Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
[split] Abuse of this Internet-connected doc viewing system
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Idaho, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:55 pm    Post subject: [split] Abuse of this Internet-connected doc viewing system Reply with quote

Split from Recommendations for a privacy-aware browser. --pjp

I like how this Internet-connected document viewing system is what people turn to for business, marketing, and even fucking applications.
_________________
Gun: Glock 19 Gen 4
Sights: XS DXT Big Dot
Holster: StealthGear VentCore IWB
Ammunition: Federal Premium HST 124gr
Light: Inforce APLc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17503

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wswartzendruber wrote:
I like how this Internet-connected document viewing system is what people turn to for business, marketing, and even fucking applications.
I'm just glad we're not relying on the internet primarily for a bygone era concept of documents.
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zlg
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Posts: 49
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
wswartzendruber wrote:
I like how this Internet-connected document viewing system is what people turn to for business, marketing, and even fucking applications.
I'm just glad we're not relying on the internet primarily for a bygone era concept of documents.


Honestly, I'd rather have the Web of the 90s, complete with its amateur web design and simplistic pages made by enthusiasts. It had character, if nothing else. Commercializing the Web has robbed it of a lot of creativity and expression. Most people hang out in walled gardens and don't even realize it. They think Facebook, YouTube, et al are the Internet itself.

There's little "bygone" about documents, especially since the core of HTTP is the *linking*. Linking documents allowed for an accessible and navigable way to relate documents to each other in a distributed fashion. The core idea itself is great.

There's also http://textfiles.com , which revels in the concept of the document, pre-HTTP. IMO 'document' is just a fancy way to describe a piece of writing; and writing is still plenty relevant today.

EDIT: Found a good one in the top 100, still relevant over 25 years later! http://www.textfiles.com/100/anonymit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17503

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

zlg wrote:
Honestly, I'd rather have the Web of the 90s, complete with its amateur web design and simplistic pages made by enthusiasts. It had character, if nothing else. Commercializing the Web has robbed it of a lot of creativity and expression. Most people hang out in walled gardens and don't even realize it. They think Facebook, YouTube, et al are the Internet itself.
I'd argue that the web today offers far greater opportunity for creativity. Not only the tools, but also the ability to "publish" content. It is easier and probably more affordable. I'd also challenge you to reconsider your position regarding walled gardens. The people who use walled gardens did not use the 90s internet, and they wouldn't be using today's internet without something like those walled gardens. If that works for them, there is nothing wrong with it (putting aside the issues of dopamine addiction, which is an entirely different matter, and doesn't have to exist).

What I have not seen is a place created by creative people which is free from the commercial interests typically associated with walled gardens. Because such a place would itself be a walled garden, but that isn't inherently bad.

Aside from javascript security concerns, just about everything is better about the web / internet today. And nothing stops a creative person from putting out "simpler" content. Although I hope they choose to not use blinking text, or its modern day equivalent, the 3 second or less animated gif.

zlg wrote:
There's little "bygone" about documents, especially since the core of HTTP is the *linking*. Linking documents allowed for an accessible and navigable way to relate documents to each other in a distributed fashion. The core idea itself is great.
It is great. But it is a replication of physical documents, and in many ways has less usability. The trade-off of course is more convenient access to a lot more content. But a nest of hyperlinks is an awful interface for navigation.
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zlg
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Posts: 49
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
zlg wrote:
Honestly, I'd rather have the Web of the 90s, complete with its amateur web design and simplistic pages made by enthusiasts. It had character, if nothing else. Commercializing the Web has robbed it of a lot of creativity and expression. Most people hang out in walled gardens and don't even realize it. They think Facebook, YouTube, et al are the Internet itself.
I'd argue that the web today offers far greater opportunity for creativity. Not only the tools, but also the ability to "publish" content. It is easier and probably more affordable. I'd also challenge you to reconsider your position regarding walled gardens. The people who use walled gardens did not use the 90s internet, and they wouldn't be using today's internet without something like those walled gardens. If that works for them, there is nothing wrong with it (putting aside the issues of dopamine addiction, which is an entirely different matter, and doesn't have to exist).

