You didn't realize that nearly all our freedoms of privacy have been taken away? What a shame. But now that you know join the libertarian cause and fight with us brother!!

Last edited by Yonosa (2010 April 22, 10:05 am)

Sounds pretty nitpicky to me.  You can't put information in a public place and then act like you have some say in the matter of what happens with it.  Yet another case of people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

JimmySeal wrote:

Sounds pretty nitpicky to me.  You can't put information in a public place and then act like you have some say in the matter of what happens with it.  Yet another case of people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have a problem with Twitter retroactively, indiscriminately making permanently public, via third party, every single post, including deleted ones and posts that were then made private. In fact, despite blanket dismissals that this is nitpicking "cuz it's the Web", I imagine Twitter will have something in place that doesn't transgress on the established rules and norms of their site according to the contract, however nebulous, they established with users through policy and practice. Regardless of minor, less conspicuous, fragmented crawling of Twitter via previous aggregators on a delayed, inconsistent time scale in relation to Twitter, which most I think are already aware of, as well as the common delay in archiving Twitter posts for public searches, limitations to those searches in regards to page length and number of days past that are immediately available, the interface and choices for privacy and deletion, awareness of how keywords and number of links to an account and number of followers contributes to archiving speed and breadth, etc.

Personally, I think it demonstrates a certain savvy to the aforementioned nuances of architecture and behaviour online to voice these concerns.

Cynics might decide to never post anything without deep deliberation about every possible interpretation of any reader, forever, or to simply never post anything, and I think it's something to keep in mind as a foundation--it's a jungle out there and goodness knows the fishbowl effect makes people say stupid things and then regret it when employers/airport security gives them grief, but in practice this is unreasonable to expect perfection from, so rather than calling it utopian and naive to have a discourse about what actually happens, wouldn't it be more useful to find a common ground and acknowledge the human learning curve as well as the 'growth' of the site and overall ecology? Anyway, I don't have a Twitter, so this is all fun theory for me. ;p

Tangent: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Controls-Inte … 0195152662 - People tend to forget, the Web isn't a magical force of nature, neither dystopian nor utopian.

Last edited by nest0r (2010 April 22, 2:50 pm)

nest0r wrote:

JimmySeal wrote:

Sounds pretty nitpicky to me.  You can't put information in a public place and then act like you have some say in the matter of what happens with it.  Yet another case of people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have a problem with Twitter retroactively, indiscriminately making permanently public, via third party, every single post, including deleted ones and posts that were then made private. In fact, despite blanket dismissals that this is nitpicking "cuz it's the Web", I imagine Twitter will have something in place that doesn't transgress on the established rules and norms of their site according to the contract, however nebulous, they established with users through policy and practice. Regardless of minor, less conspicuous, fragmented crawling of Twitter via previous aggregators on a delayed, inconsistent time scale in relation to Twitter, which most I think are already aware of, as well as the common delay in archiving Twitter posts for public searches, limitations to those searches in regards to page length and number of days past that are immediately available, the interface and choices for privacy and deletion, awareness of how keywords and number of links to an account and number of followers contributes to archiving speed and breadth, etc.

Personally, I think it demonstrates a certain savvy to the aforementioned nuances of architecture and behaviour online to voice these concerns.

Cynics might decide to never post anything without deep deliberation about every possible interpretation of any reader, forever, or to simply never post anything, and I think it's something to keep in mind as a foundation--it's a jungle out there and goodness knows the fishbowl effect makes people say stupid things and then regret it when employers/airport security gives them grief, but in practice this is unreasonable to expect perfection from, so rather than calling it utopian and naive to have a discourse about what actually happens, wouldn't it be more useful to find a common ground and acknowledge the human learning curve as well as the 'growth' of the site and overall ecology? Anyway, I don't have a Twitter, so this is all fun theory for me. ;p

Tangent: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Controls-Inte … 0195152662 - People tend to forget, the Web isn't a magical force of nature, neither dystopian nor utopian.

too...many...big...words...

nest0r wrote:

On this forum, I only operate at 5-20% lexical capacity. Although I also only operate at 20% putting-effort-into-clarity capacity, so it's a bad combo. If you see me use the word 'stuff' or 'thingy' then you know I'm operating at 25% effort for clarity, ironically. The number of commas rises the lower that latter percentage gets.

OK not "fag", but there is no need to go in to this. haha, it's all good, and it's all good and smart that we have intelligent people around. But let's focus on bringing down the machine instead o explaining our language use, unless it be in our L2.

Last edited by Yonosa (2010 April 23, 4:54 am)