233 karma · joined December 21, 2015
It's a consequence of the fact I'm now wired to expect it, because these companies have big budgets and actually do spend their money on astroturfing.
the internet and the media has taken away a lot of the moderates
They did make their own version of youtube at one point, apparently it wasn't enough and they wanted the userbase too.
The data is just convenient for anyone with a political agenda to make big claims. If the paper wanted to be genuine they could have gone further - what was rejected? Was there a valid reason? etc
This means since I can't view their articles, I definitely won't be upvoting them on places like HN since I can't read them, and I'm sure others are in the same boat.
They could have done this in so many other ways, but they chose the way that was openly hostile to their viewers. Good luck declaring war on your own readerbase, wired.
Now just look at VR on the other hand... there's many big companies investing in that and there's a lot of hype around it. Heck even Facebook is on board and Microsoft is nowhere to be seen. There's yet another technological revolution that they're missing out on.
When Google released maps/street view, or apple announced the iphone, those were the kinds of things that built excitement because they were big ideas, and it was the kind of future we wanted to live in. Microsoft doesn't really do that, and from this article they still don't get it.
Chances are if they're slacking off in university then they're going to slack off at work too, which means whatever they're not doing will need someone to be hired to do it anyway.
Can you be sure? You may have just invalidated my own experiences as a woman. Am I obligated to now tell you my gender so you know for sure if you're being misogynist or not? But I guess its okay because I'm an anonymous stranger on the internet and you didn't know I was a woman to give me special treatment? It's a lot to think about.
> Stuff like women should simply be treated equally.
Yes. Women are "stuff".
Services all the time like email have to work to combat spam, this is no different.
The biggest thing that changed is instead of using anonymous handles, people got into the habit of using their personal information. From the link you included, that woman has what I assume is her name, her photo, her city, and her personal website - most of which is likely a gateway for googling more information. On her actual profile, her latest retweet is millennials mansplaining or something, one could say she's basically baiting a group of people she disagrees with, and further down she's calling Ricky Gervais a "whiny baby" (where does that fit under twitters rules?)
If I was spewing that kind of crap about people with my own name beside it, I guess I'd be worried about people finding where I live and harassing me too. It's mind boggling why people do this to themselves.
> It honestly sounds to me like you're approaching this from first principles / intuition, instead of any data (or analyses of data, which exist) about how internet harassment actually works.
It's why I asked. Maybe it's just that I think of the internet the same way I did 15 years ago where nobody online ever needs to know your name, age, sex, height, opinions, political affiliations, favorite food, etc unless you make it so, and when you want to start over with a clean slate, you can just remake internet accounts rather than having some dumb crap you said 10 years ago stick with you forever on google.
It sounds more to me like even after getting banned, the minority of trolls can just make new accounts and resume their harassment, so the solution here isn't human intervention but a technical solution to disincentivize trolls from making new accounts.
https://blog.onedrive.com/onedrive_changes/
> a small number of users backed up numerous PCs and stored entire movie collections and DVR recordings.
I'm pretty certain they didn't get permission to look at their users movie collections or DVR recordings, they were just flagged for high usage and they went right in to see what those users were storing. For any form of data collection they do, it's a guarantee they're analyzing the outliers... in fact they're practically bragging about the fact they do.
The only reason I can think of that doesn't resort to tin foil hat theories is to prevent a rise of "windows 10 privacy enhancement" software.