What I have not seen is a place created by creative people which is free from the commercial interests typically associated with walled gardens. Because such a place would itself be a walled garden, but that isn't inherently bad.

Aside from javascript security concerns, just about everything is better about the web / internet today. And nothing stops a creative person from putting out "simpler" content. Although I hope they choose to not use blinking text, or its modern day equivalent, the 3 second or less animated gif.


I think we both know that I'm talking about the style of the Web rather than the exact circumstances. Computers are more powerful today, to the point that one can host a website from their own home if they wish. Today's walled gardens house Internet denizens who don't understand the Internet. Their only understanding is that of business, or whoever their social group uses/knows.

Indeed, next to nothing is stopping people from being creative and hosting their own stuff... but why don't they? I posit that walled gardens introduce so much convenience that it creates lazy, unengaged people. It shows in the quality of conversation had within these walled gardens. The Company builds every new feature of The Network; the User is to do as they're told, and is not allowed to build anything. This structure subverts individual agency by leading people to believe that they *cannot* build their own stuff. In short, walled gardens produce learned helplessness. Sure, it's more accessible, but look at the cost to culture. Commercial walled gardens in particular have eroded what used to be a bright, vibrant, and diverse Web built by academia and enthusiasts.

We can handwave this as an Eternal September inevitability, but that wouldn't be a fun conversation.

Truly, what options are there *really* for the aspiring creative? If you're doing anything serious, you're hosting it yourself. Depending on an outside entity for what you love and/or make money doing is asking for trouble. Their Terms may change and suddenly you can't do what you were doing; the service itself may shut down and cause a lot of churn (Google Code, FreshMeat); false copyright claims may be made on your YouTube video(s) to demonetize or censor them. Paypal may freeze your funds because it doesn't like what you get paid for. GitHub might delete your repository because it has the word "retard" in it somewhere. This threat isn't imagined, because everything I listed has happened.

All of these elements produce dependencies for whatever it is you're doing. More dependencies mean higher odds of interference or failure. So for any serious artist, writer, or other creative type, those places are great for exposure, sure. Gets eyeballs on your work. But none of them are reliable or pro-artist, and if you don't have your work on your own website (and a few backups), it's only a matter of time before your work is targeted for one thing or another and removed.

The technology itself is hacks upon hacks on top of a stateless protocol. These "richer" experiences would be better served with better-specialized technology. Why does the browser have to be its own OS or VM? Why do we need it to handle all these other things, when every modern OS comes with an image viewer, a video player, and (usually) a document reader? That takes care of 90% of the content you'll find on the Web, without adding a single line of video code to the browser.

What it really comes down to is convergence and vacuuming data. HTTP is a chatty protocol and clients are expected to reveal a lot of information. Javascript allows for superhuman snooping and analytics to target marketing. It helps that the two most prominent browsers are available on just about every platform. So it's an arbitrary, de facto standard powered by money. Without this corporate interest, the Web would not have ballooned to a point where you literally need 6+ GB of RAM to compile a browser. (You might want to keep it around for actually running it too, though) The gobs of CVEs issued over the years strongly indicate that it's a poor model for a software package, too. Too much code, too many jobs it's trying to do.

Socially, walled gardens create search bubbles, where people are only exposed to things (and people) that they agree with. It creates ignorance and misinformation. Maybe that ties into your mention of dopamine addiction (which I agree is a big problem), so I'll refrain.

pjp wrote:

zlg wrote:
There's little "bygone" about documents, especially since the core of HTTP is the *linking*. Linking documents allowed for an accessible and navigable way to relate documents to each other in a distributed fashion. The core idea itself is great.
It is great. But it is a replication of physical documents, and in many ways has less usability. The trade-off of course is more convenient access to a lot more content. But a nest of hyperlinks is an awful interface for navigation.


What do you think would be better? The "old Web" can still do searching, hierarchal navigation, tagging, etc. Why do we need hamburger menus, unintuitive touch gestures, and megabytes of Javascript to have a webpage? Or better, why do we need webapps instead of "regular" apps? We have a ton of cross-platform languages and ample computation power. I doubt that HTTP gives us any valuable edge that a dedicated program and the correct protocol can't.

