technically forced to, they’re making it very difficult not to.

No, they’re not. Just type in a fake name, and be done with it. The system won’t know the difference. Or you could do what I do, and not bother to log in at all, when going to YouTube. But you like posting in the comments. I just use it when a research team have posted their results there as opposed to using fora or vimeo. I use both those services far more than I use Youtube, myself.

how much does city hall really know about me, and how much of that will they give you? certainly not that much. that won’t give you an idea of who i am, of what my wishes are, who i talk to… anything. and asking people i know is…i mean… that’s totally not the same. that’s not clicking a button and voila.

If I give them your name, or your phone number, they’ll give me the rest. Name, age, occupation, school if applicable. Phone number if I don’t already have it. I can then go to your home or your workplace and learn more about you. I can talk to your friends and learn still more. All data mining does is makes the whole process quicker. There’s nothing to stop me finding out about you without it.

yeah, thanks for equating me to jhco. but that’s quite besides the point. you said yourself you like to have two identities on the internet. that requires anomymity. so i’m pretty sure you actually agree with me, but somehow don’t realise it.

Nope, I don’t agree with you. I have two identities to keep my work and private life separate. I don’t even have to have those. But I use my private life identity to connect with like minds on personal matters, and I use my work identity to basically make money from the internet. I could equally have no identity online, and just surf in complete anonymity. However, I would lose the benefits that having an identity brings.

because you know your way around digital technology, so you know how to deal with this stuff. you use your expertese to dodge precisely that which i oppose. i’m sorry i don’t have your expertese. most people don’t.

As Reutnig said, the future advocates of change will need to have these basic skills, and not surf without protection. Times change. You either change with them, or get left behind.

2. You assume that kind of information is on there (its not).

Face it Omega, we’re a long, long, LONG way from ‘knowing everything about
everyone’, and any claim you make to the contrary is taken as what it is – meaningless
hyperbole.

it’s not? you sure of that? i’d swear they doctors can dig it out of a computer.

No.

For most people, their genetic sequence is not recorded anywhere. For those who have had it recorded, its not in the standard database. The doctor has to send a request through for access to that information, and the request has to use their biometric ID. Requests take about two weeks to be granted. The same biometric ID must be used to view the information. Medical data is heavily protected, and not available to the general public.

You’re not going to find a two terabyte file ‘accidentally’ linked to someone’s profile, either. Reading the things takes specialist equipment. A home PC is not going to cut it. We are a long, long way from having every piece of information about every person on the internet. I often truly wish we were closer to that stage, as it would make so many things so much easier to do. But, we have a long, long way to go, and a great many technical hurdles to overcome before we reach that point. I doubt another 20 years will be long enough.

i don’t want to my accounts across different sites to be matched, i don’t want to use the same password for all my accounts, and i and everyone else should be free to do so without being bloody harassed for it by these websites. and by now it totally feels like harassment. all i’m saying is that, and why it may be important.

The idea of password mathing is to make it easier for you. You don’t have to use it. I have a biometric ID at work, and that’s used as my password for the same reason. I still have to use a normal password as well, for added security.

At the end of the day, these are private websites, and it is your choice to visit them or not. If you choose not to visit them, there is nothing they can do.

 
Flag Post
Just type in a fake name, and be done with it. The system won’t know the difference

i actually tried given youtube a fake name. it refused. apparently they have some way of recognising fake names. of course, i ended up declining and stating “i’m an individual but i can’t use my real name” as a reason. that’s totally not right, but it was the closest thing. i just wish i could tell it to sod off.

Or you could do what I do, and not bother to log in at all, when going to YouTube

impossible. you can’t see about half of the interesting videos without logging in. plus, you can’t select options when logging in, and some of those options are really nice, like they returned the ability to not display everything in your local language, which is necessary because their dictionary translations to Dutch are horrible, and i hate translations anyway. in fact i hate this spying on me, and i wish they would stop checking where i’m from every time i use a webpage. internet is global, so let it freaking be a global service!

also, it seems you get more advertisement to sit through when you’re not logged in.

If I give them your name, or your phone number, they’ll give me the rest. Name, age, occupation, school if applicable. Phone number if I don’t already have it. I can then go to your home or your workplace and learn more about you. I can talk to your friends and learn still more. All data mining does is makes the whole process quicker. There’s nothing to stop me finding out about you without it.

they would? is that universal? anyway…that’s not an easy way to keep track of someone’s social networking. it’s also the reverse of what’s now available; you need to know someone’s name (i don’t think phone-number works. who has a publically registered phone-number anymore?), and then learn about them; now we can do it the other way around.

this new way of information gathering is very useful to find out who may be involved or planning some form of resistence, or who may be getting on to something you’re doing as a government organisation, stuff like that. and who they’re doing it with. you can’t do that the other way around by going to a city hall and asking them for names that may interest you…

Nope, I don’t agree with you. I have two identities to keep my work and private life separate. I don’t even have to have those. But I use my private life identity to connect with like minds on personal matters, and I use my work identity to basically make money from the internet. I could equally have no identity online, and just surf in complete anonymity. However, I would lose the benefits that having an identity brings.

i don’t really see how you would sustain two seperate identities without the use of proxies. sure, you could have double accounts for many websites, like seperate e-mail adress, stuff like that. but it would still be matched to one-another by those websites because of exactly what i am complaining about.

As Reutnig said, the future advocates of change will need to have these basic skills, and not surf without protection. Times change. You either change with them, or get left behind.

yes, so we have ourself a cyberpunk scenario. i don’t know how to hack stuff. i didn’t even have a computer until about ten years ago. how the hell would i know how to do any of that? plus, you said you used other people that you know that provide you with theri IP to use for Proxy. i mean… i don’t know how you get people to do that for you, but that’s a very odd prerequisite to not “get left behind” eh?

No.

For most people, their genetic sequence is not recorded anywhere. For those who have had it recorded, its not in the standard database. The doctor has to send a request through for access to that information, and the request has to use their biometric ID. Requests take about two weeks to be granted. The same biometric ID must be used to view the information. Medical data is heavily protected, and not available to the general public.

You’re not going to find a two terabyte file ‘accidentally’ linked to someone’s profile, either. Reading the things takes specialist equipment. A home PC is not going to cut it. We are a long, long way from having every piece of information about every person on the internet. I often truly wish we were closer to that stage, as it would make so many things so much easier to do. But, we have a long, long way to go, and a great many technical hurdles to overcome before we reach that point. I doubt another 20 years will be long enough.

wow, hold on. who’s talking about genetic codes aoas? ok yeah, not literally EVERYTHING is available, no. for one thing, we still haven’t got any remote mind-reading technology as far as i know. but that’s a little pedantic don’t you think?

it’s still far too much.

The idea of password mathing is to make it easier for you. You don’t have to use it.

you do. oyu can no longer use unique passwords for gmail, youtube and chrome. also your Windows ID and your hotmail must be the same password. this is very unhelpful, and hurts your security.

At the end of the day, these are private websites, and it is your choice to visit them or not. If you choose not to visit them, there is nothing they can do.

er, no. not using them is…not using the internet. that is impossible. you’d stay really, really stupid if you don’t use the internet, and that’s even worse. plus you can’t do any school or college, nor have many jobs, without using internet.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Eh, this ain’t facebook.

lol

 
Flag Post

It’s google trying to trace peoples youtube accounts to them. You see google is taking over the world and wants to know who’s who so they know who to target first.

 
Flag Post

well, perhaps they are. are you willing to chance it? will you just assume they won’t try such a thing? it has been done before, and it will happen again. someday. there is some need to be careful, and they’re overtly and rapidly eroding any ability to do so.