I was skeptical, so tried it out myself and tried making a comment there with 'communist bandits' / 共匪. My Youtube comment was indeed removed completely and silently, including from my comment history. I am very disappointed with Youtube.
I disagree. One's GMail contacts is a clear (ha) example of a fuzzy scenario that I think is ... questionably handled by the language at the link you reference. It's difficult especially because it's a weird hybrid of a very personal or household activity that runs inside a commercial activity.
From the text:
> 1 This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity
Ok!
> and thus with no connection to a professional or commercial activity.
...wait, GMail is clearly a professional or commercial product. An online addressbook in GMail... does that count as having a "connection" or not? My purpose of the addresses is personal. But it's clearly connected (at least by tcp, haha) to a commercial activity.
> 2 Personal or household activities could include correspondence and the holding of addresses, or social networking and online activity undertaken within the context of such activities.
Ok ... wait, social networking clearly involves commercial entities (e.g. twitter). So my personal actions for personal non-business uses of twitter are not regulated. Fine. But twitter itself is?
> 3 However, this Regulation applies to controllers or processors which provide the means for processing personal data for such personal or household activities.
Ok so the regulation applies to the controllers/processors (e.g. GMail, twitter).
So: the regulation does not "apply" to me for my personal use, but my (personally defined for personal use) GMail contacts could get deleted by the other person?
I am definitely not a lawyer, but this does seem at least somewhat contradictory, or at least would benefit greatly from a few more clarifying sentences.
Comparison to complex documentation is not apt to your pro-condescension argument. Complex and vague can be very different.
Documentation can be complex, but if it's rigorous and not vague, I am totally fine with that. Software can be very complex. When it is complex, I would hope the documentation has sufficient detail to cover their intricacies. I'm glad that the postgres documentation is huge and complex -- it has to be.
I do however complain pretty often about vague documentation haha. I feel like it's pretty common for people to complain about an under-documented quirk shooting them in the foot (e.g. mongodb and durability back in the day).
One last thing: If your interpretation is right (and it seems plausible, maybe even likely), then I really need to locally archive my emails and contacts more often haha.
While I wouldn't quite call it pretty, it keeps things at the same indentation level, and I can still use closures to maintain the illusion of a single "thread".
I'm the "tech guy" (ie, code monkey) at Givology, and boy could we use some of your givers. We don't have a fancy website (since it's basically composed of my spare time), but the concept is to allocate money to specific students or projects (similar to Kiva and Global Giving). This is the first I've heard of Urbantastic, and it sounds like you've got the opposite problem we have; we have a lot of students and projects that we can put up on the site, but not a lot of donors.
This sounds like it would be easily fixed using a this-page-only salt for your hashing function. I.e., when someone else visits the login page, they get a different salt and thus can't use that attack. This could be done on the server (if you use a dynamically generated page) or on the client (with some javascript).
I'm not totally sure, but I would say either upvote your favorite amongst the rebutting comments that will likely crop up if the incorrect post is highly rated, or stay quiet.
Here's a different hypothetical where upvoting based on agreeing opinions, rather than quality of reasoning, can be a problem. It sometimes crops up in sites with rating systems like the one we are reading right now, and it could be on any blatantly wrong, or merely not-widely-held opinion.
1) A person writes "a comment that honestly and eloquently makes a claim based on the perceived fact that the world is flat" (or any other well-reasoned claim based on an incorrect premise, or simply an opinion which is disagreed with).
2) Either because it was well reasoned or because of a number of otherwise quiet flat earth believers agreeing with it, it gets up-voted highly.
3) A few passionate replies are written to rebut the highly voted claim, but the majority of which do so caustically, without good reasoning; perhaps even name-calling.
4) In order to push forth their opinion, people who believe the earth is round up-vote the rebuttals, regardless of their quality; and the tragedy is that sometimes (often?) the rebuttal most up-voted is one that simply appeared earliest, rather than the one which rebuts most clearly.
So, I don't know what the ideal voting method would be, but voting based on quality of reasoning, not agreement, would have avoided this problem -- at least in the case of arguments.
A side note: as others have noted, the distinction between "fact" and "opinion" is, well, a matter of opinion in many cases.