It never will be. Tennis tournaments take place on private property and you agree to certain terms that ban you from "transmitting match data" by purchasing a ticket and attending. The tournament can throw anyone out that they please at their discretion.
I like to think about the "Sharing Economy" kind of like the shift from physical servers to virtual servers. A similar set of principals come into play when you try to make better use of excess memory and CPU cycles VS when you try to make use of nights when your spare room is empty.
I think that is an interesting point. I have always found "site.com/view?postid=1234" feels lazy vs. the alternative "site.com/posts/article-title". While there is a relatively small group of people who might poke around with the URL parameters regularly, the vast majority of internet users IMHO would prefer to see a URL with some indication about what is on the other side. That's not to say we can't have both either, just that you tend to only need one or the other.
That's kind of one of the three legs of the article, that it shouldn't be rape for two 17 year olds to have sex and similarly it should not be a sexual crime for them to send each other pictures of themselves. Both of these "crimes" are clearly not the targets of their respective laws, so why are we creating "sex offenders" out of these people?
I understand what you are trying to say.
I am curious though what you recommend as a monetization strategy if you take that route?
I suppose ad revenue is always the old fall back, but I would imagine that for a lot of the content out there, that is not free to produce, there needs to be some way to pay the bills.
I would be interested if statistical data gleaned from DNS makes it's way into any other service areas. DNS would seem like a useful way to rank the popularity of web sites, I am sure there are some interesting enhancements that could be made using that data.
I think you are still missing what I meant.
I think it's a Content vs Pornography distinction. If we wanted to test it, I think the question to ask would be are they blocking explicit text as well, say erotic stories, or even just swear words? I know that some portions of their platform do automatically censor certain words (for example website comments), so it would be interesting to see to what level that policy is policed.
From Facebook's standpoint I would imagine that these are viewed as completely independent policies. On one hand Facebook does not want to censor discussion, on the other Facebook does not want to host explicit images. The distinction that you draw above simply has to do with their definition of what is an explicit image.
Would you make the same argument if we were talking about Holocaust deniers and personal pornography? Because I am pretty sure that is the distinction that Facebook is making. You just disagree on what constitutes pornography. (I am not agreeing or disagreeing with either of you around that definition either way, just saying that I think you are arguing a different argument).
The article doesn't talk about a personal judgement of artistic merit, but rather a previous court ruling (“Early Circuit law in California held that obscene works did not promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and thus cannot be protected by copyright.”). Now perhaps that court ruling isn't that much different, but your comment implies a personal judgement of value enabling copyright infringement.
Okay, like I said, I still agree with the sentiment of the article (Which is pretty much entirely quoting other people). I just think that it is a little hypocritical to pen an article calling out abusive comments in the blogger community and then present other abusive comments in a positive light. I am certainly not saying this equates, vindicates, or in anyway excuses rape threats, or really any other abusive comment. Just pointing out that perhaps that quote is inappropriate considering the point the article is trying to make.
I don't disagree with the general sentiment of the article, but judging from this quote it would appear to be a two way street:
"A lot of [commenters] seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting."
The above comment was addressing the lack of variables, not the lack of true inheritance (a single level of inheritance is not really inheritance at all, simply applying attributes en masse). What the comment does address is the lack of variables and the need/want to set a color (or anything else) once and then use that through an assortment of other definitions. This is something that is only currently possible through CSS preprocessors.
This article comes off as being both disingenuous and a significant exaggeration of what is actually happening here. I think that saying that "Facebook doesn't actually log you out" is overstating what is actually happening here. The fact is that Facebook is collecting analytics on your browsing habits when you visit sites that have any of their integration on them, regardless of whether you are currently "logged in" to Facebook or not. We are conveniently ignoring the fact that any number of other sites, including Google, collect the same information everyday, but we are suddenly enraged at Facebook.
Saying that they are not logging you out is incorrect, they are logging you out of Facebook, they are turning off integration, they are preventing websites that use integration from collecting your info. What they are not doing is ceasing their data collection. At this point I think people need to understand that this (analytics, whether used for good or for evil) is a very regular activity on the internet and move past using hyperbole to try and attack the companies that use it.
</rant> I am just tired of hearing everyone bitch and moan every time x company touches their interface.
Really?? It is exceedingly clear in the Terms of Service that you link to, where is says to "use your full first and last name", that the name "Doctor Popular" violates the terms of service. I think it is pretty clear what Google is trying to do here and to try and make your self sound like the victim here is disingenuous at best.
At this point if you refuse to use your real name you are no longer being persecuted, but simply making a choice not to use their services because you don't agree with their policies. Don't look for other peoples pity "Doctor Popular".
I disagree, I have no expectation that my personal friends will be taking measures to ensure my privacy, I have not paid them money and signed off on a TOS that says they will take measures to protect my personal information. So if someone broke into their house and stole my information it would certainly be unfortunate, but I would not have expected them to be keeping this information encrypted or secured in any significant way.
However, those are not my expectations with a company. I paid Sony for a PS3 and by extension to use PSN and I signed their TOS with the understanding that they would protect my personal information. The same goes for the information that I give my bank, or any other business that I provide my personal information too.
The analogy doesn't break down because of the illegality of the act, there is little doubt that both breaking into your house and breaking into your server are both illegal. Instead the analogy breaks down because I have almost no expectation that my friends will take significant steps to protect my personal data, but I do have expect (and in most cases I have a written promise in the TOS) that the companies I provide my information to will protect it.