Facebook, The CIA and Neoconservativism
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Dillinger4 said:Man. Just the fact you are playing the game in the first place means you already compromised.
aint no shame in playing the game. Shame comes when a man falls down on that shit
/wire
You got a facebook fixation ?
you had better read this
( its long BW )
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook
you had better read this
( its long BW )
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Dillinger4 said:Man. Just the fact you are playing the game in the first place means you already compromised.
Well that's true of almost anything you're doing on the net so why focus solely on fb?
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
editor said:
Try reading the post instead of the inside of your own head.
Kid_Eternity said:
Yep. Have read the article and apart from coming across as a bit hysterical, it doesn't reveal any deep conspiracy. A journalist has read a privacy policy and gets the consiparaloon bug. Quelle drama...!
If you want something to be private, don't put it on the Internet...
Buds and Spawn
...if I can't dance...
While facebook might make it easier for the forces of darkness to keep tabs on you, if you use any kind of electronic communication then you're equally susceptible to having your life under the magnifying glass.
Email, phones etc.. allow 'them' to know what you're saying to who and when - and to build a picture of your social circle ad infinitum. If you post on forums, or have accounts with any social software sites (lastfm, flickr, delicious etc...), then more information about your habits and foibles is available.
Unless of course you a) go in stealth mode, b) live in the woods.
I can't be bothered with a), and while b) is appealing on several levels there's only so many trees and it would soon get a bit crowded.
Email, phones etc.. allow 'them' to know what you're saying to who and when - and to build a picture of your social circle ad infinitum. If you post on forums, or have accounts with any social software sites (lastfm, flickr, delicious etc...), then more information about your habits and foibles is available.
Unless of course you a) go in stealth mode, b) live in the woods.
I can't be bothered with a), and while b) is appealing on several levels there's only so many trees and it would soon get a bit crowded.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
The CIA link is pretty tenuous. Some chap called Howard Cox is a big cheese in the small, incestuous world of tech venture capital. So both Greylock and In-Q-Tel want him on their board. Cox is probably on tens of VC boards; and In-Q-Tel is most likely a few degrees of boardroom separation from half of Silicon Valley. Hardly makes Facebook an cyber outpost of Langley; bearing in mind that Greylock's share is really rather small and a huge number of firms will have a piece of the company after multiple funding rounds.
Yes, Facebook has a privacy policy that gives them a get-out from being sued if they're legally obliged to hand over data. That's not unique or suprising.
And all the stuff about Thiel - well, he's a successful capitalist. They're often unpleasant people. So what?
Yes, Facebook has a privacy policy that gives them a get-out from being sued if they're legally obliged to hand over data. That's not unique or suprising.
And all the stuff about Thiel - well, he's a successful capitalist. They're often unpleasant people. So what?
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Read the article? Then watch the video! Interesting stuff.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
The article is by Tom Hodgkinson, who is an extremely unsavoury character. Why, he wrote for the Telegraph during the period when it was owned by Black of Crossharbour, who of course was married to Mossad pawn Barbara Amiel.
So why is this journalist with sinister Zionist links rubbishing Facebook? What don't the lizards want us to see?
So why is this journalist with sinister Zionist links rubbishing Facebook? What don't the lizards want us to see?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Who gives a shit? Seriously? If you're muppet enough to put photographs of yourself snorting lines of coke off a strippers tits on fb you deserve everything you get when an potential employer tells you to fuck off - same goes for Yahoo, flickr and ANYWHERE else on the interweb you post stuff up under your own name.
Jesus, doesn't anyone fucking get this? If you don't want anyone to know about your pussy toe fetish either post details of it anonymously, or don't fucking talk about it online.
Jesus, doesn't anyone fucking get this? If you don't want anyone to know about your pussy toe fetish either post details of it anonymously, or don't fucking talk about it online.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
jæd said:
Exactly.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Rather typically, a journo who doesn't really get the internet, nor facebook...always funny how the journos who slate fb the most usually are those who use the internet least or have no knowledge of it whatsoever (this was blatantly apparent in the rash of fb backlash articles last year)
When's the guardian running a similar piece on 2nd need-to-get-a-Life then? Oh right, despite it being equally 'open' as fb, they signed numerous sponsorship deals with it...
editor said:
well one is glad i did not mannage to work it out and ill be off to take of myspace.. there a use agreed.. but hang on a moment have we got all hung up on this media and like the artical states what is wrong with the pub.. oh yes i do not and can not drink, meet me in the park then lets go for a walk and hugg some trees...
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I think lots of them are terrified by it because it fundamentally alters their role as informational gatekeepers, and those who don't understand what positive benefits it could have see it as reducing their status in society.
untethered
For industry & decency
Adam Greenfield (most definitely one of the tech cognoscenti) has an interesting piece on the perils of social networking. Primarily his concern is the damage it does to real, valuable and nuanced social relationships.
http://speedbird.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/antisocial-networking/
http://speedbird.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/antisocial-networking/
untethered
For industry & decency
kyser_soze said:
Don't confuse the Internet generally with social networking websites.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
untethered said:
Which a lot of journos do. For
As for the Greenfield article, he freely admits it's personal experience and 'common sense' he's using to back up his assertions...they're good observations, but nothing that cannot be overcome by coding networking sites.
My basis point still stands tho - if you use them as a tool to stay in touch with people but still maintain 'real world' relationships there's no problem; if they are the principle medium of a relationship that doesn't involve the physical world (e.g. a telephone call) then you've got a problem.
But other than that I think most of it comes down to people being fuckmuppets and not thinking about what they do, or bothering to read and digest privacy settings.
Similar threads
- Poll
