@newtboy
still missing my main point.

which may be my fault,i tend to ramble.

i can agree that:
choices have consequences.
i can agree that an employer had a right to fire according to its own dictates and standards.
i can actually agree with much of what you are saying,but it is not my point.

i am simply pointing out the larger and greater societal implications of how social media,youtube,instagram,tumblr etc etc are being used as bully pulpits by those who feel morally superior to admonish,chastise and ridicule other people into submission.sometimes rightly so,other times not.

there is already a growing number of people who have been directly affected by this new paradigm,and what i find disturbing is that so few are even bothered by this new development.

people have lost jobs over facebook posts!
for posting an opinion for fuck sakes!

and nobody seems to have a problem with this?
this is perfectly acceptable in a supposed "free" society?

lets use a totally hyperbolic example,but the parameters are the same:
during the salem witch trials it was later found to be common practice that one farmer would accuse his competition of witchcraft.

was this neighbor actually practicing witchcraft?
probably not,but what an effective way to rid yourself of competition.

we can use an even more recent example of afghanistan,where farmers were turning in their rivals for cash.they get rid of competition and their neighbor is whisked off to gitmo.

do you see what i am saying?

the larger implications are vast and easily abused.
and this is most certainly a PC police issue,because it is actually punishing offensive speech,opinions and positions.

west baptist church are a repulsive and offensive group of religious thugs,but they have a right to speak and express their vile opinions.

and i will defend their right to be offensive and vulgar,while totally disagreeing with their position.

this is social control by proxy.
don't say anything offensive,or there shall be consequences i.e:job loss
dont say anything controversial or there will be consequences,or post anything racy or contrary to social norms.

in fact,because more and more people are paying the price for saying/posting a controversial view or offensive opinion,just be quiet.

sit down.
shut up.
and obey.

or the PC police will band together to expose your offensive,controversial and subversive opinions and destroy your life.

so you just sit there and think your thoughts,but don't you dare voice them,or the morality police will expose you for the subversive you are.

this tactic is already reaching orwellian levels.
and nobody seems to be bothered.
nobody seems to be giving this the scrutiny and examination it deserves.there is a real danger here that many of my fellow citizens seems to be either unaware,or just dont care the larger implications and that is disturbing to me.

because some of the examples are just like THIS turdnugget.
a reprehensible,vulgar and ignorant example of a human being.so it is easy to feel good about him getting a "comeupance".

because we hate him and what he represents.so it is easy to ignore the larger picture and the implications of social warriors taking things too far.which i could literally type all day laying out scenarios where this form of PC police/social warriors could easily be abused (and already HAS in some instances).

and that should have us all standing up and taking notice,because it is those very implications and the relative silence that is disturbing me the most.

so yeah,this turdnugget is an easy target and easily dismissed as getting what he deserved,but what happens when it is YOUR behavior being villified? something you were doing ,maybe in the privacy of your own home or out with friends that made its way to youtube,and someone found offensive.what if you were taken out of context? or the video was edited?

how would you defend yourself?
better yet,WHY would you have to defend yourself when you were not harming anyone,but some overly-sensitive fuckwit was offended and decided you should be punished?

there is a plethora of historical examples i could use where tyrannical governments,despots and police states have literally quashed dissent,differing opinions and abhorrent behavior by simply creating fear..not of the government per se,but rather by their own neighbors.

which is EXACTLY what the PC police and social warriors use to silence their opponents.fear.

you are totally within your right to disagree with me,but my main argument is how easily this tactic can be abused and if we dont start paying attention now.we may not get a chance later.

it has happened before.
it can happen again.

*intent to harm is an actual legal charge,and can be prosecuted.

there was no harm here.except for feelings and racist/derogatory language.

i guess you could make the "emotional distress' argument,but in a 5 minute video you would be hard pressed to prove actual,irreparable harm.

i am rambling again,and probably lost the plot somewhere,but i hope i at least got my main point across.

there is a real and present danger here my man,and it threatens some of this countries core ideas and is ripe for abuse.

because the truth is:this tactic works and it works extremely well.

I feel like you're splitting hairs to promote a "discussion"...

My point is not blame the corps rather than the Chinese gov. My point is, the confected outrage about this 'disturbing turn of events' in China are ignoring the fact the corporations long since did the same thing, albeit in a far more circumspect fashion, years ago in the west.

This is not a sudden turn of events. How often do you see corps getting laws put in place in the US that actively work against the taxpayers but shelter the corps? Invasive use of personal data? Exploitation of social pressure. The death of privacy?

My point is, China learned what it's doing, no matter who you point the finger at, from the west... We should only be surprised it took them so long...

I remember -hearing- and -reading- about those days. They were before my time, or at least before I was paying attention to politics. Until Watergate, I wasn't really interested...after that, the GOP was pretty much irrational.

Simpson was one of the half-way rational sorts. Big for privacy and equal rights, but was also pushing to privatize Social Security and cut taxes (mainly for the wealthy, surprise!). I'm not sure he's got solid standing to call others hypocritical on the topic of income inequality...he did his share to help reach our current balance.

Edit: I didn't quite trust my memory after writing the above, so I did a bit of verification. And I found I was right not to trust it. Simpson was not trying to privatize SS, he just wanted to slash the benefits and increase the retirement age. Which has much the same effect for those who have paid into it all along; they get less.