The current era of the Web can be summed up in one word: advertisement.

(apologies for the wall of text; I legit want to read what you have to say wrt UIs)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17503

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

zlg wrote:
Today's walled gardens house Internet denizens who don't understand the Internet. Their only understanding is that of business, or whoever their social group uses/knows.
Precisely. For some people, that's what the internet is. They're not really interested in the other stuff. At least not until someone presents it to them in a convenient and/or appealing package.

I came back to add that last sentence after writing the rest of my responses, and it just now occurred to me that there is a word for this: consumer. How many people write books, news or "magazine" content? How many people consume it? How many people create music, paintings, sculptures? How many people consume it? The world just has fewer creators than non-creators.

zlg wrote:
Indeed, next to nothing is stopping people from being creative and hosting their own stuff... but why don't they? I posit that walled gardens introduce so much convenience that it creates lazy, unengaged people. It shows in the quality of conversation had within these walled gardens. The Company builds every new feature of The Network; the User is to do as they're told, and is not allowed to build anything. This structure subverts individual agency by leading people to believe that they *cannot* build their own stuff. In short, walled gardens produce learned helplessness. Sure, it's more accessible, but look at the cost to culture. Commercial walled gardens in particular have eroded what used to be a bright, vibrant, and diverse Web built by academia and enthusiasts.
I think you are overestimating people's interest in creativity. There was no more "creativity" then than there is now. People choosing AOL weren't creating much. Nor were there that many people creating much before the internet. People who want to create will create. And maybe they are, how do you know they aren't? If you don't know them, how would you know to look at johndoescreations.art? How does that happen off the internet?

Academia and enthusiasts are still there. To me, it seems like there is a lot more of them than there were. The internet isn't for a select few, thankfully. Consider activities off the internet. Most don't engage in academia. Comparable offline enthusiasts are also fewer in number. Example: "maker space" people. They did it before the internet, and if anything, the internet helped attract new enthusiasts, or at least foster their interest.

zlg wrote:
Truly, what options are there *really* for the aspiring creative? If you're doing anything serious, you're hosting it yourself. Depending on an outside entity for what you love and/or make money doing is asking for trouble. Their Terms may change and suddenly you can't do what you were doing; the service itself may shut down and cause a lot of churn (Google Code, FreshMeat); false copyright claims may be made on your YouTube video(s) to demonetize or censor them. Paypal may freeze your funds because it doesn't like what you get paid for. GitHub might delete your repository because it has the word "retard" in it somewhere. This threat isn't imagined, because everything I listed has happened.
First, an aspiring creative isn't doing anything serious, so they don't need artificial barriers such as 'hosting it themselves.' Nor do they need artificial barriers of 'someone might censor me.' An actual creative person creates. What "may change" doesn't stop them. They use Google Code, FreshMeat, YouTube, PayPal, GitHub. If someone wants to stop and use those concerns as a reason, then they were looking for a reason to stop, or not start.

You are correct that those issues may present a problem, but that is a problem to address when it happens. FreshMeat wouldn't have existed if people thought "Well, I'd do this, but their ToS may change, or they might go out of business, so never mind, I'll just watch TV." The only thing stopping that person from creating was themselves.

zlg wrote:
The technology itself is hacks upon hacks on top of a stateless protocol. These "richer" experiences would be better served with better-specialized technology. Why does the browser have to be its own OS or VM? Why do we need it to handle all these other things, when every modern OS comes with an image viewer, a video player, and (usually) a document reader? That takes care of 90% of the content you'll find on the Web, without adding a single line of video code to the browser.
So, do that without using a browser? Maybe I'm not understanding your point. You can take a picture with your phone and very easily "publish" it on the internet where others can see it. They see it by using a browser. This is more convenient than having to somehow obtain the picture and then opening it with Speicalized-Image-Viewer. We still drive on roads because that's what made sense when they were created, and no one has figured out how to replace them.

