Using an alias want stop you being identified
be afraid be very very paranoid
Graham Annesley has conceded a controversial obstruction call that cost Roosters star Joey Manu a fair try against the Panthers was wrong. The NRL head of football has wasted no time conceding that video referee Chris Butler failed to use the…
Read more…How come whenever we see Danny Weidler on the news interviewing players, he has to have his big boof head front and centre of the shot. It's almost as if he is the star - has he ever played league....it just annoys me.
Read more…I previously wrote a blog on the subject of nuclear power.Professor Daz basically took my comments apart and justifiably so as I had nowhere near the knowledge or research capacity to lay a factual basis for the proliferation of nuclear power other…
Read more…So Sunday, to celebrate the start of a new season, i am hosting my mates with a BBQ, pool table, darts and man cave while watching the Vegas matches. Though i am curious for a fun discussion what is everyone else's go to for the BBQ? For me, a piece…
Read more…
If both Asi and Gutho are out v Manly, BA seemed to think Asi is fine as their doctor claimed category 2, Sanders might be needed to debut as we have Talagi at 1. But if we do need him it will be for one week. Fogarty could have torn his bicep, now…
Read more…Perhaps could be the first team to lose to Gold Coast this year, back home at Brooky they will be smarting hard. Do we have the mental capacity to keep up or will we give up when gets tough? They have shown weakness on their right edge, though with…
Read more…1. Gutho2. Simonson3. Penisini4. Talagi.5. Russel6. Brown 7. Sanders8. RCG9. Hands10. Paulo11. Lane12. Hopgood13. Matterson14. Doorey15. Ofenguae 16. Greg17. Makatoa
Read more…Nrl Physio reporting that Gutho has been getting his knee drained of fluid and dealing with soreness and swelling in the knee he had surgery on. Obviously not a good sign and he's not close to 100%.
Read more…<script src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!-- Sidebar -->
<p> </p>
<script>// <![CDATA[
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
// ]]></script>
Replies
"So if you don’t do the things that Facebook approves of, they’re going to cut you off from their platform"
Fark I'm shitting myself. Imagine if they banned me from something I don't use. Crazy lefties.
The right would never impinge on your personal liberty or freedoms. Except for things like the US patriot act and, hmmm a little program called Cointelpro.
One side might ban you from a social media platform, the other murders you in your bed ( See Fred Hampton)...
I think what is starting to happen is that if a customer bad mouths a company on social media then patron search will identify them as a trouble maker and companies will ban them - like they will not be able to get an Uber. But could easily go further and you could be blacklisted for this political view or that depending on how the company decides to customise the search. The tech already exists as was done for the Chinese government to thought control its population
You'd have to go pretty far in your criticism to get a company to not want to use you for profit.
Let's say worst case scenario a company decides to stop allowing people of a certain political viewpoint to not access there service. There essentially undermining there own ability to be a profitable entity.
The whole point of a company is to make money for shareholders. It would be a strong decision to vote against making profit for a moral position, something I can't see being done regularly enough to become an issue.
It is already happening
Any examples you can point to?
Using tech the ones in the article
However it is nothing new
Racism, sexism, classes etc have been around forever and businesses have been happy to lose money and not serve people who belong to one group or another. In the US there have been businesses who have refused to serve people who wear apparel supporting a political group they dislike.
After reading the original article, there drawing loooong bow trying to link the tech thing to China's system.
The insurance company examples are nothing they haven't been doing for decades just with a modern twist, rather than just your health records, the patronscan uber / airbnb ones basically mean if you act like a carnt other businesses can be made aware, just like people get known for there reputation in a small town, just supersized. For the majority of the population these are non issues because they don't act like twats, ergo non ban, ergo no issue.
Asian culture is vastly different in it's outlook on the dynamic between the individual and the group. In the west we're told to put individual wants and needs first. Asian countries it's all about being a good citizen, don't bring shame on your family, hence the greater acceptance of the idea of social monitoring and conformity.
This is just the extension of that normal human tension between the individual and the pressure to conform to a cultural norm, not a grand technocratic minority report conspiracy.
But these wafflers like to jump at " faceless men, deep state, silicon valley, bureaucrats, intellectuals, global elites etc etc" that are trying to secretly steal your freedoms, when in fact everybody already regulates there behaviour to some extent to fit in and comply in society.
One point is how does patronscan differentiate between Someone who was wronged by a company sharing that on social media and someone unfairlly slandering a company.
Another point is what is to stop the company legally using patron scan for barring people who express support for one political group
Google Facebook twitter etc are explicitly trying to change the way people vote.
At the moment there is a deficiency in the law where it is legal for companies to discriminate based on political views. This needs to be corrected.
It says in the original article that " Judgment about what kind of behavior qualifies for inclusion on a PatronScan list is up to the bar owners and managers. Individual bar owners can ignore the ban, if they like."
So " bad behavior " isn t set by the company, rather the users. And can be ignored if they chose.
Traditional media outlets ( Cough cough Murdoch) have explicitly tried to change voters opinions for years and years.
But I take your point as to the stratification of opinion and feedback loops that occur on social media. Essentially there algorithms are designed to present you with similar content with what you have interacted with in the past.
So that generally means things you really like, or things you really hate, and you get an polarized view of a topic, or you come to think things are happening more than they probably are.
Isreal Folau and Qantas