My favourite moment, for those of you unfamiliar with Canadian politics, is at 4:20 when they realize she's connected to this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Toews

This was the tail end of his political career:

"In February 2012, as Minister, Toews introduced the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act (also known as Bill C-30).[118][119] If passed, the bill would grant police agencies expanded powers, mandate that internet service providers (ISPs) provide subscriber information without a warrant and compel providers to reveal information transmitted over their networks with a warrant. When criticised about privacy concerns, Toews responded that people "can either stand with us or with the child pornographers."[120] Public response followed, with an anonymous Twitter account posting personal information of Toews' court proceedings during his divorce, and around this time Conservative support appeared to back away from the bill and open up to amendments.[121] Toews later denied that he had made the "child pornographers" reference, despite his comments being available in Hansard and on video.[122] In February 2013 the government announced Bill C-30 would be scrapped entirely in favor of changes in Canada's warrant-less wiretap law"

I wonder how many 'OK, let's go for it' clips were edited out for privacy reasons...

I highly doubt your car can be impounded for driving with an expired registration , even in PA. That is very nearly the least significant traffic violation there is. Of course, the police lie about that sort of thing all the time, which is probably the case here.

Even though people hate them, this is actually one of the reasons I'm all for automated traffic policing devices such as speed cams, stoplight cams and even more advanced devices as technology allows (with proper care for privacy in data collection). In the US, for instance, everybody knows you can generally drive up to 9 miles an hour over the speed limit without worry. This should not be the case. The police let this happen because if everybody is always technically speeding because that's just what's done, they can justifiably pull over and hassle whoever whenever they want to (read: minorities).

Feels like a carrot dangling right in front of yet another privacy nightmare...

I must have missed that, please tell me at what point was Sarkeesian slut shamed for her critical views? How are the two even connected? Lewinsky's talk did cover the corrosive environment we find online and that is something they both share, but how they got there is different. Lewinsky and the other guy she mentioned both had their privacy violated and their personal lives exposed to the public, the media shamelessly exploited the situation for clicks and ratings while the Republicans saw something that might finally stick to the Teflon President (honestly I think Clinton should have cut the playing coy bullshit and simply owned up to it).
Sarkeesian voiced and opinion and some people agreed, some people sort of agreed, some disagreed, and yet others decided to be assholes about it. No secrets revealed, no private shame of hers was exposed for the sake of public titillation, she took a stance on an issue and got a taste of the uglier side of public life.
Also, please point out in my post where I said that she was asking for it or where I said anything about what she was wearing. Shoving words into people's mouths to demonize them in the hopes that it will silence them is a reflection on you, not me.

Ironic quote of their CEO David Vincenzetti after being told that they were being tracked by activists:
"This is BLATANT privacy violation!"
Classic!

Wow, how baked are you @MrFisk?

The point you made was about Public figures and their privacy.

Regardless of how their privacy came to be violated..

(Anthony Weiner mistakenly? linked his pics on is public twitter originially. Hah.)

the result is the same:

People flocking to oogle their naked/scantily-clad bodies in photos that were meant to be private.

Isn't that the issue?


And then the rest of your comment about how..

..even private citizens should expect less privacy because of illegal data collection by the NSA..

(not unlike the illegal seizure by the Fappening hacker effectively)

Yet somehow that's okay because.. they didn't publicly share those photos.. O_o? really?

..wtf dude.. @_@

Really. Public figures have less expectations of privacy. The difference between Wiener's wiener and 'The Fappening' is how the material was accessed and disseminated. And I'm not saying either is not a problem, but I'm saying that Wiener was a married elected official who chose to send dick picks to chicks other than his wife while in office. And then some of the recipients provided the material to the media, which isn't the same as an ex-lover self-publishing. And 'The Fappening' was a lapse of security of the cloud, right? So I don't see causation of similarity.

@GenjiKilpatrick -- I'm sure you could contact Anthony Wiener and get more pics. And I definitely wouldn't say leaked nudes is perfectly acceptable and to be expected, but it's most likely to be expected because the technology and ramifications are new. Snowden said the NSA casually exchanged images of nude women (probably men, too), and they weren't celebrities. Of course, I'm sure neither Snowden or the NSA leaked them.

Public figures have less freedom of privacy.

Not sure what to call this, it says "Because of privacy settings, this video can't be played here". So I guess it's not dead, but *blocked?

EDIT: Here's the video on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpaPBCBjSVc

Did not the supreme court recently declare this program was unconstitutional anyway? I can't understand how they could possibly extend a program that's unconstitutional. That doesn't make sense.

Of course, they try to not admit that this program has been useless. They have ignored that it's not stopped any of the terrorist acts on our soil or elsewhere, not even contributing in a meaningful way towards stopping any. NOT ONCE. It's astonishing that all but one senator is claiming the opposite, when their own independent investigations proved it repeatedly. It's also astonishing that they have completely ignored the findings of the supreme court that declared it unconstitutional. I guess the whole 'swear to uphold the constitution' part of their oath comes with an unspoken caveat 'unless I don't want to, it's inconvenient, or I get paid not to'.

I'm not normally a fan of Paul, but I think he got this one right. I hope the spin machine (now on overdrive from both parties. Impressive, he actually brought the two parties together!) doesn't convince people that he's the one that's got it wrong (him, along with the supreme court) and all the other senators are really working to try to keep us safe and free, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding.

EDIT: Also, the USA Freedom act, the proposed replacement, still has all the data kept, just kept by the private companies involved. Personally, I don't trust private companies to keep my information private. Not only is there the likelihood they'll be hacked, there's also the likelihood they'll SELL that information eventually, no matter what their 'privacy policy' or 'terms of service' say. Often, when companies are dissolved, that customer information is sold as an asset, even when the company is contractually bound to keep it private and NOT sell it. Once the company is dissolved, there's no one to sue over them not keeping their obligation. This happens all the time now. I certainly don't want my calls, to who and when I made them, all purchases, and my location to be sold to the highest bidder(s), I don't know about you.