zlg wrote:
What it really comes down to is convergence and vacuuming data. HTTP is a chatty protocol and clients are expected to reveal a lot of information. Javascript allows for superhuman snooping and analytics to target marketing. It helps that the two most prominent browsers are available on just about every platform. So it's an arbitrary, de facto standard powered by money. Without this corporate interest, the Web would not have ballooned to a point where you literally need 6+ GB of RAM to compile a browser. (You might want to keep it around for actually running it too, though) The gobs of CVEs issued over the years strongly indicate that it's a poor model for a software package, too. Too much code, too many jobs it's trying to do.
None of that prevents someone from creating. But I agree that it isn't an ideal state. I believe it will eventually improve.

zlg wrote:
Socially, walled gardens create search bubbles, where people are only exposed to things (and people) that they agree with. It creates ignorance and misinformation. Maybe that ties into your mention of dopamine addiction (which I agree is a big problem), so I'll refrain.
Again, I'll point out that this isn't happening because people are on the internet. It mimics real life. People generally stay within their social bubbles. The main problem with the internet is that it presents a larger group to validate their bubble. But meeting a stranger doesn't typically change someone's belief system. But add that instant feedback loop, and I believe that results in amplification.

zlg wrote:
pjp wrote:
But a nest of hyperlinks is an awful interface for navigation.
What do you think would be better? The "old Web" can still do searching, hierarchal navigation, tagging, etc. Why do we need hamburger menus, unintuitive touch gestures, and megabytes of Javascript to have a webpage? Or better, why do we need webapps instead of "regular" apps? We have a ton of cross-platform languages and ample computation power. I doubt that HTTP gives us any valuable edge that a dedicated program and the correct protocol can't.

The current era of the Web can be summed up in one word: advertisement.

(apologies for the wall of text; I legit want to read what you have to say wrt UIs)
I don't have a "better" alternative. My issue may not be with the technology of it, but rather how it is used. For shorter content, it isn't a big deal. But from a usability standpoint, I can't think of a single instance of in-depth technical documentation that isn't the equivalent of spaghetti code and GOTO statements. Some of that is a problem with the documentation itself. Verbose text with little useful information. Examples I can offer are documentation on Oracle's website (much behind their support wall) and also documentation on Splunk's website.

I don't have the problem with hamburger menus. I like having more /actual/ content visible than navigation tools. However, sites which typically implement hamburger menus also plaster gigantic images which have no relevance to the content. That annoys me, particularly induced excessive scrolling required to get to the next section of content. But that's a design choice, not a technological problem. Apparently "experts" have determined consumers prefer that kind of content. At least for now, until someone creates the next shiny thing.

As for web apps vs. regular apps, use what you like. Other than interacting with the web itself, I use very few web apps. Email is the only actual app I can think of using. On the other and, if you're asking why I might use YouTube instead of VLC, that's a usability issue. A browser provides a better interface to interact with the available content, even if playing the content is roughly equal. Without the content being local, I'd argue the local app is effectively a buggy whip.

HTTP isn't better than a different protocol, but it is the standard with inertia. A better alternative could replace HTTP, but it has to be a LOT better, and something that can't easily be absorbed into HTTP. Given the rise of mobile devices, I believe that is going to be where most non-creative activity will occur.

Creators will have to create the tools they need to do what they want. You can't expect a walled-garden to create tools you need before you've identified what you need. Someone created the hammer, chisel and paintbrush. So when someone creates a cumbersome tool, maybe a walled-garden will refine it and offer it for sale in an art supply shop.

If you haven't see it, you may be interested in this talk by Bret Victor about the problem with tools creators have available to them.

So, in summary, consumers aren't going to become creators, although there may be a budding creator among them. Creators will be inspired to create. There may be overlapping problems and concerns for both groups. The good part for creators is that consumers don't really care how they get their content.
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nokilli
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 185

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Censorship and JavaScript.

The censorship of the web today is suggestive of a totalitarian dictatorship. That sounds like a troll but it's true; never before in America have so many voices been silenced by so few. If you are in some way aligned with those who chose themselves to captain our media then sure, you don't notice, but if not, and you are engaged in serious critique of serious matters, publishing on the web today is infuriating to the point of being unusable. The First Amendment doesn't apply to private businesses, we are told. By that standard, every society that ever existed enjoyed free speech if only because a citizen could walk out into the middle of a field and enjoy a conversation with a pumpkin.

At the end of the day, you can hide behind this conceit that says we are an open society, but the rot that results from being in a closed society is very real and growing fast and, unless distributed technologies like Ethereum carry the day, the damage will soon be irreversible.

And JavaScript... goddammit. I have a few sites that I can whitelist that comprise maybe 60% of my online activity and in those cases life behind a browser is good. But the sites responsible for the remaining 40% all seem to have been written by mildly retarded eighth-graders and JavaScript is clearly their first language. I go to a site and nothing displays so I have to temporarily whitelist the domain only to find that all that the JS is doing is displaying text. Or some site wants to put their dick in my face before I can even read a paragraph. Click here to subscribe! Fuck you! One newspaper of some renown would actually play games with the close box of a popup, moving it when the mouse approached.

And then of course there are the ads. Somehow somebody figured out how to do popunders on Firefox the other day even though I have that set to off; I hear the fan on my box running... I start cycling through the windows to discover I've got like twenty windows open and they're all from the same crappy company selling the same crappy shit.

The only thing WWW needs is hyperlinks. The <b> tag is the root of all evil.
_________________
Today is the first day of the rest of your Gentoo installation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Idaho, USA

PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2018 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The World Wide Web has some things going for it:

1. All currently maintained browsers are extremely standards compliant. A case in point is that virtually every website I visit using Edge in Windows 10 Mobile works flawlessly. And I promise you they're not bothering to test that browser on phones.

2. This year will mark the first time software patents are completely irrelevant. Every major player is either contributing to or plans to implement the AV1 codec with Opus audio, including the Edge browser. Microsoft already has a first-party FOSS codec pack available for UWP. People need to stop and chew on that for a while, because it speaks volumes about where we're going. Apple is, so far, the only holdout, and fuck them eternally.

3. Web services have improved dramatically. Thanks to REST, we're not principally storing state on the server anymore like we were with SOAP. And SOAP is virtually dead (good fucking riddance).

4. Authentication practices are improving. We don't necessarily have to create separate accounts anymore, we can use existing providers to authenticate. Smaller sites not already supporting this practice need to have their management taken out back and clobbered with a 2x4.

The problems with the Internet today can largely be divided into two distinct groups:

1. Web development technologies are now accessible by incompetent "developers" who pile shit so high and deep, that a motherfucking uncompressed screenshot becomes smaller than the whole page itself. These fuckwits need to join the aforementioned management teams out back.

2. The Web has had the living shit commercialized out of it.
_________________
Gun: Glock 19 Gen 4
Sights: XS DXT Big Dot
Holster: StealthGear VentCore IWB
Ammunition: Federal Premium HST 124gr
Light: Inforce APLc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17503

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. I've thought IE has been good for a while now. In some ways better than its competitors. Edge on W10 desktop is OK, but I'm accepting of the issues it has being that it is completely new. I don't use it often, and for a select few websites, so it may have improved since I last spent much time with it.

4. As long as "use existing providers to authenticate" doesn't rely primarily on companies like Google, Facebook and peers, then I may be OK with this. My big gripe is that authentication is often not necessary.

1. "Incompetent developers" may be doing the biding of management and upper management. Make It Right often appears to be the lowest priority for the decision makers.

2. I don't understand the grip about the "capitalist internet." Stuff isn't free. Expecting it to be free seems a lot like expecting gravity to cease to exist. In the US, most of what we do is related to capitalism, so I find this complaint confusing.

In countries where capitalism plays a less significant role, I can at least better understand the origin of the complaint.
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Idaho, USA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
2. I don't understand the grip about the "capitalist internet." Stuff isn't free. Expecting it to be free seems a lot like expecting gravity to cease to exist. In the US, most of what we do is related to capitalism, so I find this complaint confusing.

I never expected it to be free. What I expected was for people to say, "Not everybody wants a video to autoplay." Instead of that, they said, "People must want videos to follow them as they scroll even though they've been stopped."

These people need to be shot. Because when I refer to "commercialization", I am not necessarily referring to capitalism. I am referring to the mindset of coming to a website and having shit spoonfed to you whether you like it or. Perhaps "Consumerism" is the correct word.

I just hate the Web now. Virtually every news site I visit is an inbred, disease-infested concoction of irritating practices that only a severely brain-damaged vegetable would look at and say, "People must like this."
_________________
Gun: Glock 19 Gen 4
Sights: XS DXT Big Dot
Holster: StealthGear VentCore IWB
Ammunition: Federal Premium HST 124gr
Light: Inforce APLc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17503

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with your dislike for similar "features."

What do marketing, advertising spam and social engineering all have in common?

What I dislike more than trivial UI annoyances, because I just go elsewhere, is the abuse of data mining to target individuals.
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronaldlees
n00b
n00b


Joined: 14 Dec 2017
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The best parallel example for the internet is the public road.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, city roads were built by the cities, and were effectively "government" owned. In the early history of the US, roads built between cities were mostly private roads and they were toll roads. There was a mesh of tollroads, because all of American government then (fed and state) was very poor. The government could not build the roads. The mismash of private toll roads slowly became something that the public had angst for. Slowly, public sentiment built up against these toll roads, because of the tolls and also because of other things the owners could do due to their ownership of the land the road crossed.

At some point, the public sentiment was such that government stepped in and effectively said "This is an essential public right (to travel) - and should not be controlled by the corporations that could do anythiing they wanted, including charging exorbitant rates, to abridge this right".

So, counties across the country simply passed laws that made the government the owner of the roads (in some cases with compensation for the corporations). In 1915, the Interstate Highway act made private toll roads illegal.

So, if a basic right (as determined by the voice of the people) is in jeopardy due to private profit concerns, that right is sometimes asserted by a government takeover. This is because, at such a point in time, the corporation has attained government-like control (which is opposed because only the government can abridge a citizen's right in most countries).

Today, the internet is a public concern, and its use has attained (in the mind of the citizens) - the value and attribute of a basic right.

The internet - It's a road. Much commerce now is NOT possible outside the use of this road. Hence, if travel is a right, then so is the internet. So, the next step is?
_________________
I am the Umbrella Man
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 804
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ronaldlees wrote:
So, the next step is?


Pointing and laughing at a failed "muh roadz" analogy.
_________________
Chemtrails don't actually exist.
The optical illusion of seeing white streaks crisscrossing a blue background in the presence of sunlight is a common hallucination that comes from drinking fluoridated water.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronaldlees
n00b
n00b


Joined: 14 Dec 2017
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
Ronaldlees wrote:
So, the next step is?


Pointing and laughing at a failed "muh roadz" analogy.


After watching the TV commercial, you are sufficiently indoctrinated. They did good.

At least with government, they'd ostensibly have to maintain and balance their actions against the written law. The corporations can shoot from the hip, like they're billy the kid, and offer no apologies.
_________________
I am the Umbrella Man
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 804
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

:lol: :lol: :lol:
_________________
Chemtrails don't actually exist.
The optical illusion of seeing white streaks crisscrossing a blue background in the presence of sunlight is a common hallucination that comes from drinking fluoridated water.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17503

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ronaldlees wrote:
At least with government, they'd ostensibly have to maintain and balance their actions against the written law.
Your journey towards the dark side seems complete.
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronaldlees
n00b
n00b


Joined: 14 Dec 2017
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Ronaldlees wrote:
At least with government, they'd ostensibly have to maintain and balance their actions against the written law.
Your journey towards the dark side seems complete.


Something may be better than nothing. Today, corporations are to a great extent influencing the citizenry with the sort of power that was previously thought to be only the domain of the government. Also, there is considerable govt/corporation collusion. Only the govt side of that composition can be held accountable for unconstitutional behaviors. In fact, that convenient split in the composition is a loophole for such behaviors. So, in a case of choosing between two dark sides, I'd take the side that at least has some starlight.
_________________
I am the Umbrella Man
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17503

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ever notice that government excludes itself from prosecution?
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronaldlees
n00b
n00b


Joined: 14 Dec 2017
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Ever notice that government excludes itself from prosecution?


Yes, in the case of a lawsuit, they often indemnify. However; the "checks and balances" portion of government is supposed to allow one part of govt to expose unlawful behaviour of another part, and to take action against it. In the corporate world, there are no checks and balances, and many many behaviours that a corporation could engage in are legal where the same behaviors in government would not be legal. As an example, we could look at surveillance issues.

If the government doesn't abide by its own written law, then your problem is a lot deeper than internet neutrality. Assuming that they DO abide by these laws, they are WAY more accountable than a corporation. So, in instances where corporations could infringe basic rights (roads/internet) - the corporations should not be in control, because they are not accountable.

The other alternative is to regulate the behaviors of the corporations, in areas where they could infringe what (in the mind of the public) have become basic rights. We just had an FCC reg to go the opposite way on regulation.
_________________
I am the Umbrella Man
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17503

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not just lawsuits, they also declare that certain laws just don't apply.

Among other assumptions you're making, do you believe the "checks and balances" are working?
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

zlg wrote:
pjp wrote:
wswartzendruber wrote:
I like how this Internet-connected document viewing system is what people turn to for business, marketing, and even fucking applications.
I'm just glad we're not relying on the internet primarily for a bygone era concept of documents.


Honestly, I'd rather have the Web of the 90s,
Like this? and this?
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronaldlees
n00b
n00b


Joined: 14 Dec 2017
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Not just lawsuits ...

There are a few instances of this, where they lean on the living, loose interpretation of the law. Myself, I would be a law fundamentalist. But, more onerous are the places where corporations have been granted blanket immunity (from lawsuits, and some law infractions as well). This is really bad, and comes from corporate influence, not the other way around.

Example: "We've decided that the people of Minneapolis can steal IP, and other people's social security numbers." That's ridiculous, right? The law is not supposed to be citizen specific, or allow certain people to break it.

The problem is that corporations were given many of the same legal protections that average citizens have, and each is considered to be "a legal fiction, that is in most ways a person, legally" or some such thing (I'm not a lawyer). The average person was granted this wide-open freedom partly because he/she is so small and powerless such that when he/she exercises even pretty outrageous behavior, he/she doesn't impact the nature of life in the country, or cause a restriction of the exercise of many other people's rights.

In their aggregation, corporations are now more powerful (if you talk dollars) than the U.S. government. Outrageous power by them impacts many people, and they can effect results that in previous eras would have required government action. The only motive of a corporation is profit. They really have no soul outside of marketing measures. We do NOT want to be governed by corporations, which is why I say that certain things (roads/bridges/internet/) and anything else that would otherwise be a monopoly - should be either heavily regulated or be outright government, in order to force accountability.
_________________
I am the Umbrella Man
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17503

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

:lol:

Thanks. I meant to remove the part of my post asking for a rant against corporations.
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronaldlees
n00b
n00b


Joined: 14 Dec 2017
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
:lol:

Thanks. I meant to remove the part of my post asking for a rant against corporations.


Sorry. It's just that I have experienced some abuses by corporations that - if they had been exercised by government, would have brought about the dismissal of all three branches. Consider this to be my last input on this subject. It's taking the thread OT anyway.
_________________
I am the Umbrella Man
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 804
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ronaldlees wrote:
pjp wrote:
:lol:

Thanks. I meant to remove the part of my post asking for a rant against corporations.


Sorry. It's just that I have experienced some abuses by corporations that - if they had been exercised by government, would have brought about the dismissal of all three branches.


Like PRISM? Obamacare? The Ponzi scheme known as Social Security? The grants given to Solyndra?
_________________
Chemtrails don't actually exist.
The optical illusion of seeing white streaks crisscrossing a blue background in the presence of sunlight is a common hallucination that comes from drinking fluoridated water.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum