ja se učlanih na ovo Zlo.
opirao sam se mesecima, gnušao se, borio protiv toga, ali ne vredi... Zlo je nadjačalo... šta ću kad imam tako slabu volju... na prvi mig Zla ja pokleknem... dobro, ne baš prvi, ali eto... eto... :(
Quote from: "Ghoul"ja se učlanih na ovo Zlo.
opirao sam se mesecima, gnušao se, borio protiv toga, ali ne vredi... Zlo je nadjačalo... šta ću kad imam tako slabu volju... na prvi mig Zla ja pokleknem... dobro, ne baš prvi, ali eto... eto... :(
Kyky :cry: :evil:
Baš QQ. Ne znam da li više mogu da ga zovem prijateljem... Sad će ionako biti friend sa mojom ženom na fejsbuku...
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmilies.sofrayt.com%2F%255E%2F4%2Fjawdown.gif&hash=a907d6c0f38772829a1497781dcf2d4184b9d511)
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmilies.sofrayt.com%2Ffsc%2Fterrified.gif&hash=a7e12ec8c3c46f35d6dec3c702d3db6feb90c4ea)
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmilies.sofrayt.com%2F%255E%2F4%2Fjawdown.gif&hash=a907d6c0f38772829a1497781dcf2d4184b9d511)
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmilies.sofrayt.com%2Ffsc%2Fterrified.gif&hash=a7e12ec8c3c46f35d6dec3c702d3db6feb90c4ea)
prokleti bili!
umesto reči utehe ili podrške - u stilu: pametno! to ti je sada najviše trebalo! i sl - ili barem saučešća, a la: jebi ga, ghoule, opiranje je uzaludno, svi pre ili kasnije priđu fejsbuku, sad si one of us, one of us, one of us! - - - vi, tako! podmuklo! odma u zajebanciju! :cry:
Pa, kad nisi one of us. Mislim, ja nemam fejsbuk nalog niti vidim za šta bi mi bio potreban. No, dobro, tebi kao piscu, priređivaču, publicisti možda tu ima i neke koristi...
Elem, moja koleginica, Dankinja koja je vrlo ozbiljan i posvećen fejsbuk juzer već više godina mi je u Utorak rekla da je fejsbuk već stvar prošlosti i da je sad ono pravo twitter (http://twitter.com/). Pa ti sad vidi.
Apsolutno! Svi koji nešto znače su već prešli na twitter.
http://twitter.com/THE_REAL_SHAQ
Quote from: "Ghoul"ja se učlanih na ovo Zlo.
opirao sam se mesecima, gnušao se, borio protiv toga, ali ne vredi... Zlo je nadjačalo... šta ću kad imam tako slabu volju... na prvi mig Zla ja pokleknem... dobro, ne baš prvi, ali eto... eto... :(
Mwahahaahahhahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!
PUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Odmah instaliraj aplikaciju Movies.
Meni ga napraviše deca, ali isključovo da bih napravio grupu za "Paladina."
BTW, Paladinov sajt će startovati sledeće nedelje, na adresi www.paladin-beograd.com
pa i ja uzedoh to sranje samo da bih pimpovao firmu Ghoul, Inc. i njene produkte.
uključujući sebe, af kors.
a evo i odma nađoh spajdera, kog nisam ni čuo ni video milijon godina, pa četujemo...
heheh, počelo je, ghoul entitet će napustiti i forum i blog i naseliti se na fejsbuk :lol:
ma ne.
the way I see it:
blog je za ljubav,
forum za zajebanciju,
a fejsbuk je nužnost koju mislim da svedem na najmanji mogući aluminiminimum!
Quote from: "Ghoul"ma ne.
the way I see it:
blog je za ljubav,
forum za zajebanciju,
a fejsbuk je nužnost koju mislim da svedem na najmanji mogući aluminiminimum!
A sajt?
sajt, kad postanem dovoljno slavan i bogat.
Dno.
Dna.
Dne?
dni.
I šta ja sad treba da kažem: dnu?
Baš ste neozbiljni.
Quote from: "Goran Skrobonja"I šta ja sad treba da kažem: dnu?
Baš ste neozbiljni.
Takvi su, kakvi su. dnk.
Quote from: "Goran Skrobonja"
Baš ste neozbiljni.
Tako mu je to. :lol:
Quote from: "Ghoul"ja se učlanih na ovo Zlo.
Pa kad se vec bavis zlom onda i treba da ucestvujes :)
Quote from: "Harvester"Mwahahaahahhahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!
PUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ček ček, koja me ono bosanska PIČKICA malopre zvala da joj budem FRIEND? :roll: :evil: :x
Quote from: "Ghoul"Quote from: "Harvester"Mwahahaahahhahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!
PUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ček ček, koja me ono bosanska PIČKICA malopre zvala da joj budem FRIEND? :roll: :evil: :x
Dammit, mislio sam da je to "fiend"! :x
fiend or friend, ali harv je NA FEJSBUKU!
kakva dvoličnost!
kakav two faced two timin' whore!
Mwahahaahahhahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!
PUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Iz priloženog se da zaključiti da je fejsbuk za pičke.
Quote from: "DušMan"Iz priloženog se da zaključiti da je fejsbuk za pičke.
a otkad pa ti imaš nešto protiv pičaka?
Quote from: "Ghoul"Quote from: "DušMan"Iz priloženog se da zaključiti da je fejsbuk za pičke.
a otkad pa ti imaš nešto protiv pičaka?
Nema protiv ženskih polnih organa.
pička-pizda-variola vera-šerbedžija
Quote from: "Ghoul"fiend or friend, ali harv je NA FEJSBUKU!
kakva dvoličnost!
kakav two faced two timin' whore!
Mwahahaahahhahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!
PUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ti potpuno promašuješ poentu. Za razliku od NEKIH, ja sam uvijek bio fan Fejsbuka i to sam otvoreno izražavao i ovde na forumu. Moje tauntovanje tebe se zasnivalo ne na tvom učlanjenju na FB nego na tome što je to učlanjenje došlo ubrzo nakon što si ga izvrijeđao i ponižavao :wink:
Quote from: "Ghoul"Quote from: "DušMan"Iz priloženog se da zaključiti da je fejsbuk za pičke.
a otkad pa ti imaš nešto protiv pičaka?
Protiv vagina zaista nemam ništa protiv (bio bih prost kad bih rekao da imam samo za!), ali ovde se očigledno radi o karakternim osobinama. Fejsbuk je za žene i pičke.
kao i obično, TI si, harv, taj koji promašuje poentu: tauntovanje bi imalo smisla jedino da sam ja promenio svoje mišljenje o FB-u i kao rezultat te promene rešio da se priključim istom.
međutoa, ja o FB i dalje mislim sve isto kao i ranije, to je jasno od mog prvog posta na ovom topiku pa nadalje.
stoga, moje priključenje NIJE preobraćenje već više nešto kao... an experiment. in terror.
tja, ima ljudi koji taj fejs buk prilicno poslovno koriste, u te promotivne svrhe tra la la, i sasvim su zadovoljni time. tipa, imaju izlozbu pa ti salju invitation, i to. a valjda ima i manijaka koji jure zenske/muske po internetu.
mora biti da je fejsbuk potpuno dezavuisan posto ga i na dnevnicima rts-a one natapirane voditeljke pominju kao sasvim obicnu stvar.
u stvari hdedoh reci da verovatno ima neku korist taj fejs buk.
Quotestoga, moje priključenje NIJE preobraćenje već više nešto kao... an experiment. in terror.
Lažeš! Priznaj da si se tamo prijavio da se družiš i redovno apdejtuješ status i šalješ ljudima srca, biljke i druga čudesa! :!:
Quote from: "Harvester"
i druga čudesa! :!:
tek kad otkrije "poke"...
Quote from: "Event Horizon"Quote from: "Harvester"
i druga čudesa! :!:
tek kad otkrije "poke"...
Jel to beše ono za besmrtnost u igrama na C64? :oops:
Slično je, samo što postaješ besmrtan na Fejsbuku, umesto u C64 igri ;)
Quote from: "mac"Slično je, samo što postaješ besmrtan na Fejsbuku, umesto u C64 igri ;)
a ima i seksi varijanta, tzv "sexy poke".
Quote from: "Harvester"
Lažeš! Priznaj da si se tamo prijavio da se družiš i redovno apdejtuješ status i šalješ ljudima srca, biljke i druga čudesa! :!:
Čija srca? :!:
A jel' ima i killing poke? :idea:
Quote from: "Event Horizon"a valjda ima i manijaka koji jure zenske po internetu.
Hm... Pa možda to i nije tako loša stvar...
A šta ćeš sa manijacima koji jure muške po internetu?
Ili smatraš da ni to nije loša stvar? :twisted:
Quote from: "angel011"A šta ćeš sa manijacima koji jure muške po internetu?
Ili smatraš da ni to nije loša stvar? :twisted:
Valjda ne smatra?!! :?
Mada na Internetu ništa nije sigurno, ništa nije onakvo kakvim se prikazuje! Ima mnogo muških koji se predstavljaju da su ženske!!!?? :shock:
Quote from: "Event Horizon"tek kad otkrije "poke"...
Druga zapovijest fejsbuka:
"2. Thou Shalt Not "Poke" Indiscriminately
Maybe I'm missing something here, but as far as I can tell, "poking" people serves absolutely no purpose other than prompting the person on the other side to "poke" you back, sparking off a potentially infinite spiral of pointlessness that makes everyone involved just a little bit dumber than they were when it started. Before you know it you're installing apps that offer "pro" pokes, "office" pokes, and "sexy" pokes. "Indiscriminately" might not even be the right word here. How about "Thou Shalt Not 'Poke' EVER" or "Thou Shalt Not 'Poke' Because That Shit Is Completely Retarded And Pointless"?"
Ostalih 9. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-10-commandments-of-facebook/)
A šta je to Fejsbuk i čemu to služi?
Quote from: "angel011"A šta ćeš sa manijacima koji jure muške po internetu?
Ili smatraš da ni to nije loša stvar? :twisted:
Dok ne jure mene, nemam ništa protiv.
Živi i pusti druge da jure žene!
Quote from: "akhnaton"Mada na Internetu ništa nije sigurno, ništa nije onakvo kakvim se prikazuje! Ima mnogo muških koji se predstavljaju da su ženske!!!?? :shock:
Tako je! Evo, Harvester i Ghoul na prvom mestu... Čak su i na fejsbuku.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: "DušMan"Tako je! Evo, Harvester i Ghoul na prvom mestu... Čak su i na fejsbuku.
otkud pa ti znaš de smo i dal smo tamo - ako ti nisi tamo?
Well, duuuuuuh...
Odali ste se (da ne kažem: izašli ste iz klozeta) na ovom topicu.
al si ti naivan!
nije ti palo na um da smo se možda samo pretvarali, da vidimo ko će da se upeca?
npr. neko toliko naivan da se zaljubi u stvorenje kojem je video samo oči, ubeđen da to MORA da je žensko.
ha ha.
i dobro je što ne obitavaš na FB-u jer bi tvoju naivnost iskoristio prvi pervert na koga naiđeš a koji ti se predstavi kao neodoljiva 17-godišnjakinja!
:roll: :P
kladio bih se da bih mogao da stvorim fiktivni identitet neke obožavateljke skota pilgrima i da te namamim u svoju mrežu, a da ne primetiš da si nasamaren sve dok se jednog jutra ne probudiš sa bolom u bulji! :evil:
Ja svoju naivnost vidim kao vrlinu. :lol:
Istina, mogao bi da stvoriš fiktivni lik devojke od 17 godina, ali:
1. sumnjam da bi ti bio uverljiva 17-godišnjakinja, pa čak i preko neta;
2. i da me kojim slučajem ubediš da jesi i da dođe do bliskog susreta, teško da bi mogao da me savladaš i siluješ. Pa valjda sam ja jači, majku mu? Uradio sam ove godine već više od hiljadu sklekova! 8) I čisto da se ne stekne pogrešan utisak, iako sam jači, to ne znači da bih ja tebe silovao. Naprotiv, odveo bih te u tvoje prirodno stanište i pustio na slobodu.
O bože... Kako sam uopšte upao u priču sa silovanjima?
Eto, nevini posmatrači, vidite šta to zlo od fejsbuka uradi čoveku i samo ako ga pomene!?
Quote from: "Ghoul"al si ti naivan!
ha ha.
i dobro je što ne obitavaš na FB-u jer bi tvoju naivnost iskoristio prvi pervert na koga naiđeš a koji ti se predstavi kao neodoljiva 17-godišnjakinja!
Ovakve konstatacije me uvek podsete na cuvenu anegdotu profesori elektronskog i proba web kamere. :!:
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?Pair_arrested_for_eating_iguana_on_Facebook&in_article_id=526701&in_page_id=2
eh?! to je za onaj topic "Zla interneta" ;)
http://www.celebuzz.com/shia-labeouf-michael-cera-facing-s114781/
Shia LaBeouf and Michael Cera: Facing Off for Facebook Movie?
by Celebuzz on Jun. 24, 2009 03:45 PM / 7 Comments
Shia LaBeouf and Michael Cera: Facing Off for Facebook Movie?
Getty Images
Uh-oh, looks like we got a good, old-fashioned Hollywood casting showdown a-brewing.
CNET reports that casting for the upcoming film The Social Network—which will chronicle the rise of Facebook—is starting to shape up, and both Shia LaBeouf and Michael Cera are being considered for the role of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
CNET's source says that Superbad actor Cera currently has the inside edge, because his overall likability would make audiences more sympathetic to the Zuckerberg character. (What; are there people in the world who don't find Shia LaBeouf likable?)
The script for the movie, which is based on Ben Mezrich's upcoming book The Accidental Billionaires, was written by West Wing guru Aaron Sorkin. Actor Kevin Spacey is among the movie's producers.
Time will tell whether Cera or LaBeouf get the role—if the producers don't decide to go with someone else altogether.
In the meantime, have your say in the comments section: Who do you think is better suited for the part?
Cenim Seru, te glasam za LeBjufa, koga ne cenim.
U poplavi besmislenih fejsbuk kvizova, evo jednog koji mi je ulepšao dan: http://apps.facebook.com/whatseagalcharacter/quiz/questions?quiz_metric (http://apps.facebook.com/whatseagalcharacter/quiz/questions?quiz_metric)
Quote from: Ghoul on 10-02-2009, 01:59:46
al si ti naivan!
nije ti palo na um da smo se možda samo pretvarali, da vidimo ko će da se upeca?
npr. neko toliko naivan da se zaljubi u stvorenje kojem je video samo oči, ubeđen da to MORA da je žensko.
ha ha.
i dobro je što ne obitavaš na FB-u jer bi tvoju naivnost iskoristio prvi pervert na koga naiđeš a koji ti se predstavi kao neodoljiva 17-godišnjakinja!
:roll: :P
kladio bih se da bih mogao da stvorim fiktivni identitet neke obožavateljke skota pilgrima i da te namamim u svoju mrežu, a da ne primetiš da si nasamaren sve dok se jednog jutra ne probudiš sa bolom u bulji! :evil:
Evo odgovora ko stoji iza nika villa.
tvoja 'intuicija' se može meriti samo sa tvojim urođenim trgovačkim njuhom i smislom za reklamu i promociju! :)
@Ghoul: pošalji mi na PM link na svoj profile fa te dodam u prijatelji.
kao da ne možeš drugačije da ga nađeš, nego moraš ovako javno da potenciraš naklonost... vidiš da se maloletnice s Juga nerviraju zbog toga.
Što se jediš, ako si na fejsu, i tebe ću dodati, rado. :)
Ako nije, onda treba da se zabrinemo, jer me je dodao u prijatelje prekjuče.
I mene...
boban moj drugar!
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg301.imageshack.us%2Fimg301%2F2018%2Fbobanfriend1.jpg&hash=e79daefad6038fed9b6ab9e21e202c161fbd505c)
koji si ti mikrograđanin, čoveče? pa šta ako sam te kontaktirao, i sve druge sam; ja sam na fejsbuku svega nekoliko sati i red je da se ja javim starosedeocima; to je sada najednom podatak s kojim se javno maše s tonom kakvim tačno, da si ti neka veličina, tamo negde u nedohvatnim visinama, a mi pužemo ispod tvojih nogu i srećni smo zbog svake slomljene mrvice koju ispustiš na nas?
Ma ne bre, obratno, ti si taj koji je trofej, zato se Ghoul i hvali :-)
bobika, što si bre tolko nadrkan? ajde idi na to more da malo smiriš živce, postao si čangrizaviji od onog skalopa!
i daj, otarasi se već jednom tog svog komplexa manje vrednosti, zamoran si.
umesto da se ponosiš što sam prihvatio da ti budem drug, a ti tako!
uostalom, ako sam ja mikro-građanin, po tvojoj 'logici' - onda su to i zakk i anđelija... a možda čak i baba-Y! :(
Jedno pitanje vezano za FB. Jedan klinac mi je javio (baš preko FB-a) da je nešto čačkao po profilu, i da sad uopšte ne vidi slike prijatelja. I u chatu i na spisku prijatelja vidi samo imena a slika nema.
Poslao je meni svoju šifru, i kad ja uđem na njegov nalog sve vidim sasvim normalno. Takođe, on je pokušao na svom kompu da otvori nalog od svog kolege, i imao je isti problem, slika prijatelja nije bilo ni na tom nalogu.
Dakle, reklo bi se da je problem do njegovog računara a ne do podešavanja na profilu. Ali na drugim sajtovima nema nikakvih problema, jedino na fejsbuku.
Ima li iko ideju šta bi to moglo da bude? Mali koristi Mozillu (3.0.11). Kaže da mu antivirusni program (Avast. čini mi se) nije prijavljivao nikakve viruse. Šta li je to on mogao da zezne?
Reci mu da se okane fejsbuka i život će mu se odmah prolepšati.
Heh, ma klinac ide u osnovnu školu. A ako ideš u osnovnu školu i nemaš nalog na FB onda si skroz out. Sad svi u školi pričaju o feeeejsbuku i o slikama koje tamo kače i o raznim "zanimljivim" kvizovima i sl.
Nije do njegovog kompa, mislim da je do podešavanja na fejsu. Naravno da ćeš ti moći njegov nalog otvoriti, kod tebe su normalna podešavanja, kod njega nisu. Mora da promeni to na fejsu u podešavanjima.
Quote from: Ygg on 03-07-2009, 14:20:53
Heh, ma klinac ide u osnovnu školu. A ako ideš u osnovnu školu i nemaš nalog na FB onda si skroz out. Sad svi u školi pričaju o feeeejsbuku i o slikama koje tamo kače i o raznim "zanimljivim" kvizovima i sl.
Ovo je možda tačno, ali ne želim da neko pomisli da su današnja djeca glupa zbog Fejsbuka. To nije tačno. Glupa su zbog ministra prosvjete.
U stvari glupa su jer mi odrasli ne razmišljamo dok ih pravimo.
Onda, najbolje ih ne praviti, zar ne? :roll:
Quote from: mac on 07-07-2009, 16:50:16
U stvari glupa su jer mi odrasli ne razmišljamo dok ih pravimo.
razmišlja se PRE pravljenja, a dok JE MALO TEŽE, A I BESMISLENIJE.
Tako je u idealnom svetu, ali u realnom, gde se pol deteta određuje prema tome koliko stegneš zube DOK ga praviš, bitno je i da razmišljaš DOK, a ne samo PRE.
Mac ovo što si rekao je baš weird. xrotaeye
Mac, ja imam recept sa mesecevim menama... Kakav je tvoj? :D
Pa, ja sam to čuo odnekud, dakle ako hoćeš da dobiješ sina onda DOK radiš ONO obavezno stegni zube. I to je to :-). Ne znam sad detalje, pretpostavljam da ne moraju zubi da se stežu sve vreme DOK radiš, jel te, možda je dovoljno u samo jednom određenom kritičnom trenutku...
A kako ide to sa menama?
Nešto tipa, mlad mesec – sigurno ćerka, i suprotno.
Jel valja taj fejsbuk, kontam da valja vama sto imate nesto konretno da ponudite, tipa knjige, stripove i to ? Ghoule kako tvoj fan club, sta kaze omladina, jel se shalju poruke ko na majspejsu ili na taj wall sve ide ?
Quote from: mac on 08-07-2009, 16:57:23
A kako ide to sa menama?
s mene pa na ustap.
sine, fejsbuk je pravo mesto za čoveka poput tebe - a ti ovo svati kako oćeš.
ja ga koristim vrlo low profile, ne zanosim se svim tim igricama, gurkanjima i slanjima poklona i priključivanju u kojekakve grupe i sekte, al povremeno dam neki znak svog postojanja i povremeno me neko cimne, javi se, potraži me ili prochatujem s ponekim, i tako...
Ja, ja...ima cak i grupa "dokumentarci", mozda ne bi bilo lose to zloupotrebiti za licnu promociju...i da bre, mogo bi da pokrenem grupu ljubitelja serijskih ubica :lol:
ajme meni, jedina grupa o dokumentarcima je ova muslimasnka http://www.facebook.com/s.php?q=dokumentarci&init=q&sid=3154e76a5fd81f773cf5a2d6ed4b2412#/group.php?gid=51494036135, (http://www.facebook.com/s.php?q=dokumentarci&init=q&sid=3154e76a5fd81f773cf5a2d6ed4b2412#/group.php?gid=51494036135,) znaci sve muslimani, al naravno to ne bi bio problem da isti lik nije pokrenuo i grupe poput Stop cetnickom teroru, Srebrenica i slicno, tako da nije ni cudo da niko od Srba nece da se prikljuci, a bogme nisam vido ni Hrvate. Iygleda cu morati da pokrenem zasebnu grupu za celu ex-YU. Tesko ce mi pasti. :lol:
Nego Ghoule, jel ima neka grupa de ti promovises svoj blog, kako to ide sa tim ? Nista mi nije jasno.
grupama niti pripadam niti ih stvaram.
bzvz mi je to sve.
jbmliga meni do chetovanja bas i nije stalo, smucio mi se onaj MSN, sta drugo na tom fejsbuku moz da bude korisno ?
Quote from: Ghoul on 11-07-2009, 09:34:33grupama niti pripadam niti ih stvaram.
bzvz mi je to sve.
ccc kakve neistine, evo upravo sam na tvom profilu izbrojao 8 grupa kojima pripadaš.
:evil:
Mora ja da pokrenem sektu : drustvo poznavaoca masovnih i serijskih ubica (ne smem ljubitelja, jer bi neko mogo pogresno da shvati) xnerd
Imaš na fejsbuku kviz: What serial killer are you? Meni je ispalo da sam Gary Ridgway.
Quote from: Milosh on 11-07-2009, 09:49:01
Quote from: Ghoul on 11-07-2009, 09:34:33grupama niti pripadam niti ih stvaram.
bzvz mi je to sve.
ccc kakve neistine, evo upravo sam na tvom profilu izbrojao 8 grupa kojima pripadaš.
:evil:
pa dobro, na svaki 30-ti poziv da se pridružim ja se zajebem pa kliknem 'accept', al jedino sam na fotofobiji i paladinu uopšte nešto malo napiso...
Quote from: Milosh on 11-07-2009, 09:56:31
Imaš na fejsbuku kviz: What serial killer are you? Meni je ispalo da sam Gary Ridgway.
Radio sam taj kviz van fejsbuka, naravno zbog paranoje i pistolja ispo sam son of sam. Tacno moz da vidis po pitanjima sta ce da budes :roll:
Drugari dajte linkova da vas dodadnem da se druzimo, a Ghoul me ignnorise, nece da bude drug, ladno glumi gospodina magistra xnerd :mrgreen:
Quote from: Son of Man on 12-07-2009, 13:25:31Drugari dajte linkova da vas dodadnem da se druzimo...
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1222941377 (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1222941377)
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1276815648 (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1276815648)
Quote from: Son of Man on 12-07-2009, 13:25:31Ghoul me ignnorise, nece da bude drug, ladno glumi gospodina magistra xnerd :mrgreen:
fejsbuk otvaram samo kad sam na poslu, od kuće se njime ne bavim.
samo polagano sine, navukao sam te na blogove, evo sad si se već primio i na fejsbuk - napraviću ja monstruma od tebe, bez žurbe! :)
http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic (http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic)
zanimljiviji mi bio majspejs jbga, jedino sto su ovde svi sa punim imenima i prezimenima tako da pojma nemam ko je ko. :shock:
Fakebook: http://sz-magazin.sueddeutsche.de/statisch/fakebook/1 (http://sz-magazin.sueddeutsche.de/statisch/fakebook/1)
(Für die drei weiteren Facebook-Politiker-Profile bitte einfach auf das Bild klicken.)
Zanima me de mogu da nadjem potencijane zrtve za ono moje, evo bio sam npr. na shok koridoru i otalen pokupio brdo ljudi racunajuci da bi takvo nesto moglo da ih zanima. Ali gde jos ici ? Malo mi glupo na metal grupe, ti metalci su mi nekako neozbiljni, njima je to da se obuku i da prosetaju gradom a meni trebaju ovi fanatici pravi, npr. da izgledaju ko Dusman a da su ipak manijaci za te stvari. Nadam se da sam bio jasan. Znaci da ispod Mire 3 djavola vire - to meni treba, znam smaram, ali jbga...tako ti je to, od klinca napravis princa za kajanje, iz voza ispadnes ostanes cak i bez mesta za stajanje, poljubimo se ko odrasli jer jasno nam je sve, pokidaj lance dok nismo srasli jer PUKLI SMO - ZAR NE ? :|
:!:
bio jedan lik na forumu
kaze pronasao sam srpske grupe bez admina što znači da moš postati admin i mijenjati imena grupa tako nekako
i laganini mijenjao imena grupa (Dole Kostunica, Podrska Dodiku, Jebem LDP i tako to)
u neke probosanske/hrvatske cinjenice i imena te cekao privatne poruke
hahha koja je to komedija bila...:D
Ne znam čemu ovo služi, valjda širenju horizonata ka spolja i ka unutra... http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1591311323&ref=name#/group.php?gid=155503951096&ref=mf (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1591311323&ref=name#/group.php?gid=155503951096&ref=mf)
Imam sjajnu ideju, da nakupim 10000 potpisa za sledeće predsedničke izbore, prijavim se u kampanju i propovedam isključivo liberalizaciju fantastike u Srbiji, a pare koje država daje kandidatima za promocije potrošim na Monolit 11.
Da li ovo spada u epsku fantastiku, naučnu fantastiku ili, možda, horor?
Zamisli da te izaberu!?
Quote from: Mica Milovanovic on 25-09-2009, 10:46:17Da li ovo spada u epsku fantastiku, naučnu fantastiku ili, možda, horor?
Sama ideja o kandidovanju zvuči kao čista naučna fantastika, dok bi kampanja bila sigurno epska (i fantastična!), a ako bi ga izabrali na scenu stupa žanrovski čist horor...
Uze mi reč iz usta :)
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F14994489%2Fsn%2F1122112376%2Fname%2Fvene.jpg&hash=9e265675c9337878089326ed33b6579f2f4ba3a7)
Ne znam koliko je sad bitna činjenica da je meni Vene bio razredni u srednjoj...
I je l' bio ovakav smeker kao na fejsu?
Ko je forsirao zbirke tog Bogoslavova? Jbt, to je stvarno bilo minsko polje. Uleti nerešiv zadatak, gubiš vreme, nervoza vlada cigaru pali dal' da se raduje il' da šali... Stres za mladog čoveka, a Vene - boli ga pajser. Ške u đep od zbirki i mirna Bačka.
Quote from: zakk on 16-10-2009, 14:28:35
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F14994489%2Fsn%2F1122112376%2Fname%2Fvene.jpg&hash=9e265675c9337878089326ed33b6579f2f4ba3a7)
Zače, legendo!!! :!:
ne znam o čemu govorite. mora da je to nešto pre mog vremena, il nešto što se nije radilo u kulturnim školama (mislim, jezičkim gimnazijama).
Quote from: Road_warrior on 16-10-2009, 15:05:33
I je l' bio ovakav smeker kao na fejsu?
Bio je priličan šmeker. Ali pošto sam ja završio srednju pre devetnaest punih godina, a on je tad bio pred penzijom, ko zna koliko je taj čovek sada star.
ne znam o čemu govorite. mora da je to nešto pre mog vremena, il nešto što se nije radilo u kulturnim školama (mislim, jezičkim gimnazijama).
To je viša matematika za tebe, iako je za prvi razred srednje škole... :)
Ako te nije sramota, pitaj Harvija... :evil:
vrlo mutno se prisećam šta to matematika beše... s tim sranjem sam se oprostio još u II razredu srednje.
mada, i dan danas ponekad sanjam da imam pismeni iz tog prokletog predmeta, a ja vanredno nespreman...! :( :cry: :oops: :x :P
Quote from: Ghoul on 16-10-2009, 17:03:23
ne znam o čemu govorite. mora da je to nešto pre mog vremena, il nešto što se nije radilo u kulturnim školama (mislim, jezičkim gimnazijama).
Nije pre tvog vremena, po njegovoj zbirci zadataka se vežbalo i kad sam ja išla u gimnaziju (igrom slučaja, baš onu u kojoj je predavao, mada su meni matematiku predavali drugi).
Ne sećam se da mi je njegova zbirka bila neki problem; then again, meni ni matematika nije bila problem.
Bio je neki skandal dok sam išla u gimnaziju, profesor je nasred hodnika davio učenicu, mislim da je to bio Vene ali nisam sigurna.
Koliko znam, po Veneovim zbirkama se i dalje radi u srednjim školama (a bogme i na fakultetima). To su odlične zbirke krcate raznoraznim zadacima.
Quote from: Ghoul on 16-10-2009, 19:33:26
vrlo mutno se prisećam šta to matematika beše... s tim sranjem sam se oprostio još u II razredu srednje.
Nesrećniče, ti si se sa mozgom oprostio još u drugom srednje. Kako bilo ko da te ozbiljno shvati kad ne znaš matematiku?
ko je reko da ne znam matematiku?
znam je ko zlu paru! i više nego što bih želeo ili što mi u životu treba!
Quote from: Harvester on 17-10-2009, 11:34:17
Koliko znam, po Veneovim zbirkama se i dalje radi u srednjim školama (a bogme i na fakultetima). To su odlične zbirke krcate raznoraznim zadacima.
Pretjeruješ malo! Ima raznih zadataka ali to su ubjedljivo najgore zbirke za srednju školu ikad. Recimo matematiskopi su mnogo bolji.
Quote from: Ghoul on 17-10-2009, 11:47:42
ko je reko da ne znam matematiku?
znam je ko zlu paru! i više nego što bih želeo ili što mi u životu treba!
Evo, Harvi i ja ćemo sastaviti jedan testić da provjerimo tvoje znanje. :evil:
Mmicumujbm, sad se svega secam, zbog tog chiche i njegove zbirke sam ja zabatlio matematiko i okreno se opijatima da ublazim bol zbog protracene rane mladosti, a kakav sam samo talenat u mozak bio. Ogadili su mi matematiku upravo on i profesorka u gimnaziji koja nije imala razumevanja za moju krhku umetnicku dusu. xuss
@Ygg: matematiskop je bio dobar ako te pacijent od profesorke ne tera da ga svaki put donosiš u školu.
Da. Matematiskopi jesu poveliki i poteški i kretenski je tražiti od učenika da ih donose u školu. Ali to su po meni najbolje zbirke za srednju školu na našem jeziku.
toliko mi je drago što ama baš nemam pojma o kakvim to -skopima i inim knjižurdetinama pričate da vam to ne mogu opisati!
prosto mi toplo oko srca što me ja ta pošast u životu zaobišla!
evo, baš sad prevodim jedan odličan roman sa engleskog, i baš NIŠTA od tih matematičkih pizdarija i ostalih 'mudrijaških knjiga' mi ne treba ni izbliza ni izdaleka!
a ni inače.
@Ygg: Da, dobri su.
A bilo je i zabavno posmatrati ludaka koji stvarno uradi svih 5000 zadataka. :)
@Ghoul: govorimo o zbirkama zadataka iz matematike za srednju školu, knjižurinama od tri tone sa 5000 zadataka.
Srećom, ti matematiskopi su izmišljeni posle mog vremena. Ja sam sve radio iz Veneove zbirke. A takođe srećom, Vene je uvek na pismenim zadacima davao zadatke direktno iz svoje zbirke (ponekad, ali samo ponekad sa izmenjenim ciframa) tako da se dalo izvaditi i prepisati ako si spretan. Ja sam kod Venea imao redovitu četvorku koja se do četvrte godine transformisala (više zbog lepote, manje zbog pameti) u peticu. I naravno danas nemam ama baš nikakve koristi od toga.
Quote from: Ygg on 17-10-2009, 11:54:03
Quote from: Harvester on 17-10-2009, 11:34:17
Koliko znam, po Veneovim zbirkama se i dalje radi u srednjim školama (a bogme i na fakultetima). To su odlične zbirke krcate raznoraznim zadacima.
Pretjeruješ malo! Ima raznih zadataka ali to su ubjedljivo najgore zbirke za srednju školu ikad. Recimo matematiskopi su mnogo bolji.
Admittedly, ni ja nisam volio tu zbirku dok sam bio učenik. Ali sad kad sam prešao na neprijateljsku stranu, otkrivam sve njene prednosti.
Ja mrzim matiš...nikad ga nisam gotivio, jer moraš konstantno raditi da bi shvatio princip nekog zadatka...odličan učenik iz svih predmeta, i vrlo dobar, ali iz matiša...uvek 1 ili 2 :D Bio sam kampanjac i tad, a matiš se, kao što rekoh, relativno redovno morao raditi :D
Ugh, tim matematiskopima, jebali ga oni da ga jebali, nas je Joca Ubica (aka Jovan Knezević, znate ga sigurno iz novina) gnjavio u gimnaziji i to na društveno jezičkom smeru! I danas psujem kad im vidim štand na sajmu xfuck5
I ne samo tim nego i Veneom i Natašom Čaluković il kakolisezvaše.
Quote from: Ghoul on 17-10-2009, 12:47:45
toliko mi je drago što ama baš nemam pojma o kakvim to -skopima i inim knjižurdetinama pričate da vam to ne mogu opisati!
prosto mi toplo oko srca što me ja ta pošast u životu zaobišla!
evo, baš sad prevodim jedan odličan roman sa engleskog, i baš NIŠTA od tih matematičkih pizdarija i ostalih 'mudrijaških knjiga' mi ne treba ni izbliza ni izdaleka!
a ni inače.
Čega se pametan stidi, time se Ghoul ponosi... Ovo je ko kad bi ja sad reko "Toliko mi je drago što ama baš nemam pojma o kakvim to Tolstojima i Dostojevskim pričate da vam to ne mogu opisati. prosto mi toplo oko srca što me ja ta pošast u životu zaobišla! evo, baš sad spremam vježbe iz matematike, i baš NIŠTA od tih književnih pizdarija i ostalih 'mudrijaških knjiga' mi ne treba ni izbliza ni izdaleka!
a ni inače." Ili nešto slično.
Quote from: Perin on 17-10-2009, 13:16:32
Ja mrzim matiš...nikad ga nisam gotivio, jer moraš konstantno raditi da bi shvatio princip nekog zadatka...odličan učenik iz svih predmeta, i vrlo dobar, ali iz matiša...uvek 1 ili 2 :D Bio sam kampanjac i tad, a matiš se, kao što rekoh, relativno redovno morao raditi :D
Morao se redovno raditi u gimnaziji, u osnovnoj ne.
A u gimnaziji je matematika bila dovoljno zanimljiva da me nije mrzelo da je redovno radim, naročito kad me nisu smarali geometrijom.
Quote from: angel011 on 17-10-2009, 13:22:10
A u gimnaziji je matematika bila dovoljno zanimljiva da me nije mrzelo da je redovno radim, naročito kad me nisu smarali geometrijom.
:shock: :shock: :shock:
Pa geometrija je najljepši dio matematike!
A ti Ghoule pripremi se. Ja već sastavljam zadatke za tebe i planiram da ih okačim u posebnom topiku. :!:
Pametnije bi bilo da postaviš zadatak tamo gde treba!
Taj možda i reši. :lol: ;)
Quote from: Ygg on 17-10-2009, 13:31:50
Quote from: angel011 on 17-10-2009, 13:22:10
A u gimnaziji je matematika bila dovoljno zanimljiva da me nije mrzelo da je redovno radim, naročito kad me nisu smarali geometrijom.
:shock: :shock: :shock:
Pa geometrija je najljepši dio matematike!
Meni je bila smrtno dosadna.
Algebra i, kasnije, viša matematika su mi bile mnogo zanimljivije.
Nah, meni ništa sa brojevima nije zanimljivo...čim vidim broj, glava me zaboli :D Mada sam na faksu sve predmete koji relativno imaju veze sa matematikom dao iz prve, i to sa finim ocenama :D Skroz čudno, kad malo bolje porazmislim... xnerd
Quote from: Harvester on 17-10-2009, 13:20:01
Quote from: Ghoul on 17-10-2009, 12:47:45
toliko mi je drago što ama baš nemam pojma o kakvim to -skopima i inim knjižurdetinama pričate da vam to ne mogu opisati!
prosto mi toplo oko srca što me ja ta pošast u životu zaobišla!
evo, baš sad prevodim jedan odličan roman sa engleskog, i baš NIŠTA od tih matematičkih pizdarija i ostalih 'mudrijaških knjiga' mi ne treba ni izbliza ni izdaleka!
a ni inače.
Čega se pametan stidi, time se Ghoul ponosi... Ovo je ko kad bi ja sad reko "Toliko mi je drago što ama baš nemam pojma o kakvim to Tolstojima i Dostojevskim pričate da vam to ne mogu opisati. prosto mi toplo oko srca što me ja ta pošast u životu zaobišla! evo, baš sad spremam vježbe iz matematike, i baš NIŠTA od tih književnih pizdarija i ostalih 'mudrijaških knjiga' mi ne treba ni izbliza ni izdaleka!
a ni inače." Ili nešto slično.
ne lupetaj, zlikovče – kako samo možeš da praviš tako idiotske anal-ogije i porediš BABE I ŽABE!
tolstojevski je zdrav ZA DUŠU – a ('viša') metamatika za koj je kurac?
daleko joj lepa kuća! mislim na njene tzv. 'više' oblike (logaritme, jednačine sa 6 nepoznatih, kvadratno korenje i sl. sranja) – ono normalno i svakodnevno (+/-, množenje/deljenje, ljucka geometrija i sl.) ajde i nekako, valja se.
al ova ostala iživljavanja postoje samo za neiživljene spodobe poput harvestera da se putem njih iživljavaju nad senzibilnim umovima duhu, kulturi i umetnosti naklonjene dece. kao i nad nesrećnicima koji se ničim izazvano opredele za mašinsko-matematičko-elektronske fakultete (njih, naravno, ne žalim: sami su to tražili).
Malko da izvineš tu. A i ostali: kljucajte profesore a ne zbirku ili predmet. Veneova zbirka je standardan alat, prilagođen gradivu i uprosečen prema očekivanjima, za sve nivoe rangiranja znanja. A variraju od očiglednog primera, preko većinskih srednje teških, do povremenih superteških (sa više zvezdica :)). Naravno, svako novo izdanje je imalo VIŠE grešaka nego prethodno, zahvaljujući entropijskoj prirodi pripreme takvog teksta za štampu... te se broj mozgojebalica uvećava. Moji profani u gimnaziji (matematički smer) nisu nešto cenili tu zbirku, jer se baš tad bila pojavila nova, bolja, teža, ali su Venea preporučivali prosečnom učeniku. A znali su i koje izdanje ima najmanje bloopera, pa su to obavezno naglašavali.
Quote from: Ghoul on 17-10-2009, 14:03:47
tolstojevski je zdrav ZA DUŠU – a ('viša') metamatika za koj je kurac?
Za mozak.
Quote from: Ygg on 17-10-2009, 13:31:50
Quote from: angel011 on 17-10-2009, 13:22:10
A u gimnaziji je matematika bila dovoljno zanimljiva da me nije mrzelo da je redovno radim, naročito kad me nisu smarali geometrijom.
:shock: :shock: :shock:
Pa geometrija je najljepši dio matematike!
Nemoj ovde da misinformišeš ljude, najljepši dio matematike je algebra.
Quote from: Ghoul on 17-10-2009, 14:03:47
Quote from: Harvester on 17-10-2009, 13:20:01
Quote from: Ghoul on 17-10-2009, 12:47:45
toliko mi je drago što ama baš nemam pojma o kakvim to -skopima i inim knjižurdetinama pričate da vam to ne mogu opisati!
prosto mi toplo oko srca što me ja ta pošast u životu zaobišla!
evo, baš sad prevodim jedan odličan roman sa engleskog, i baš NIŠTA od tih matematičkih pizdarija i ostalih 'mudrijaških knjiga' mi ne treba ni izbliza ni izdaleka!
a ni inače.
Čega se pametan stidi, time se Ghoul ponosi... Ovo je ko kad bi ja sad reko "Toliko mi je drago što ama baš nemam pojma o kakvim to Tolstojima i Dostojevskim pričate da vam to ne mogu opisati. prosto mi toplo oko srca što me ja ta pošast u životu zaobišla! evo, baš sad spremam vježbe iz matematike, i baš NIŠTA od tih književnih pizdarija i ostalih 'mudrijaških knjiga' mi ne treba ni izbliza ni izdaleka!
a ni inače." Ili nešto slično.
ne lupetaj, zlikovče – kako samo možeš da praviš tako idiotske anal-ogije i porediš BABE I ŽABE!
tolstojevski je zdrav ZA DUŠU – a ('viša') metamatika za koj je kurac?
daleko joj lepa kuća! mislim na njene tzv. 'više' oblike (logaritme, jednačine sa 6 nepoznatih, kvadratno korenje i sl. sranja) – ono normalno i svakodnevno (+/-, množenje/deljenje, ljucka geometrija i sl.) ajde i nekako, valja se.
al ova ostala iživljavanja postoje samo za neiživljene spodobe poput harvestera da se putem njih iživljavaju nad senzibilnim umovima duhu, kulturi i umetnosti naklonjene dece. kao i nad nesrećnicima koji se ničim izazvano opredele za mašinsko-matematičko-elektronske fakultete (njih, naravno, ne žalim: sami su to tražili).
Gle ti njega! Prvo, pretpostavljam da je ovo sa DUŠOM samo kolokvijalni izraz, pa te neću cimati za to, ali ovo sa višom matematikom ti nije na mjestu. Mnoge lijepe stvari koje je čovječanstvo otkrilo ne bi postojale da nije matematike i matematičara. I naravno o samoj prirodi bi se mnogo manje znalo. Ili preciznije, ne bi se znalo skoro ništa.
Što se iživljavanja tiče, guilty as charged :evil:
Pazte ovu disekciju!
Honey - Kraljice Fejsa (Serbian Rap) 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNab1qSlViw&#normal)
xrofl
Alo, drolje, duplo V ne postoji ovde
Prepravljate Vuka Karadžića, to je bes
Al vi ne znate za njega jer on nema fejs!
Carski! Hani je iz Napoleonove ekipe. Oduševljava me njena zeldi dikcija, a sad još više to što proziva najšabanskiju pojavu u jeziku ikad - korišćenje W umesto V.
Quote from: angel011 on 17-10-2009, 15:15:14
Quote from: Ghoul on 17-10-2009, 14:03:47
tolstojevski je zdrav ZA DUŠU – a ('viša') metamatika za koj je kurac?
Za mozak.
Ček, pa zar muškarci ne razmišljaju kurcem? Mozak? xrofl
dobih ovu poruku - pa jel to uopšte može tek tako lako?
svaki FRIEND može da te sjebe? :(
(no subject)
"NE PRIHVATAJTE POZIVE ZA PRIJATELJA OD KRISTOFERA DEJVISA I DZESIKE DEJVIS ONI SU HAKERI. RECITE SVIMA NA SVOJOJ LISTI ZATO STO AKO IH NEKO SA VASE LISTE DODA ONI CE BITI I U VASOJ LISTI TAKODJE I SKONTACE VAM KOMP.IP ADRESU, SVE. COPY - PASTE I SALJITE SVIMA, CAK I AKO NJIH NIJE BRIGA TEBE MOGU DA HAKUJU!"
Quote from: Ghoul on 23-11-2009, 04:03:58
dobih ovu poruku - pa jel to uopšte može tek tako lako?
svaki FRIEND može da te sjebe? :(
(no subject)
"NE PRIHVATAJTE POZIVE ZA PRIJATELJA OD KRISTOFERA DEJVISA I DZESIKE DEJVIS ONI SU HAKERI. RECITE SVIMA NA SVOJOJ LISTI ZATO STO AKO IH NEKO SA VASE LISTE DODA ONI CE BITI I U VASOJ LISTI TAKODJE I SKONTACE VAM KOMP.IP ADRESU, SVE. COPY - PASTE I SALJITE SVIMA, CAK I AKO NJIH NIJE BRIGA TEBE MOGU DA HAKUJU!"
I ti veruješ u to?
u stvari moze, cak i ne mora da ti bude friend. fejsbuk se neuspesno bori protiv toga vec par godina
Ja sam ih bas potrazio, ali mi nijedan od Kristofera ne deluje sumnjivo.
Ali ova mi izgleda sumnjivo:
http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?id=1848057568&ref=search&sid=1366486387.3313957083..1 (http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?id=1848057568&ref=search&sid=1366486387.3313957083..1)
Vidi se po faci da je u pitanju neki zajeban haker. :evil:
Dobio sam i ja takvu poruku... izgleda da se to brzo širi.
E svasta. Kao prvo sve sto se stavi na facebook je manje vise javno dostupno, tako da ne vidim u cemu je problem. Sto se tice IP adrese, smehotresno :) :) cak i da je sazna sta onda? Ovo je jos jedan od onih masivnih truleks poruka. Ignorisite.
Quote from: akhnaton on 23-11-2009, 13:35:40I ti veruješ u to?
ne verujem ja ni u šta.
zato i pitam.
Kako se na fejsbruci menja nik, posto vidim da neki redovito menjaju ?
Klikni na Settings (prvo levo od Logout), i prva opcija za menjanje je ime.
Fala tebra ticu :)
jedna od zabavnijih grupa na fejsbuku (bar po imenu):
Živeo sam u 3 decenije, 2 veka, 2 milenijuma i 4 države, a tek mi je 20a!
Ja sam nedavno čuo da se dobijaju pare za okupljanje velikog broja ljudi u grupu. Ne deluje logično, ali jeste objašnjenje za postojanje 80% grupa.
Ali ko bi davao pare za takvu glupost?
Mišković, sigurno...
Bolje je da se prave grupe za sakupljanje para za raznorazne humanitarne akcije.
Quote from: mac on 07-02-2010, 13:08:39
Ja sam nedavno čuo da se dobijaju pare za okupljanje velikog broja ljudi u grupu. Ne deluje logično, ali jeste objašnjenje za postojanje 80% grupa.
Ciljano oglašavanje je objašnjenje. Napraviš npr grupu ljubitelja "The Branke", i onda ih filuješ reklamama za nove albume domaćih indi-janaca (ne kroz wall i poruke, nego kroz one oglase sa strane). Reklama stigne pravo do ljudi koje to već zanima, ne plaćaš ogroman broj pregleda, a učinak je bolji.
Samo usput. Čini mi se da taj pristup advertajzera nema baš puno pokriće. Mogućnost veštačkog stvaranja "ciljne grupe" je, zapravo, kontraproduktivna. A, koristi se i kao sredstvo miniranja reklamnih akcija. Ko veštački padobranci u iskrcavanju u Normandiji. Rat je to, moj Zake!
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fworldfamousdesignjunkies.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F01%2Ffacebook-500x387.jpg&hash=8944a609815acacf0b39521982c93bfd2ece9d7d)
9 Epically Hysterical Facebook Fails (http://blog.6rounds.com/epic-hysterical-facebook-fails/)... onako
EPIC
xrofl
Silovao ženu posle kontakta na "Fejsbuku"
http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Hronika/179931/Silovao-zenu-posle-kontakta-na-Fejsbuku (http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Hronika/179931/Silovao-zenu-posle-kontakta-na-Fejsbuku)
Pa pozvati stranca u kuću, to je stvarno traženje đavola. Što je najgore, ona je verovatno htela i seks, ali prvo da je stranac zavede. Kad su se sreli Adam i Eva pao je prvi nesporazum...
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mrzim-kad-se-kupam-u-Jarunu-a-do-mene-pluta-srbin-bez-glave-ruka-i-nogu/388688198713?ref=nf (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mrzim-kad-se-kupam-u-Jarunu-a-do-mene-pluta-srbin-bez-glave-ruka-i-nogu/388688198713?ref=nf)
Pogledajte clanove grupe - djecurlija. Da li se zbog ovoga treba zabrinuti ili odbaciti ovakve gluposti kao mladenacki hir? Ne znam, ali mene je ovo jako razbjesnilo i rastuzilo. :(
Ja se slatko nasmeja'...Učlanjujem se odma' xD (ne treba se zabrinuti...znaš 'de živiš...sve sociološke analize padaju u vodu)
Bolest...Ako provaljujem dobro po ovim komentarima, grupa je napravljena pre više od par sati, a već ima blizu 5000 mladih...Lebac ti jebem xD
Quote from: Bobby Peru on 12-03-2010, 01:37:41Bolest...
Ovdje neki psihijatar treba urgirati. Kako debilu objasniti ocito?
Šta da im (mi) objasniš ?! xD
A ti si debil?
Aj' sad, nismo se skontali...Ja sam gore rek'o da ne provaljujem dobro dal' je grupa napravljena pre par sati (pošto poslednji-prvi dostupan komentar datira od pre 4, a ne znam dal' se brišu komentari sami od sebe od prevelikog im broja) ...pa nisam bio siguran na šta se odnosilo to "očito"... (Izvinjavam se na paranoji, nov sam forumaš a kako vidim za ovih desetak dana, ovde se svi kače i kolju međusobno da mi ništa čudno ne bi bilo :D )
Macak, sve je peachy. xcheers
Bez brige, ja se koljem samo sa Acaciom. Hm, mislim da smo neko primirje potpisale, ako me pamcenje vara... :mrgreen:
hoćeš reći, ako te pamćenje NE vara?! xfrog
Vara me, vara! :P
Taman 'tedoh reći...fali mi na forumu neka ženska prepiska...kad ono xD
Milo mi je! Bobby.
Mi se zene svadjamo samo kada za to postoji razlog... :P
Quote from: Ella on 12-03-2010, 02:42:22
Mi se zene svadjamo samo kada za to postoji razlog... :P
pa imala si miroslava ilića za 8. mart... (pošto si u tom postu tražila narodnjake, a onda editovala u ovo)
Ma, imam ja strpljenja ...samo vi svoj pos'o.... xD
Mileta Colic - Zene Zene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g6sYU1BPss#normal)
To, Bobika, veselo!!!!
Hahaha, k'o da je Ghoul pisao rijeci pjesme! :D
Ja kao da sam se napila bez da sam ista pila... :oops:
Idem leci prije nego sto se jos vise osramotim... Laku noc, dragi moji! xyxy
Mafia Boss Betrayed By Facebook
Police Trace Mafia Boss's Location While He's Online, Nab Him
By ANN WISE
ROME, March 17, 2010
One of Italy's 100 most-wanted criminals, a vicious mafia boss who had been on the run for months, was betrayed by his passion for social networking and flushed out thanks to Facebook.
Using the name "Scarface" from the gangster movie starring Al Pacino, Pasquale Manfredi, 33, a boss of the the ferocious 'Ndrangheta mafia organization from the Calabria region in southern Italy, had logged on to his Facebook account so often that police were able to trace the signal from his internet key and find his hideout. Collapse
(Courtesy Polizia di Stato Crotone)
Using the name "Scarface" from the gangster movie starring Al Pacino, Pasquale Manfredi, 33, a boss of the the ferocious 'Ndrangheta mafia organization from the Calabria region in southern Italy, had logged on to his Facebook account so often that police were able to trace the signal from his Internet key and find his hideout.
Manfredi was arrested on Tuesday after 50 police officers surrounded the three-story building in the town of Isola Capo Rizzuto where Manfredi iived alone in a tiny basement apartment. When they broke in to get him, Manfredi ran for the roof but was caught on the second floor by the police, who had anticipated the move. Manfredi had a ladder set up on the roof for just such an occasion. The hide-out was a one-room bed and kitchen affair which managed to fit two computers, a treadmill and weight bar for the boss to keep in shape.
Crotone police crime squad chief Angelo Morabito told ABC News that when they caught Manfredi, the hitman congratulated him: " 'You are the boss of the invisibles,' he told me." Morabito said he was referring to the way the police were able to sneak up on Manfredi unseen. It was not the first time that Morabito had arrested Manfredi.
Asked whether using the Internet was perhaps a bad move on the part of Manfredi, police chief Morabito said that Mafia members in hiding "need to keep in touch either by passing notes, using cell phones or, in these days, via computer."
Morabito said Manfredi used Facebook to socialize but also to communicate with his cohorts, sometimes in code. He was not a particularly sophisticated computer user, he added.
Italian Mafia thugs are known to admire their Hollywood counterparts and the Brian de Palma movie "Scarface", in which Al Pacino plays a cocaine trafficker, seems to have struck a particular chord.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lamebook.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2FPopCulture2.png&hash=4239025b3a1240e746bb41da53f698abccf38f47)
Zaraza!
http://apps.facebook.com/hotdices/ (http://apps.facebook.com/hotdices/)
Facebook founder times big schools gift with unflattering movie release (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100923/us_yblog_upshot/facebook-founder-times-big-schools-gift-with-unflattering-movie-release)
QuoteFacebook founder Mark Zuckerberg--who placed as the 35th richest person on the just-released Forbes 400 list-- is giving troubled schools in Newark, N.J., an enormous $100 million gift on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" on Friday. As it happens, that's the same day an unflattering and much-buzzed-about movie premieres in which he's portrayed as a power-hungry and socially awkward genius.
"The Social Network" premieres Friday at the New York Film Festival, and is already being compared to "Citizen Kane" and "The Godfather," two iconic portraits of powerful men felled by their own ambition.
[Facebook execs' efforts against upcoming movie]
The 26-year-old hasn't engaged in much high-profile philanthropy so far -- unlike fellow tech billionaire and education reformer Bill Gates -- which makes his Oprah appearance and $100 million gift more notable. Zuckerberg will announce the donation alongside Newark Mayor Cory Booker and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, according to the New York Times' scoop. The money represents an eighth of the city's total education budget. Zuckerberg's net worth skyrocketed by 245 percent in the past year as Facebook's market valuation topped $23 billion.
[Status update: 7 surprising secrets about Zuckerberg]
Zuckerberg, described as a "wary and private" person in a recent New Yorker profile, has been forced to tear down some of the barriers between his life and the public. This new plunge into civic-minded activity seems designed in part to fend off bad publicity generated by the film and accusations that as a student, he hacked into private emails and stole the original idea for the site from fellow students. The movie is loosely based on an equally unflattering book by Ben Mezrich, who used a burned former Facebook investor (and former Harvard colleague of Zuckerberg) as his primary source.
[Photos: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg]
According to the movie, Zuckerberg created the site to get admitted to exclusive parties and to meet girls. (Rebecca O'Brien has a more nuanced take on Zuckerberg's college years here.)
[Is "The Social Network" a hatchet job?]
"I think a lot people will look at that stuff, you know, when I was 19, and say, 'Oh, well, he was like that. ... He must still be like that, right?" Zuckerberg told the New Yorker. He added that he does not plan to see the movie, though he was spotted by at least two people at a Seattle screening Wednesday.
Whatever the motive for the gift, the money will translate into big changes for Newark schools. Under the terms of Zuckerberg's donation, Christie will give the reform-minded mayor more control over schools. There's speculation he may hire hard-charging D.C. Chancellor Michelle Rhee to head up schools now that Rhee's prime supporter, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, has been voted out of office. Meanwhile, the nation's education reformers -- who emphasize teacher evaluations tied to student test scores and independent charter schools -- are sure to welcome another billionaire recruit to their cause.
Jebiga, možemo da pričamo šta oćemo al sto milijuna je sto milijuna.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmegablog.svrljig.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2Ffacebook-greasemonkey-baner.jpg&hash=a5921a4688c934fef8a19f1d46337c7a64f31ee6)
Veoma često dok ste na
Facebook-u nailazite na razne grupe koji nude
personalizovanje i promenu izgleda vašeg profila na istom. Ali pre toga trebate postati član te grupe i pozvati masovno sve vaše prijatelje. Naravno da se radi tu
o mutljavini koja samo ima za cilj da prikupi što više "fanova" u dotične grupe, omogućavajući kreatoru iste da ima maksimum korisnika i naknadno
promoviše svoje ideje/usluge/proizvode. Doduše, nude se ljudima neke
skripte koje samo menjaju profil korisnika ali ne i ceo Facebook.
Ovde vam nudim rešenje da to učinite potpuno lako i bezbedno a rezultat je krajnje efektan.(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmegablog.svrljig.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2FFacebook-%25C4%2590or%25C4%2591evi%25C4%2587-Sa%25C5%25A1a-Mozilla-Firefox1.jpg&hash=2c701d98c825cb5b58e9b686c5f958c14bb81ee5)
1) Firefox
Morate znati da bi se ovo izvelo morate koristiti web pretraživač
Firefox, ukoliko ga ne nemate možete ga skinuti ovde (http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/firefox/). Razlog je krajnje jednostavan, potreban nam je jedan
Firefox-ov dodatak da bi obavili posao.
2) Instalacija dodatka Greasemonkey
Greasemonkey je dotični dodatak koji će nam omogućiti promenu vizuelnog izgleda
Facebook-a; svetski je poznat, bezbedan i proveren tako da ne treba da brinete oko toga. Možete ga skinuti ovde (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748/). Kada skinete i instalirate ovaj dodatak,
restartujte Firefox da bi se instalacija dovršila i
aktivirajte ga.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmegablog.svrljig.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2Fgreasemonkey.jpg&hash=d60e90797a9640ac7b16420e5a04146e98e5ad19)
3) Korišćenje dodatka Greasemonkey
Nakon aktivacije dodatka u donjem desnom delu ekrana Firefox-a će se pojaviti
ikonica u obliku nasmejane majmunske glave. Kada je obojena, to znači da je dodatak aktiviran i u funkciji. Ako kliknete na nju, deaktiviraćete je, potamneće i izgubiće osmeh.
Na taj način možete momentalno isključiti dodatak i dobiti (nakon refresh-a ekrana) prvobtni izgled Facebook-a, što je priznaćete veoma praktično.
Ostavite dodatak aktivnim za sada.4) Skidanje skina (novog vizuelnog izgleda)
Sada ste spremi da menjate izgled vašeg Facebook-a. Preporučujem vam sajt Userstyles.org (http://userstyles.org/styles/browse/facebook.com) koji nudi sijaset skinova. Klikom na naziv nekog skina, otvara se njegova dotična strana na kojoj mahom imate slike
pre i
posle promene tako da možete imati predstavu šta vas očekuje. Za probu sam iskoristio prvi skin koji je na listi i zove se «
Facebook – Dark Shiny Blue, transparency ». Da bi ga dodali (kao i bilo koji drugi skin) kliknite na « install as a user script ». Meni se baš puno dopada i izgleda baš seksi.
(http://userstyles.org/styles/11922)
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmegablog.svrljig.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2Ffb21.jpg&hash=72aa70d95da08e8ff3eca5e2cd2c17d20130b19f)
5) Ponuda skinova za Facebook
Ponuda skinova je velika. Ukoliko ste skinuli skin a Greasemonkey je uključen, svaki put kad odete na Facebook imaćete dotični na njemu. Samo da vas upozorim da
nisu svi skinovi ažurirani; Facebook je promenio izgled interfejsa početkom januara 2010 tako da su neki skinovi ostali od stare verzije pa se može desiti da imate
grafičkih bagova. Ukoliko se to desi,ne brinite, isključite dotični skin i obrišite ga.
6) Povratak originalnom Facebook-u
Ukoliko želite da povratite stari izgled Facebook-a, jednostavno je; samo kliknite na glavu majmunčića u donjem uglu Firefox-a, refreshujte stranicu i to je to.
Promenite izgled vašeg Facebook-a pomoću Greasemonkey-a i Firefox-a (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THn-8qdQfgU#)
7) Greške koje treba svakako izbeći
Svaki put kad aktivirate novi skin na vašem Facebook-u, Greasemonkey "kumulira" svaki skin. Pre skidanja novog skina
morate deaktivirati prethodni pre aktivacije novog interfejsa. Da bi to učinili,
desnim klikom miša na ikonicu majmunčeta
deaktivirajte aktivni skin. Ako to ne učinite stari i novi skin će se istovremeno prikazati na ekranu i rezultat može biti ... zbunjući. Dakle pre aktivacije novog skina, deaktivirajte prethodni skin.
Ukoliko imate neko pitanje, neku nejasnoću tu sam da pomognem. Ostavite komentar u nastavku ovog članka ili me potražite na Facebook-u dodavajući me u prijatelje ( Đorđević Saša (http://www.facebook.com/djordjevic.sale) ) ili se priključite fanovima Mega bloga (http://www.facebook.com/djordjevic.sale#!/Mega.blog) na Facebook-u.
Jel postoji skript koji bi mi sakrio reklame na EliteSecurity?
Facebook
1601 S. California Avenue
Palo Alto
CA 94304
USA
6 October 2010
Dear Facebook People,
URGENT COMPLAINT– PLEASE READ, MORE ACTION TO FOLLOW SHORTLY
1) The short version:
At least one person, if not more, is/are impersonating me on Facebook, with (a) fake profile(s) claiming my identity. Despite me repeatedly bringing this to your attention, you have taken no action to remedy the situation. And I'm getting very annoyed.
2) The full version:
This thing you hold is called a letter. This is the third time I've contacted you, and I'm doing so by this antiquated method because, and I realise this may shock you so brace yourself, I have no Facebook account. Which means it is nigh-on impossible for me to get in touch with you. Kudos for your Ninja avoidance strategies.
Back when you had a button allowing me to alert you to a fake profile despite not having an account myself, I contacted you that way. I was answered with a resonant silence. Subsequently, when the problem persisted, I hunted lengthily for, found and left a message on the phone number you go out of your way to hide. Absolutely nothing happened. So here we go again: third time's a charm.
I am being imitated on Facebook. I believe the only reason anyone is bothering to do this is because I'm a novelist (published by Macmillan and Random House), a writer and broadcaster, with a minor public profile. I think there are one or two community pages about my stuff on Facebook – that of course is very flattering and nice of people to bother. The problem is that there is or are also pages by someone(s) purporting to be me. This is weird and creepy. What's worse is I know for a fact that some readers, friends and colleagues are friending 'China Miéville' under the impression that it is me, and that others are wondering why 'China Miéville' refuses to respond to them. And I have no idea what dreadful things or 'likes' or 'dislikes' are being claimed as mine, nor what 'I' am saying.
I know lots of people enjoy being on Facebook. Great. More power to them. Vaya con Dios. Me, though: not my thing. I have absolutely no interest in it. I am not now nor have I ever been a Facebook member. Short of some weird Damascene moment, I will not ever join Facebook – and if that unlikely event occurs, I promise I'll tell you immediately. In the meantime, though, as a matter of urgency, as a matter of courtesy, as a matter of decency, please respond to my repeated requests:
• Please delete all profiles claiming to be me (with or without the accent on the 'é' – last time I looked, I found one 'China Mieville', and one more accurately rendered).
• Please do not allow anyone else to impersonate me. I have neither time nor inclination to trawl your listings regularly to see if another bizarre liar has sprung up.
• And while you're at it, please institute a system whereby those of us with the temerity not to sign up to your service can still contact you on these matters and actually get a [insert cuss-word] answer.
I appeal to you to honour your commitments to security and integrity. Of course as a multi-gajillion-dollar company I have absolutely no meaningful leverage over you at all. If David Fincher's film doesn't embarrass you, you're hardly going to notice the plaintive whining of a geek like me. All I can do is go public. Which is my next plan.
I'm allowing a week for this letter to reach you by airmail, then three days for you to respond to me by phone or the email address provided. Then, if I've heard nothing, on 16 October 2010, I'll send copies of this message to all the literary organizations and publications with which I have connections
...
some of the many books bloggers I know; and anyone else I can think of. I'll encourage them all to publicise the matter. I'm tired of being impersonated, and I'm sick of you refusing to answer me.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
China Miéville
Pretpostavljam da činjenica da ovo pismo čitamo ovde sugeriše da Fejsbukova reakcija nije bila baš... munjevita.
Potrazila sam ga, i nema nijedna osoba tog imena na fejsu. Postoji nekoliko fanovskih stranica.
Quote from: Melkor on 26-10-2010, 01:52:16I am not now nor have I ever been a Facebook member
:-) Makarti se prevrće u grobu.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfl2wc_a-life-on-facebook_fun (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfl2wc_a-life-on-facebook_fun)
http://www.dnevnik.ba/zanimljivosti/zanimljivosti/%C4%8Dasnu-sestru-izbacili-iz-samostana-jer-se-navukla-na-fejs (http://www.dnevnik.ba/zanimljivosti/zanimljivosti/%C4%8Dasnu-sestru-izbacili-iz-samostana-jer-se-navukla-na-fejs)
QuoteČasna sestra Mariu Jesus Galan zbog ovisnosti o Facebooku je protjerana iz samostana u španjolskom Toledu.
Njezini nadređeni su smatrali kako je Maria, koja je bila časna sestra 35 godina, previše vremena provodila na Fejsu.
Da više nije časna sestra objavila je na svome Facebook profilu sa svojih 285 prijatelja.
"Zavist mi je život pretvorila u pakao, glavna sestra i ostali rekli su svoje. Razriješili su me službe bez posebnog objašnjenja", stavila je na status.
Časna je također napisala kako je spremna početi novi život te kako želi vidjeti London i New York.
Sa svog profila je izbrisala fotografije u službenoj odori. Već traži novi posao.
:|
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsolitariogeorge.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F07%2F1174.png%3Fw%3D450%26amp%3Bh%3D324&hash=b36ed215d4e389e9a49b592d171710245ad08467)
:lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001370614108 (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001370614108)
pff... opšta frtutma oko ovoga :D
Koji si tip tračare?
http://apps.facebook.com/tracare/?tkid=%2FQuizMaking_en%2FWall%2FResult&tkf=764072401&s=f645451ce11d1fc27b4894602234951d (http://apps.facebook.com/tracare/?tkid=%2FQuizMaking_en%2FWall%2FResult&tkf=764072401&s=f645451ce11d1fc27b4894602234951d)
The World Is Obsessed With Facebook (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJXOavGwAW8#ws)
bizaran problem sa facebook-om...trenutno mi ne radi opcija like?
ti zbilja nešto tamo lajkuješ? (ozbiljno pitanje)
Pa ghoula, naravno :twisted:
Quote from: lilit_depp on 03-05-2011, 01:59:39
ti zbilja nešto tamo lajkuješ? (ozbiljno pitanje)
pa evo milosh je citirao par recenica , mislim da je u pitanju bernhard (mozda BETON?), pa sam hteo da lajkujem.
Quote from: Alexdelarge on 03-05-2011, 01:57:41
bizaran problem sa facebook-om...trenutno mi ne radi opcija like?
Ma, to se fejsbuk opet malo gubi i putuje kroz vreme, pa kad npr. neko nešto lajkuje fejsbuk se pravi blesav, a onda te par minuta kasnije po drugi put obavesti da je taj isti lajkovao i to se onda i vidi, ali onda par minuta kasnije ponovo se pravi blesav i lajkovi nestanu... i onda se u nekom trenutku sve stabilizuje.
Quote from: Melkor on 03-05-2011, 02:01:14
Pa ghoula, naravno :twisted:
takvu sam direktivu dobio. ;)
Bobane, izjavio si na fejsbuku da Rumuni uskoro preuzimaju celu HE Đerdap. Ne mogu da pitam na mestu gde je izrečeno, pa pitam ovde. Otkud ti to? Imaš li neki link?
Gluposti. Štaviše, Srbija sad radi revitalizaciju HE.
Zna li ko šta se dešava na fejsbuku? Nekakav novi virus ili šta li je već.
Preko chata neko od mojih prjatelja krene da ćaska sa mnom, ali na engleskom. E sad, možda bih i nasjeo da prvi od njih nije bio moj đak iz škole koji zna engleski otprilike kao ja kineski (a ja ne znam kineski uopšte). Razgovor teče ovako:
-hi. how are you?
nakon toga ja nešto odgovorim, zatim:
-Wanna laugh? :)
opet tek nakon što ja odgovorim na to:
-It is you on the video ?)) want to see?)
i na kraju, opet tek nakon odgovora, dobijem neki sumnjiv link: http://79.114.216.101/1276815648 (http://79.114.216.101/1276815648)
Pokušao sam da otvorim link u drugom browseru i otvori se nešto što liči na video na jutjubu. Samo što traži da se kao instalira update za flash player da bi mogao da pusti video. Kad kliknem na to počne da downloaduje nešto, nemam pojma šta, nisam htio da skinem do kraja. Veoma su maštoviti, zaista izgleda kao običan video na jutjubu, sa sve komentarima mojih prijatelja sa fejsbuka ispod.
Ima li neko ideju kako da se klinci koji su se time zarazili otarase toga? Da li je dovoljno da promijene šifre na fejsbuku? Jer to se naravno dešava kad su oni izlogovani sa fejsbuka. Dakle, nekakvi botovi or something se loguju na njihov profil i chatuju s ljudima.
Možda promena šifre nije dovoljna jer im je možda i računar zaražen. Treba očistiti računar i tek onda promeniti šifru.
Da bi se smanjila verovatnoća ponovnog dobijanja virusa treba poštovati neka jednostavna pravila. Instalirati neki anti-virus program. Ne posećivati sumnjive sajtove. Ne pokretati aplikacije dobijene od bilo koga (naročito ne apdejte poznatog softvera koji nije sa sajta od poverenja). Lozinka mora da bude teška za provaljivanje (ne sme nikako logički da bude povezana sa korisnikom). Ne logovati se na Fejsbuk sa nekog drugog računara. Ne logovati se u nebezbednoj wi-fi mreži. Ne davati lozinku ikome ikada. Ne deliti kućni Windows nalog sa više osoba.
Uzgred, da li je tvoj drugar tako dobio virus? Da li je pokrenuo exe koji mu je ponuđen sa nepoznatog sajta?
Uzgred broj dva, IP adresa 79.114.216.101 se nalazi u Rumuniji. Not that it matters much.
mnoge aplikacije imaju viruse, ako su igrali kakvu igricu na fejsu i tome slično, prihvatili su disclaimer koji im maltene traži da sve privatne informacije postanu dostupne, a ljudi bez razmišljanja kliknu accept pa igraju football manager i tome slično. A naravno, ako je tražio gole slike tamo neke holivudske starlete to je sigurno virus...
Problem nestaje kada antivirusom ili antispajverom pronađete uljeza na vašem kompu, a ako ništa ne cvika na kompu, sve radi kako treba, ne mora se reinstalirati sistem. Nakon čišćenja promjenite password.
Skenirao sam računar, za svaki slučaj, iako nisam instalirao onaj sumnjivi update za flash player. I ispostavilo se da sam ipak pokupio nekakav virus (TR/PSW.VKont.bni). A klinci kažu da su se i oni zarazili preko chata, od svojih prijatelja. S tim da su oni i pokrenuli taj .exe fajl, koji se pretvarao da je update za flash player.
Trenutno se kao požar Fejsbukom širi sledeća poruka:
QuotePOKLANJA se lek BETAFERON za OBOLELE OD MULTIPLE SKLEROZE, koji je inace jako skup (preko 500 eura), radi isteka roka u 11 mesecu ove godine. Ako znate nekoga kome bi ovaj lek zatrebao, javite se na broj 066 390 264. Molim vas da kopirate ovo i stavite na status barem sat vremena.
Ova poruka potiče iz Bosne, telefon je bosanski, a sama poruka je stara već par nedelja. Lek je do sada već otišao (ako je poruka i bila benevolentna, a ne navlaka za javljanje na dati telefon). Nemojte širiti ovu poruku. Ako neki od vaših prijatelja na fejsbuku ubaci gornju poruku u svoj status dodajte molim vas komentar na njihov status u kome se razjašnjava situacija.
Operation Facebook
DATE: November 5, 2011.
TARGET: https://facebook.com (https://facebook.com)
Press:
Twitter : https://twitter.com/OP_Facebook (https://twitter.com/OP_Facebook)
http://piratepad.net/YCPcpwrl09 (http://piratepad.net/YCPcpwrl09)
Irc.Anonops.Li #OpFaceBook
Message:
Attention citizens of the world,
We wish to get your attention, hoping you heed the warnings as follows:
Your medium of communication you all so dearly adore will be destroyed. If you are a willing hacktivist or a guy who just wants to protect the freedom of information then join the cause and kill facebook for the sake of your own privacy.
Facebook has been selling information to government agencies and giving clandestine access to information security firms so that they can spy on people from all around the world. Some of these so-called whitehat infosec firms are working for authoritarian governments, such as those of Egypt and Syria.
Everything you do on Facebook stays on Facebook regardless of your "privacy" settings, and deleting your account is impossible, even if you "delete" your account, all your personal info stays on Facebook and can be recovered at any time. Changing the privacy settings to make your Facebook account more "private" is also a delusion. Facebook knows more about you than your family. http://www.physorg.com/news170614271.html (http://www.physorg.com/news170614271.html) http://itgrunts.com/2010/10/07/facebook-steals-numbers-and-data-from-your-iph.... (http://itgrunts.com/2010/10/07/facebook-steals-numbers-and-data-from-your-iph....)
You cannot hide from the reality in which you, the people of the internet, live in. Facebook is the opposite of the Antisec cause. You are not safe from them nor from any government. One day you will look back on this and realise what we have done here is right, you will thank the rulers of the internet, we are not harming you but saving you.
The riots are underway. It is not a battle over the future of privacy and publicity. It is a battle for choice and informed consent. It's unfolding because people are being raped, tickled, molested, and confused into doing things where they don't understand the consequences. Facebook keeps saying that it gives users choices, but that is completely false. It gives users the illusion of and hides the details away from them "for their own good" while they then make millions off of you. When a service is "free," it really means they're making money off of you and your information.
Think for a while and prepare for a day that will go down in history. November 5 2011, #opfacebook . Engaged.
This is our world now. We exist without nationality, without religious bias. We have the right to not be surveilled, not be stalked, and not be used for profit. We have the right to not live as slaves.
We are anonymous
We are legion
We do not forgive
We do not forget
Expect us
Message from Anonymous: Operation Facebook, Nov 5 2011 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWQTS8zqYXU#)
Sutra stiže novi Fejsbuk koji otkriva i ono što ne biste želeli
M. Božić | 29. 09. 2011.
Pre nedelju dana, na konvenciji F8, Fejsbuk je predstavio "tajmlajn", novi koncept i izgled ove društvene mreže, i već od sutra pojedini će korisnici biti u prilici da ga isprobaju. Velika većina korisnika je ipak izrazila skepsu i neslaganje sa ovakvom drastičnom promenom sadašnjeg stanja i izrazila želju da zadrži stari izgled profila.
Ono što bi novi Fejsbuk mogao da donese jeste kraj ere anonimnog surfovanja Internetom. Naime, kako ističe portal Mashable.com, izgled je poslednja stvar oko koje bi korisnici trebalo da budu zabrinuti.
Fejsbuk priznao otkriće srpskog blogera: Pratimo vas i kad ste izlogovani!
"Blicov" vodič za novi Fejsbuk
Jer, deljenje sadržaja sa stranica povezanih s Fejsbukom je sada i brže i lakše pošto više neće biti potrebno da nešto "lajkujete" kako biste to nešto podelili sa prijateljima, već će biti potrebno samo da odaberete opciju "dodaj u tajmlajn" na nekoj stranici ili aplikaciji, i ta aplikacija će imati dopuštenje da deli vaše aktivnosti sa vašim prijateljima.
Koje su to aktivnosti? Sve. Od čitanja članaka, gledanja filmova, pregledavanja fotografija, slušanja muzike ili bilo čega drugog.
Prema tome, ako neki vaš prijatelj gleda erotski film na stranici povezanoj sa Fejsbukom, iako on verovatno ne želi da to bilo ko zna - vi ćete to znati. Ako neka vaša prijateljica čita tekst o mršavljenju ili ugrađivanju silikonskih grudi i ne želi da se to zna - vi ćete to znati.
"Niko ne kaže da je automatsko deljenje loša ideja, ali ljudi moraju biti svesni na šta se tačno 'potpisuju' kada dodaju aplikacije na 'tajmlajn'. Sigurno će zaboravljati na to i deliti stvari koje ne žele", upozorava Mashable.com.
Ne dodajete aplikacije čije sadržaje ne želite da delite
Jedan od načina da ovo izbegnete jeste da ne dodajete aplikacije čije sadržaje ne želite da delite. Jer, ako je dodate i zaboravite se, sve što radite znaće vaši prijatelji.
Kada dodajtete aplikaciju ukoliko odaberete opciju "po izboru" bićete u prilici da podesite da vašu aktivnost možete videti samo vi.
Postoje ipak i drugi načini za zaštitu. Kada budete dodavali aplikaciju Fejsbuk će vam ponuditi opciju sa kim želite da podelite svoju aktivnost - javnost, prijatelji i po izboru. Ukoliko odaberete 'po izboru' bićete u prilici da podesite da vašu aktivnost možete videti samo vi.
- "Tajmlajn" je album u kome je dokumentovan ceo naš život, od rođenja do sada, sve uspomene, od dobrih do loših - kaže Pit Kešmor, osnivač i izvršni direktor Mashable.com i priznati stručnjak za društvene medije.
On, međutim, ističe da je najveća stvar kod "tajmlajna" činjenica da će nas Fejsbuk poznavati bolje od nas samih.
- Ova društvena mreža pronalazi najemotivnije i najdirljivije trenutne naših života i ih izdvaja u nepreglednom moru "običnih" informacija. "Tajmlajn" je čudo kompjuterskog programiranja i algoritam koji izaziva tako dubok emocionalni podražaj da ćete ga, nakon početnog odbijanja, zavoleti tako da više nikad nećete poželeti da se vratite na stari profil - tvrdi Kešmor i savetuje korisnicima da "Tajmlajnu" pruže šansu i istraže njegove dobre strane.
Mark Cukerberg: "Lajk" odlazi u istoriju
Pored drastičnih novina koje će imati potencijalnih implikaciju na privatnost i intimu, novi Fejsbuk donosi i druge značajne inovacije koje će prosečnog korisnika verovatno daleko više zanimati.
"Lajk" odlazi u prošlost. Od sada će partneri najveće svetske društvene mreže moći bilo koji glagol da pretvore u "dugme", što će u praksi značiti da ćete verovatno moći da znate koliko vaših prijatelja "sluša" muziku, "čita" tekst ili "gleda" video klip koje ste okačili.
Novi Fejsbuk donosi i veliki broj novih aktivnosti koje možete da delite sa svojim prijateljima, pored do sadašnjih kao što je aploudovanje fotografije, deljenje linkova ili postavljanje pitanja. Na primer, sada kao aktivnost imate i kupovinu stana ili kućnog ljubimca.
Pored toga, zahvaljujući velikom broju novih partnerstava koje je ova kompanija ostvarila sa drugima, za ogroman broj sadržaja nećete morati uopšte ni da napuštate Fejsbuk. Drugim rečima, čitaćete tekstove, gledaćete filmove i klipove, slušaćete muziku, pratićete vesti direktno na samom sajtu društvene mreže.
http://www.blic.rs/IT/280036/Sutra-stize-novi-Fejsbuk-koji-otkriva-i-ono-sto-ne-biste-zeleli (http://www.blic.rs/IT/280036/Sutra-stize-novi-Fejsbuk-koji-otkriva-i-ono-sto-ne-biste-zeleli)
Ako odabereš da se tvoje aktivnosti prikazuju automatski onda će se sve videti, ali ako biraš šta ide u tajmlajn onda imaš kontrolu. Moj tajmlajn će recimo biti prilično isprazan.
zlo i naopako.
A đe taj tajmlajn na fejsbuku? Jel to ono na Home stranici, sa desne strane, gdje piše ko je šta trenutno lajkovao, ili prokomentarisao i slično? I ako to jeste to, gdje se podešava šta od mojih aktivnosti mogu vidjeti moji prijatelji a šta ne?
Još to nije masovno uvedeno. Za sada to vide samo neki razvijači (developeri). Biće uvedeno uskoro, ali ako ga hoćeš sad i odmah evo uputstva: http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/22/how-to-enable-facebook-timeline/ (http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/22/how-to-enable-facebook-timeline/)
Quote from: lilit_depp on 29-09-2011, 22:38:54
zlo i naopako.
Pa ne moraju baš svi da imaju ispunjene živote vredne razmetanja po Mreži. Sad se osećam kao obespravljena manjina zato što nemam čime zanimljivim da se pohvalim.
Hej, a da ne misliš na čitavu ideju timeline-a? Ups...
Mrzim novotarije! Uvešću to čudo tek kad me fejsbuk primora!
I stvarno smaraju sa izmjenama svakih par sedmica. Taman se priviknem na izgled i skontam gdje se šta nalazi i onda to sve ispreturaju.
http://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/index.php/topic,8324.msg368154.html#msg368154 (http://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/index.php/topic,8324.msg368154.html#msg368154)
Bogami, ja ću smanjiti fejsbučenje. Prebacujem se na google+, on barem ima dozu privatnosti, bem li mu repu :(
Šta tačno znači ovo "lajk odlazi u istoriju"??? Mislim, lajk je ipak merilo ukusa!!! Užas.
I, Perine, dobila sam tvoj poziv da se predam gugletu, ali, ne znam koje su njegove prednosti?
Hm. I ja sad bakćem oko toga. Ali prednosti, onako na prvi pogled, su sledeće:
Imaš "krugove" koje kreiraš; kad nešto 'deliš' preko google+, imaš opciju da čekiraš krugove, nejmli likove koje si stavila u te krugove koji to mogu (ne mogu) da vide. Recimo, ako delim nešto privatno, neku internu šalu iz svog užeg društva koju niko neće drugi skontati, fino čekiram krug "prijatelji" i to onda samo oni mogu da vide i komentarišu. Ako želim da podelim nešto sa ljudima koje zanima književnost, čekiram krug koji sam kreirao za pisce i izdavače. Itd, itd....
Naravno, nisi ograničena na jedan krug; iste likove možeš ubaciti u više krugova, a možeš čekirati i da više krugova vidi post, a možeš da ga staviš da bude javni, kao na fejsbuku...
Nadam se da si nešto od ovoga skontala XD
Kažem, i ja sad proveravam, jer mi se ta priča o nedostatku privatnosti na fejsu nimalo ne sviđa.
Mislim, šta će biti ako gledam pornić???? :cry:
Eh, meni to sa krugovima deluje sektaškije od bilo čega na fejsu!! Mislim, i na fejsu možeš da čekiraš ljude kojima ćeš zabraniti pristup određenim sadržajima.
I ok je ako neko vidi da gledaš porniće, ali zamisli da ljudi vide ono što ja srčujem, npr: "kako prepoznati ambroziju u svojim bronhijama, i kako joj poželeti nedobrodošlicu a da se ne uvredi?" "kako se ovaj lek slaže sa onim drugim?" i sve te neke hipohondrične stvari.
Hvala, Perine, mada.... pucao si xwink2
MoRe biti to za google+, ali ću mu zasad dati malo šansu; mislim, realno, fejsbučiću ja i dalje, ali dosta dosta manje :)
E-e-e-e-e, tvoj srč je posve dobar. Moj je krenuo da liči na one spam poruke što dobijam svaki dan na mejl.
"You have a small dick? No worries! Your problems will be solved for only 9,99$!!!!"
"Yes!"
"For only 9,99$ you can buy a duck-tape, and a big piece of wood!"
"Yes!"
"For only 9,99$ you'll gain a hardon like never before! Literally!"
@Melkor: Samo sam hteo da budem mačo :cry:
dosadni su s ovim promjenama
Quote from: mac on 30-09-2011, 00:59:17
Quote from: lilit_depp on 29-09-2011, 22:38:54
zlo i naopako.
Pa ne moraju baš svi da imaju ispunjene živote vredne razmetanja po Mreži. Sad se osećam kao obespravljena manjina zato što nemam čime zanimljivim da se pohvalim.
Hej, a da ne misliš na čitavu ideju timeline-a? Ups...
hteo si da kažeš da nema svako priliku da ugosti ghoula i ide u provod s njim? :lol:
da, mislila sam na koncept timelinea, a bolje da ne pišem šta mislim o konceptu facebooka. :mrgreen:
karl je opasan, odavno sam to primetila. :lol:
http://boingboing.net/2011/10/18/eu-vs-facebook-facebooks-dossiers-on-europeans-breach-eu-privacy-laws.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29 (http://boingboing.net/2011/10/18/eu-vs-facebook-facebooks-dossiers-on-europeans-breach-eu-privacy-laws.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29)
zivela vienna! :lol:
crko facebook! :lol: :lol:
The Apologies of Zuckerberg: A Retrospective (https://allthingsd.com/20111129/the-apologies-of-zuckerberg-a-retrospective/)
Quote
Facebook has an established pattern: they obliterate privacy defaults in their system, wipe out their users' stated privacy preferences, and then, after a hue and cry, Mark Zuckerberg emerges and apologizes, and the system is reset to a level that is slightly less private than before. At All Things D, Liz Gannes runs through a retrospective of Zuck's last 25 (!) apologies, and finds a common thread.
Zuckerberg almost always tells users that change is hard, often referring back to the early days of Facebook when it had barely any of the features people know and love today. He says sharing and a more open and connected world are good, and often he says he appreciates all the feedback.
Most of all, Zuckerberg seems to take pride in offering an explicit, earnest apology, but doesn't actually admit he was wrong, just that he's sorry for how things were rolled out or perceived...
"Sometimes we move too fast" seemed more of a brushoff than a real apology. "It's a comment on the execution of a policy, not on the policy itself," John Paczkowski wrote.
That brings us to the present day, where we have what turns out to be a textbook Zuckerberg apology acknowledging the FTC privacy settlement. This time, Zuckerberg tries to argue that Facebook has done more good than harm on privacy throughout its existence.
Profili sa novim timelinenom imaju pozdravnu sliku određenog formata. Ako tražite ideje kakva bi za vas ta slika mogla da bude pogledajte ovde: http://io9.com/5871756/gloriously-geeky-images-that-make-great-facebook-timeline-banners (http://io9.com/5871756/gloriously-geeky-images-that-make-great-facebook-timeline-banners)
850x315 pa udri :)
scarlet johanson, moj idol! :lol:
"I don't have a Facebook or a Twitter account," says Scarlett, "And I don't know how I feel about this idea of, 'Now, I'm eating dinner, and I want everyone to know that I'm having dinner at this time,' or 'I just mailed a letter and dropped off my kids.' That, to me, is a very strange phenomenon. I can't think of anything I'd rather do less than have to continuously share details of my everyday life."
krajnje skučena ideja o tome šta FB jeste i šta može. :( :x
džaba ti da se vadiš.
kakvo crno vađenje - kažem ti da tvoj novi idol ima jadno suženu imaginaciju, kreativnost i uopšte uvid u to šta se sve na FB-u radi i može raditi.
Fb je precenjeno govno.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cavemancircus.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2F2011%2Fnovember%2Fdumpage%2F11_22%2Fdumpage_1.jpg&hash=d3248c0e516823ae647ff6980358c10408a38f32)
****** neverovatno... :shock:
xrofl
The Zuckerberg Tax (http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/08/2310218/the-zuckerberg-tax)
Quote
"David S. Miller writes that when Facebook goes public later this year, Mark Zuckerberg plans to exercise stock options worth $5 billion of the $28 billion that his ownership stake will be worth and since the $5 billion he will receive will be treated as salary, Zuckerberg will have a tax bill of more than $2 billion making him, quite possibly, the largest taxpayer in history. But how much income tax will Zuckerberg pay on the rest of his stock that he won't immediately sell (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/the-zuckerberg-tax.html)? Nothing, nada, zilch. He can simply use his stock as collateral to borrow against his tremendous wealth and avoid all tax. That's what Lawrence J. Ellison, the chief executive of Oracle, did, reportedly borrowing more than a billion dollars against his Oracle shares (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/31/MNG62H06991.DTL&ao=all) to buy one of the most expensive yachts in the world. Or consider the case of Steven P. Jobs who never sold a single share of Apple after he rejoined the company in 1997, and therefore never paying a penny of tax on the over $2 billion of Apple stock he held at his death (http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2011/10/11/steve-jobs-estate-not-likely-to-owe-tax/). Now Jobs' widow can sell those shares without paying any income tax on the appreciation before his death — only on the increase in value from the time of his death to the time of the sale — because our tax system is based on the concept of "realization." Individuals are not taxed until they actually sell property and realize their gains and the solution to the problem is called mark-to-market taxation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark-to-market_accounting). According to Miller, mark-to-market would only affect individuals who were undeniably, extraordinarily rich, only publicly traded stock would be marked to market, and a mark-to-market system of taxation on the top one-tenth of 1 percent would raise hundreds of billions of dollars of new revenue over the next 10 years."
Phone book to the face (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akZcxHjQCE0#)
Quote from: Shozo Hirono on 06-02-2009, 16:24:20
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmilies.sofrayt.com%2F%255E%2F4%2Fjawdown.gif&hash=a907d6c0f38772829a1497781dcf2d4184b9d511)
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmilies.sofrayt.com%2Ffsc%2Fterrified.gif&hash=a7e12ec8c3c46f35d6dec3c702d3db6feb90c4ea)
od pre 10ak dana, i šokirani šozo je postao uredni korisnik fejs buka. :roll: :| :evil:
koliko sam nekad dobrih smajlija imao u arhivi. :roll:
Quote from: Shozo Hirono on 16-02-2012, 15:33:02
koliko sam nekad dobrih smajlija imao u arhivi. :roll:
ali zato sad NEMA smajlija da izrazi preneraženje tvojom pojavom na fejsu! :evil: xfrog
Quote from: Ghoul on 16-02-2012, 15:09:26
Quote from: Shozo Hirono on 06-02-2009, 16:24:20
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmilies.sofrayt.com%2F%255E%2F4%2Fjawdown.gif&hash=a907d6c0f38772829a1497781dcf2d4184b9d511)
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmilies.sofrayt.com%2Ffsc%2Fterrified.gif&hash=a7e12ec8c3c46f35d6dec3c702d3db6feb90c4ea)
od pre 10ak dana, i šokirani šozo je postao uredni korisnik fejs buka. :roll: :| :evil:
:!:
Још да доведемо Мортишу и Џона Рејнолдса и ствар ријешена!
Ти, Харви, добијаш од Фејсбука неку надокнаду за врбовање нових чланова?
Quote from: Джон Рейнольдс on 17-02-2012, 04:07:02
Ти, Харви, добијаш од Фејсбука неку надокнаду за врбовање нових чланова?
pre će biti da dobija naknadu za svakog koga toliko iznervira da ga anfrenduje.
Čisto da se baci u etar, neka vrsta tangencijalno marksističke kritike novog modela kapitalizma koji proizvod stvara "ni iz čega". Kako bi to sigurno i Skalop rekao : kada je nešto beplatno, to znači da ste proizvod vi.
They are exploiting us! Why we all work for Facebook for free (http://oowsection.org/2012/02/22/they-are-exploiting-us-why-we-all-work-for-facebook-for-free/)
Quote
The stockmarket floatation of Facebook brings together a range of issues in how we understand work and the creation of economic value but we should be careful not to overstate the novelty and conflate the newness of the media with the basic economic logic at work here. As Chris Prener suggests in his post, 'Facebook may represent a new frontier for work and labor where even leisure activity can be exploited for the generation of profit' (http://oowsection.org/2012/02/22/is-facebook-using-its-members/), but is this really so new?
In their now classic study of traditional media, Manufacturing Consent, Herman and Chomsky explain the basic business model of newspapers as being the production of an audience for advertising. Their analysis suggests the counter-intuitive notion that publishers' main product is not the newspaper, which they sell to their readers, but the production of an audience of readers, which they sell to advertisers. In short, the readership is their product. This explains why newspapers will often offer a significant discount for students, as this enables them to catch future affluent consumers early on as they establish their media consumption habits. In its more extreme variants, this can lead to the thesis that even watching television can be understood as a form of labor, as by watching TV you produce the audience, which is the broadcaster's main product – an idea that was neatly captured in an Adbusters' video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziFH4FTzu-E) a few years ago.(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foowsection.wordpress.com%2Fwp-includes%2Fjs%2Ftinymce%2Fplugins%2Fwordpress%2Fimg%2Ftrans.gif%3Fm%3D1305851052g&hash=65a4e464b283fd3524822be08c9c4573e2e0d66d)
On this understanding we can certainly position the users of Facebook as laborers. If labor is understood as 'value producing activity', then updating your status, liking a website, or 'friending' someone, creates Facebook's basic commodity. It produces marketing data about you, which they can leverage for market research purposes and to better target advertising you might be interested in. It also produces an audience, as your 'friends' receive updates, follow your links, or log on to Facebook to join a conversation. This is why Facebook adds ever new functions; Zuckerberg wants us to spend as much time on his platform as possible, as time is literally mone (http://www.marketingcharts.com/direct/facebook-dominates-web-brands-in-time-per-user-19280)y.
This is the kind of work that Tiziana Terranova has called 'free labor' (http://copygrounds.com/2010/11/19/tiziana-terranova-speaks-with-copygrounds-on-free-labor). It is not work as employment, because it is unpaid and freely given to the company, but it is also free from compulsion. This is not new, as Chris Prener notes and as Marx recognized in his own use of the concept of the 'free laborer' (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm), who was free both to choose his employer and free from any other means of supporting himself than to sell his ability to labor to the highest bidder. The formal freedom of the employment contract was therefore underpinned by a substantive lack of freedom resulting from the institution of private property and, specifically, from the enclosure of the commons upon which other means of provenance could historically be secured. Marx's laborer is only free insofar he or she is free to be exploited by those who own property. The main difference today is that the bourgeois class does not have to own big factories (although note Facebook's need for huge, energy hungry data centers (http://www.energyhack.com/energy-consumption-at-server-farms-and-data-centers); it can simply conduct its business over the web.
If we really want to understand the economic position of Facebook, the idea of 'free labor' needs to be combined with this concept of enclosure. For an increasing number of people today both work and other social relations are mediated by Facebook and other social networking sites. If people want to develop their social capital, maintain friendships, or just arrange a night out, they are increasingly obliged to do so through Facebook. In short, Facebook has enclosed the informational commons of social networking via the Internet by managing the protocols for communication and branding the site. Although no direct charge is made for using the site, Facebook can capitalize on the activity of its users, through the brand, by selling their data, their friends, and their attention to advertisers. But maybe this is not so much a form of labor. Perhaps we might better consider this as the extraction of a 'rent', albeit at one step removed, in the same way as Žižek (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-bourgeoisie) explains Microsoft's profits? The difference is that Microsoft extracts a direct rent, through licensing their software, which provides users with access to the protocols of computer mediated communication. In much of our work we are dependent on their software and so pay a form of rent through the license. Universities, for example, are completely dependent on Microsoft Windows and Office. Ours does not support any other platforms, locking all staff and students into the properties and closed protocols developed by Bill Gates' microserfs. In the same way, Facebook has achieved a kind of 'lock in' for the social networking functions of the web. Many of our students don't even seem to use E-mail anymore; they are just using the messaging service of Facebook (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/technology/21email.html).
The value of Facebook to investors is based on a kind of enclosure through branding. The site has become an indispensable tool for communication and social reproduction. Through the brand, Facebook secures future participation and the attention of audiences, which the company can sell to advertisers. So long as it dominates the virtual space of social production, and maintains its status as an obligatory point of passage for access to valued social networks, its business proposition is strong. If Facebook maintains its virtual monopoly on web-based social networking, it has a valuable audience to sell to advertisers, and investors should hence be able to expect stable and healthy profits. Let's remember though that these profits are only possible because of the time and labor we, as users, invest in Facebook. Having said that, to restrict the analysis of Facebook to free labor misses this crucial point about how the company is successfully privatizing online communicational media in order to extract what we might call a 'rent on attention', capitalizing on this through its brand. As Hugh Willmott (http://org.sagepub.com/content/17/5/517.short)has recently argued, just looking at labor and the production of value misses the location of such activities within a much wider circuit of value, in which branding and enclosure are central figures.
But is this it? Will Facebook dominate the web or even all our social connections forever? Of course not! As much as we love Facebook, people are also starting to hate it, to mistrust it, to expose its privacy game (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/29/us-facebook-privacy-idUSTRE7AS21J20111129). It is perhaps not coincidental that Facebook's IPO comes hot on the heels of political and media debates over Intellectual Property Rights in the wake of the SOPA and PIPA acts (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16596577) in the US. The social web and its politics are still up for grabs.
Chris Land (http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Land/529341030) and Steffen Böhm (http://facebook.com/sgboehm) are both professors at the University of Essex in England.
Naravno, ne slažu se baš svi da to može tek tako. (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/20122277438762233.html)
Quote
Chiang Mai, Thailand - Does Facebook exploit its users? And where is the $100bn in the company's estimated value coming from?
This is not a new debate. It resurfaces regularly in the blogosphere and academic circles, ever since Tiziana Terranova coined the term "Free Labour" to indicate a new form of capitalist exploitation of unpaid labour - firstly referring to the viewers of classic broadcast media, and now to the new generation of social media participants on sites such as Facebook. The argument can be summarised very succinctly by the catch phrase: "If it's free, then you are the product being sold."
"We can certainly position the users of Facebook as labourers. If labour is understood as 'value producing activity', then updating your status ... creates Facebook's basic commodity."
- Christopher Land and Steffen Böhm
|
[/q]
This term was recently relaunched in an article by University of Essex academics Christopher Land and Steffen Böhm, entitled "They are exploiting us! Why we all work for Facebook for free (http://oowsection.org/2012/02/22/they-are-exploiting-us-why-we-all-work-for-facebook-for-free/)". In this mini-essay, they make a very strong claim that "we can certainly position the users of Facebook as labourers. If labour is understood as 'value producing activity', then updating your status, liking a website, or 'friending' someone, creates Facebook's basic commodity."
This line of argument is misleading, however, because it conflates two types of value creation that were already recognised as distinct by 18th century political economists. The distinction is between use value and exchange value. For thousands of years, under conditions of non-capitalist production, the majority of the working population directly produced "use value" - either for themselves as subsistence farmers, or as tributes to the managerial class of the day. It is only under capitalism that a majority of the working population produces "exchange value" by selling their labour to firms. The difference between what we are paid and what the market pays for the products we are making is the "surplus value".
But Facebook users are not workers producing commodities for a wage, and Facebook is not selling these commodities on a market to create surplus value.
Indeed, Facebook users are not directly creating exchange value at all, but instead communicative use value. What Facebook does is to enable this pooling of sharing and collaboration around their platform - and by enabling, framing and "controlling" that activity, they create a pool of attention. It is this pool of attention which is sold to advertisers, for an estimated (http://oowsection.org/2012/02/22/is-facebook-using-its-members/)$3.2bn per year, which is barely $3.79 in ad revenue per user.
We can, of course, argue that Facebook does a lot more than just selling the attention. For instance, their knowledge of our social behaviour, down to the individual level, has undoubted strategic value - for political power players and commercial firms alike. But is this surplus value really worth $100bn? That remains a speculative bet. For the moment, it's likely that the nearly one billion users of Facebook do not find the $3.79 in ad revenue per user very exploitative, especially since they do not pay to use Facebook, and are using the website voluntarily. That said, there is a price to pay for not using Facebook, in terms of relative social isolation from their peers who are users.
"Capitalism is in fact not just a scarcity 'allocation' system but also a scarcity engineering system."
|
Engineering scarcity
What is important, however, is that Facebook is not an isolated phenomenon, but part of a much larger trend in our society: an exponential rise in the creation of use value by productive publics, or "produsers (http://p2pfoundation.net/Produser)", as Axel Bruns calls them. It is important to understand that this creates a huge problem for a capitalist system, but also for workers as we have traditionally conceived them. Markets are defined as ways to allocate scarce resources, and capitalism is in fact not just a scarcity "allocation" system but also a scarcity engineering system, which can only accumulate capital by constantly reproducing and expanding conditions of scarcity.
Where there is no tension between supply and demand, there can be no market and no capital accumulation. What peer producers are doing, for now mostly producing intangible entities such as knowledge, software and design, is to create an abundance of easily reproduced information and actionable knowledge.
This cannot be directly translated into market value, because it is not at all scarce - it's over-abundant. And this activity, moreover, is done by knowledge workers, whose ranks are steadily expanding. This over-supply threatens to make knowledge workers' jobs precarious. Hence, an increased exodus of productive capacities, in the form of direct use value production, outside the existing system of monetisation, which only operates at its margins. In the past, whenever such an exodus occurred - of slaves in the decaying Roman Empire, or of serfs in the waning Middle Ages - that is precisely the time when conditions were set for major societal and economic changes.
Indeed, without a core reliance on capital, commodities and labour, it is hard to imagine a continuation of the capitalist system.
The problem is this: internet collaboration has enabled the creation of use value in a way that totally bypasses the normal functioning of our economic system. Normally, increases in productivity are somehow rewarded, and these rewards enable consumers to derive an income and buy products.
But this is no longer happening. Facebook and Google users create commercial value for their platforms, but only very indirectly. And they are not at all rewarded for their own value creation. Since what they are creating is not what is commodified on the market for scarce goods, these value creators do not receive income. Social media platforms are exposing an important fault line in our economic system.
We have to link this emerging social economy, based on sharing creative expression, with the more authentic field of commons-oriented peer production, as expressed in the open-source and "fair use" open-content economy, which one estimate (http://www.ccianet.org/CCIA/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000535/CCIA-FairUseintheUSEconomy-2011.PDF) said made up one-sixth of US GDP. There is also no doubt that one of the key ingredients of China's success so far has been the combination of the open-source - such as the country's domestic "Shanzai" economy (http://p2pfoundation.net/Shanzhai) - together with the patent-free policies that are imposed on foreign investors. This has guaranteed an open, innovative commons for much of Chinese industry.
Even as the open-source economy becomes the default way to create software, and even as it creates companies that reach a revenue of more than $1bn, such as Red Hat, the overall effect is still deflationary. It has been estimated (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/application-development/2008/04/22/proprietary-vendors-lose-30bn-to-open-source-39397439/)that open-source annually destroys $60bn in revenues for the proprietary sector.
Thus, the open-source economy destroys more proprietary software value than it replaces. Even as it creates an explosion of use value, its monetary value decreases.
Open-source manufacturing
The same effects occur when the shared innovation commons approach is used in physical production, where it combines an open-source approach with distributed machinery and capital allocation (using techniques such as crowd-funding and social lending platforms, like Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/)).
For example, the Wikispeed SGT01 (http://www.wikispeed.com/), a car that received a five-star security rating and can attain a fuel efficiency of 100 miles per gallon (roughly 42.5 kilometres per litre), was developed by a team of volunteers in just three months. The car is being sold for only $29,000, about a quarter of what a traditional industrial automobile firm would charge, and for which it would have needed at least five years of development and billions of dollars.
Local Motors (http://www.local-motors.com/), a rapidly growing crowd-sourced car company, claims to develop automobiles five times faster than Detroit, with 100 times less capital, but WikiSpeed has achieved even faster design and production times. The WikiSpeed car is designed for modularity, using sophisticated software development techniques (such as agile, scrum, and extreme programming), an open design, and local production by garages, using distributed manufacturing techniques.
And Arduino (http://www.arduino.cc/), an open-source electronics prototyping platform, works similarly to WikiSpeed and is driving prices down in its sector. If Marcin Jakubowsky's Open Source Ecology (http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Open_Source_Ecology) project is successful, this will happen for at least 40 different types of machinery. In every field where an open-source manufacturing alternative develops - and I predict that they will be developed in every single field - there will be similar pricing and income pressures on mainstream economic models.
| "What will happen with capitalism given social media-based exchanges, commons-based production of software and hardware, and collaborative consumption?" |
'Collaborative consumption'
Another expression of the sharing economy is collaborative consumption. As Rachel Botsman and Lisa Gansky have demonstrated in their recent books - What's Mine is Yours and The Mesh, respectively - there is a rapidly growing sharing economy developing through product-service systems, sharing marketplaces and collaborative lifestyles.
For example, it's estimated that there are about 460 million homes in the developed world, and that each home has, on average, $3,000 worth of unused items available. There is clearly economic benefit to be had by using these idle resources. Much of it will not be rented, however, but swapped and bartered for free. Even the paid sharing economy will have a depressive effect on the buying of new products.
Such developments are good for the planet and good for humanity, but the larger question is: are they good for capitalism?
What will happen with capitalism given social media-based exchanges, commons-based production of software and hardware, and collaborative consumption, on an increasingly massive scale?
What happens if more and more of our time goes into producing use value - a fraction of which creates monetary value - but there is not a substantial return of income to the use value producers?
The financial crisis beginning in 2008, far from diminishing the enthusiasm for sharing and peer production, is in fact accelerating the adoption of such practices. This is not just a problem for the increasingly precarious working class, but also for capitalism itself, which is seeing its opportunities for accumulation and expansion dry up.
Not only is the world faced with a global resource crisis, it is also facing a crisis of intensive development, because value creators are increasingly income-less. The knowledge economy turns out to be a pipe dream, because what is abundant cannot sustain market dynamics.
Thus we have an exponential rise in the creation of use value, but only a linear increase in the creation of monetary value. If workers have less and less income, who can buy the commodities that are offered for sale by companies? This, in a nutshell, is the crisis of value that we are facing as humanity. It is a challenge just as big as climate change or increases in social inequality.
The meltdown of 2008 was a prefiguration of this crisis. Since the advent of neoliberalism, workers' wages have been stagnating and purchasing power was maintained only by an over-extension of credit throughout society. This was the first phase of the knowledge economy, in which only capital had access to networks, which it used to create globally coordinated multinationals.
As the knowledge society grew in size, more and more of businesses' value consisted of intangible, not physical, assets. The neoliberal stock market and its speculative excesses can be seen as a way to evaluate the amount of intangible value that is added to the stock's value by human co-operation. This bubble had to burst.
The second phase of the knowledge society, in which networks are diffused throughout society and allow productive publics to be directly engaged in peer production, creates an additional layer of problems. Add to the wage stagnation and the exodus out of wage labour that peer-based use value creation causes, and we can see that the problem is not solvable within the present paradigm. Is there a solution?
There is - but that is for the next installment. The solution involves an adaptation of capitalism to peer production, but also opens up the avenues for a transcendence of capitalism.
Michel Bauwens is a theorist, writer and a founder of the P2P (Peer-to-Peer) Foundation (http://p2pfoundation.net/).
Follow Michel on Twitter: @MBauwens (https://twitter.com/#!/mbauwens)
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Prihvatam, sviđa mi se. Društvene mreže su roba par exelence. Sve što izjavite na njima ide u sažvakavanje. To je neverending anketni resurs. Kad sam svojevremeno odvalio da Magma tiganji Metalac, Valjevo zadovoljavaju 80% potrebe sudova u kuhinji, to je na Guglu dve nedelje stajalo u samom vrhu informacija o tiganjima. Nevolja je što naša lupetanja ne možemo da naplatimo. Inači bi to bio naš najbolji izvozni artikal. :mrgreen:
Annoying Facebook Statuses. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWEHjAiaCk#)
Quote from: mac on 29-12-2011, 20:24:28
Profili sa novim timelinenom imaju pozdravnu sliku određenog formata. Ako tražite ideje kakva bi za vas ta slika mogla da bude pogledajte ovde: http://io9.com/5871756/gloriously-geeky-images-that-make-great-facebook-timeline-banners (http://io9.com/5871756/gloriously-geeky-images-that-make-great-facebook-timeline-banners)
Evo još nekih slika ko stvorenih za cover photo, s motivima Dine: http://io9.com/5898849/amazing-dune-concept-art-will-make-you-see-arrakis-anew (http://io9.com/5898849/amazing-dune-concept-art-will-make-you-see-arrakis-anew)
Sad, nisam nešto paranoična, a ponajmanje me zabole za nekakvu podelu na nacije i narode, no primetila sam čudnu stvar: mnogo Albanaca sa Kosova lajkuje fan stranicu moje firme. I to su, mahom, muškaraci. Letimičnim pregledom njihovih profila, naletela sam na UČK simbole i slično.
Na mom fan pejdžu, koji je na srpskom, eksplicitno je navedeno da smo iz Beograda. Poskidala sam ih sve sa liste (nekoliko desetina, i svakog dana stižu novi), ne zato što sam nacionalista, zatrašena ili nešto treće, već zato što mi sve to užasno liči na virtuelnu najezdu i nekakvu informacionu/internet strategiju (?!). Nisam proveravala druge fan stranice, možda sam ja izuzetak.
Prvi moj potez ovakve vrste ikad.
tako to počinje, a onda... dok se okreneš, a već si u odboru za nekulturu SRS-a.
:lol:
Zvuči smešno, da. Ali ipak, imam neki jezovit osećaj, a osećaj me retko vara. Pažnju mi često privlače sitnice sa potencijalom da se pretvore u lavinu, tako je i ovog puta. Ne bih znala da objasnim zašto sam reagovala kako sam reagovala, ali morala sam to da podelim sa vama. :lol:
Pa čim si obrisala jednog doćiče ti stotine...
pa čim je došao jedan, došle su desetine, sa tendencijom da se pretvore u stotine... Samo su tu, miruju, ne rade ništa, ne učestvuju, samo lajkuju i samo dolaze novi. Internet je moćno mesto.
Quote from: Barbarin on 22-04-2012, 15:52:27
Pa čim si obrisala jednog doćiče ti stotine...
sećam se, tačno tako je bilo i sa pokušajima da ih očistimo s kosova... :P
reko kramb davno:
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dangerousminds.net%2Fimages%2Fuploads%2Fccccccrumb.jpg&hash=a0f63a90e658e81a2ea3732ea47b8152adc1688c)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6948600/Why-millions-refuse-to-like-Facebook (http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6948600/Why-millions-refuse-to-like-Facebook)
Btw, imho, ovaj članak je dizajniran da pruži potporu prodaji akcija tokom IPO-a. :lol: . Previše teksta da bi rekli kako ima još grdilo ljudi koji će pre ili kasnije da se pridruže, ergo FB tek ima da raste, ergo ulaganje u kompaniju je "a no-brainer". Dajte sve pare u akcije FB-a. Ali za razliku od Googleovih ili Apple akcija, ove će da roknu dole hard. I neće se vraćati.
When something's too good to be true, well, usually, it ain't :)
Takođe, ako namaknu 100 milijardi dolara tokom Initial Public Offering, well, to je jedinstvena prilika za prevaru stoleća, a takve prilike liberalni kapitalizam ne propušta. :lol:
Verovatno grešim, ali biram da tako mislim.
Koliko se dalo videti i koliko ja, kao laik shvatam, nisu se baš omastili tokom prvog dana, sa početne cene od 42 dolara po deonici završili su na 38... Moglo je to i bolje...
dobili i ameri svoju volksakciju.
Gagi Bend - Fejsbuk (2012) Grand Diet Plus Festival (Live) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRNJmhIqiJI#)
:lol:
:-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-?
Survey: 1 in 3 Facebook users getting bored with the social network (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/survey-1-3-facebook-users-getting-bored-social-050740241.html)
Quote
Are you just not as drawn to the social network (http://www.tecca.com/topic/social-networking/) comings and goings of your friends and family as you once were? If so, you're not alone: According to a new poll (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/05/net-us-facebook-survey-idUSBRE85400C20120605) by Reuters and research firm Ipsos, roughly one-third of Facebook (http://www.tecca.com/topic/facebook/) users are feeling pretty "meh" about the social network these days (http://www.tecca.com/news/2012/06/01/teens-twitter-facebook/), and the sentiment seems to be growing.
The survey focused more on the potential monetization of Facebook than current user habits, but the data was telling in several ways. According to the poll of over 1,000 Americans, 80% of Facebook users have never purchased a product or service because of what they saw on the site, meaning that whatever advertising techniques companies are currently employing to grab your cash simply isn't working.
Unsurprisingly, the survey found that users between the ages of 18 and 34 were the most active, while just 29% of people over 55 considered themselves regular users. Unfortunately, people who spend a great deal of time on the network are often victims of what the researchers call "Facebook fatigue," leading them to spend less and less time checking in with friends and browsing the profiles of their peers. What do you think? Have your Facebook habits changed? Let us know in the comments.
Fesjbuk tražio od korisnika da glasaju za ili protiv promene svoje politike zaštite privatnosti, ljudi glasali protiv ogromnom većinom (87%) a Fejsbuk onda kaže "Hmmm, mali je uzorak, ipak ćemo da promenimo politiku". (http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-privacy-policy-vote-users-don-t-press-102305957.html)
O istom trošku, čini se da je vreme širenja mjehura fejsbuk igara prošlo i kreće skupljanje. (http://news.yahoo.com/zynga-shares-plummet-facebook-game-craze-wanes-165859111--sector.html)
QuoteKreditna klopka na Fejsbuku
Nemačka razvija program koji bi mogao da stigne i u Srbiju: navike posetilaca društvenih mreža određivale bi njihovu kreditnu sposobnost...
http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Svet/Kreditna-klopka-na-Fejsbuku.lt.html (http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Svet/Kreditna-klopka-na-Fejsbuku.lt.html)
Ja sam to pročitao u Politici, ali, iskreno, ništa mi nije bilo jasno pa nisam hteo da kačim ovde :oops: :oops: :oops:
Pa kad nemaš fejsbuk. :lol: Dakle, oni bi eventualno mogli da provere kolikovremena provodiš na fejsbuku i u koje vreme pada to vreme, kakave su ti sve akcije i interakcije tamo i na osnovu toga procene tvoju odgovornost prema slobodnom i neslobodnom vremenu, a kako je vreme novac, onda i prema novcu koji treba da ti povere. Mada, možda proveravaju koliko si kokošaka kupio na FarmVillu i da li si skupom hranom hranio svog kućnog ljubimca u Pet Societyju...
Ali ja ništa od toga nisam video u ovom tekstu, samo neke opšte naznake o špijunskim programima koji registruju određene reči itd. Ili je tekst loše napisan ili, verovatnije, je moja koncentracija otišla u kuras i nije se vratila.
Ma, ja sam ionako pročitala samo naslov i učitala ostatak. Ali, evo, sad čitam tekst i nailazim i na ovo:
QuoteIdeja je da se uz pomoć novog programa otkriju crte karaktera korisnika kredita. Na ocenu bi uticali nivo disciplinovanosti, zavisnost od komunikacije na internetu, posvećenost kompjuterskim igricama, seksualne navike, definicija granice stida i skrupula.
Quote from: Meho Krljic on 13-06-2012, 10:59:14
O istom trošku, čini se da je vreme širenja mjehura fejsbuk igara prošlo i kreće skupljanje. (http://news.yahoo.com/zynga-shares-plummet-facebook-game-craze-wanes-165859111--sector.html)
Oni to o igrama koje proizvodi Zynga, čiji je customer support toliko blizu nepostojećeg da se slobodno može reći da ga nema, igre su im bagovite, a umesto da porade na tome, oni samo izbace nove igre.
Quote from: Mims on 13-06-2012, 11:26:10
Ma, ja sam ionako pročitala samo naslov i učitala ostatak. Ali, evo, sad čitam tekst i nailazim i na ovo:
QuoteIdeja je da se uz pomoć novog programa otkriju crte karaktera korisnika kredita. Na ocenu bi uticali nivo disciplinovanosti, zavisnost od komunikacije na internetu, posvećenost kompjuterskim igricama, seksualne navike, definicija granice stida i skrupula.
Video sam taj deo, ali mi deluje kao nabrajanje opštih mesta i ne vidi se iz ostatka teksta kako bi to išlo :cry:
Quote from: angel011 on 13-06-2012, 11:29:25
Quote from: Meho Krljic on 13-06-2012, 10:59:14
O istom trošku, čini se da je vreme širenja mjehura fejsbuk igara prošlo i kreće skupljanje. (http://news.yahoo.com/zynga-shares-plummet-facebook-game-craze-wanes-165859111--sector.html)
Oni to o igrama koje proizvodi Zynga, čiji je customer support toliko blizu nepostojećeg da se slobodno može reći da ga nema, igre su im bagovite, a umesto da porade na tome, oni samo izbace nove igre.
Da, da, ali nije se to promenilo u poslednjih par meseci, dakle, radi se ipak o tektonskom pomeranju!!!
haha, taj fejs stvarno gori od Velikog brata, onog Orvelovog.
Google je mnoooogoo gori!
ma Google vjerovatno koristi samo statističk podatke, kako on može imenom i prezimenom nekoga da provjerava kao Dojče banka na fejsu?
Pa ako nemaš gmail account, brišeš kukije i browser history posle svake upotrebe (ili još bolje između svake upotrebe googla) i eventualno imaš dinamičku IP adresu onda nije toliko strašno. Ali u slučaju da si baš bio nevaljao na netu onda se SVI podaci mogu dobiti na osnovu saradnje sa tvojim provajderom.
Ako ne odgovaraš gornjim uslovima onda te verovatno znaju pod imenom i prezimenom, jer si sigurno bar jednom napisao svoje puno ime kada si kucao mejl... ili poslao neku svoju sliku. Facebook više koristi one podatke koje mu sam ostaviš, dok Google kupi i sve ono što ne želiš da ostaviš. Mada Google to više koristi za preporučivanje sadržaja na osnovu tvojih interesovanja, nije to ništa strašno, oni tebe lično možda i gledaju kao deo statistike, ali kad bude zatrebalo imaju sve.
A tu je i jutjub čiji je Google vlasnik... ako si upload-ovao neke svoje snimke milina!
I da, vlasnici ovih smartphone android telefona (a takivh će biti sve više) ukoliko žele da pristupe downloadu besplatnih igrica i aplikacija moraju da se prijave sa gmail nalogom. A ako koristiš GPS i google map aplikaciju (koja čak ima i za ove obične java telefone) onda Google zna i kuda se krećeš. A da ne pominjem da Google sve kotnakte iz telefona kopira u gmail nalog.
Naravno, možeš ti da napraviš poseban Google nalog samo za telefon ili da skidaš igirce preko kompa pa da ih kopiraš na telefon, ali to baš i ne pomaže puno, a najveći deo ljudi ne želi previše da se cima oko toga...
Pa ti vidi...
uf, pa šta mi ostaje onda, neki ustanak, revolucija? 8-)
Pa da te strpaju u sobu 101 :cry:
Quote from: zakk on 28-05-2012, 12:21:27
Gagi Bend - Fejsbuk (2012) Grand Diet Plus Festival (Live) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRNJmhIqiJI#)
:lol:
ganci hipster :lol: kakva je ovo boles :evil: ljubavnik sa fejsa xrofl
The Big Bang Theory - "Facebook" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gP4IIv2GDk#)
"Look at that! I have a girlfriend!"
Kliknuo sam na neki turski klip, i zarazio se spamom. I sad svaki put kad se ulogujem on okači po turski klip svakom mom frendu. Obrisao sam sve kukije, i promenio šifru, i ne pomaže.
VAT DU? :cry:
Deinstaliraj sa Fejsbuka sve sumnjive aplikacije. http://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=applications (http://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=applications) , desno od svake aplikacije imaš krstić (X), kojim više ne dozvoljavaš toj aplikaciji da ima pristup tvojim podacima.
Facebook Abstainers could be labeled Suspicious (http://activepolitic.com:82/News/2012-07-25c/Facebook_Abstainers_could_be_labeled_Suspicious.html)
Quote
According to this article (http://www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/nach-dem-attentat-von-denver-kein-facebook-profil-kein-job-angebot/6911648-2.html) printed in tagesspiegel.de, not having a facebook account should be the first sign that you are a mass murderer.
The article mentions the fact that in the US, people were subject to handing their passwords over to potential employers, which privacy advocates, facebook, and the US government disagree with. But the article takes it one step further in claiming that not only did US employers have a legitimate point, but also suggesting that those who abstain from facebook could be mass murderers (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tagesspiegel.de%2Fweltspiegel%2Fnach-dem-attentat-von-denver-kein-facebook-profil-kein-job-angebot%2F6911648-2.html&act=url).
As examples they use Norwegian shooter Anders Breivik, who used myspace instead of facebook (or as they put it, "largely invisible on the web", haha @ myspace), and the newer Aurora shooter who used adultfriendfinder instead of facebook. So being social on any other website isn't good enough, it has to be specifically facebook that people are using.
While it is already established that sites like facebook and google+ are no good for political activists, abuse survivors, and people in the witness protection program; abuse survivors will have to take a back seat while more and more insane articles like this come out.
There seems to be an insanity bubble around older people which has arrived after the initial facebook boom that brought in the youth, where they see facebook as a necessary utility; instead of a trendy website that will have passed in a few years.
o bože oO :-x
napalm je zaista jedino rešenje.
Quote from: lilit_depp on 31-07-2012, 12:56:26
napalm je zaista jedino rešenje.
ajde šic, potencijalna masovna umoriteljko!
Quotenot having a facebook account should be the first sign that you are a mass murderer.
:!: :!: :!: :!: :!:
ХАХАХАХАХА!!!! Е, ово ми је улепшало дан! Чувајте се, багро! xuzi
и мени :lol: a писање ћирилицом на интернету доноси још који негативан поен!
TED: Michael Anti (aka Jing Zhao) - S.I.C.K.
Michael Anti: Behind the Great Firewall of China (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrcaHGqTqHk#ws)
Forbes objašnjava gde se sve Zuckerberg zajebao u svom izlasku na berzu. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2012/07/27/mark-zuckerbergs-big-facebook-mistake/)Šteta što nije imao nekog konsultanta da mu to sve kaže PRE nego što je napravio greške. Doduše, kako kažu, posle bitke su svi generali...
Quote
In the last two months, Mark Zuckerberg (http://www.forbes.com/profile/mark-zuckerberg/) has had a rude introduction to the capital markets. The founder of Facebook (http://www.forbes.com/companies/facebook/) has always seemed fearful of the stock market and tried to avoid the trading hordes as long as possible, but that has turned out to be a huge mistake.
Before taking Facebook public in May, the 28-year-old Zuckerberg had led something of a charmed life. The roadblocks he faced in building the world's biggest social-networking company were tiny, like an overdramatized civil lawsuit. Now, with Facebook's stock in free-fall, down more than 40% from its IPO price, Zuckerberg has a big problem.
Zuckerberg did not want to deal with the pressures of being a public company. Like many entrepreneurs these days he viewed the capital markets with suspicion. The view in Silicon Valley, as recently described by Marc Andreessen, co-founder of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, is that laws that Congress passed in response to the first Internet bubble, like Sarbanes-Oxley, make it "incredibly difficult to be public today." (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/16/marc-andreessen-transcript/) So Zuckerberg made a fateful decision, he decided to keep Facebook a privately-held company for much longer than other success stories like Google (http://www.forbes.com/companies/google/) or Amazon.
But Zuckerberg still needed money. He needed financing for his plans and to compete with the likes of Google or the next dorm room dreamer to come along. He also needed to attract and retain talent. Issuing stock options, or, in this case, restricted stock units, that don't turn into cash money for years was not enough. To solve this problem, Zuckerberg turned to venture capitalists, hedge fund managers, even a Russian oligarch. But those investors also expected to cash-out and those pesky securities regulation also limited the number of shareholders Facebook could have and still remain a private company. By May 2012, Zuckerberg had no choice but to launch an IPO.
Waiting eight years to conduct an IPO, however, has turned out to be an impossible problem to manage. The hype associated with the hottest company in Silicon Valley had created massive expectations and lots of shareholders with tons of stock looking for an exit. The bankers at Morgan Stanley (http://www.forbes.com/companies/morgan-stanley/) applied all the lessons of the last 15 years and priced the IPO at $38, which was very aggressive, in an attempt to avoid leaving any money on the table and the embarrassment that a huge IPO pop would represent. David Ebersman, Facebook's chief financial officer, increased the size of the offering at the last minute to try to mitigate future selling of shares from early investors and employees.
With such a big valuation at IPO time, Facebook had to show some results. But the numbers that Facebook announced on Thursday in its first quarterly earnings report were underwhelming. Zuckerberg, Ebersman and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (http://www.forbes.com/profile/sheryl-sandberg/) did not inspire much confidence about their business model in a conference call. The trading hordes drove Facebook's stock down by 15% in Friday morning trading. "We're disappointed about how the stock is traded but the important thing for us is to stay focused on the fact that we're the same company now as we were before," Ebersman said.
But that is going to be very hard to do. Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., is not a kibbutz. The employees that joined the company are like all the other creatures in Silicon Valley; they want to get rich. It's hard to imagine morale at Facebook won't take a hit that correlates with the loss in value of the shares belonging to the employees. And things don't look promising for the stock short-term given that the employees, ex-employees, hedge fund managers, venture capitalists and Russian oligarchs that held pre-IPO Facebook stock will be freed from their post-IPO stock lock-ups starting in August. Make no mistake: the early institutional investors are heading for the exits.
The lesson of the Facebook fiasco for Silicon Valley is clear. Start-up entrepreneurs cannot evade the discipline of the capital markets any more than can the prime ministers of Spain and Italy. The markets have a way of focusing the mind. Zuckerberg & Co., might have not been so late to embrace mobile or might have had more urgency to develop a monetizing strategy had Facebook faced the trading hordes earlier. As New York hedge fund manager Dan Loeb recently demonstrated with his intervention at Yahoo!, Wall Street and Silicon Valley need each other. Zuckerberg thought shielding himself from guys like Loeb would help him build a better company, but that is not what tech entrepreneurs will take away from his example.
Nije o Fejsbuku nego o Instagramu, al da ne otvaramo sad topik za svaku socijalnu mrežu, bili bismo ovde do jutra. Dakle, evo kako izgleda kurčenje u dobu digitalnne komunikacije, kamera na telefonima i socijalnih mreža baziranih na fotografijama:
'Rich Kids of Instagram': Overserved and Oversharing (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-kids-instagram-overserved-oversharing-141657288.html)
Primer:
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2F1h77a0.jpg&hash=c76954a77fcf6f78e7e9af21a3b7f575a3827873)
Nego, kad smo kod feeejjjsssbuuka, igra li iko song pop?
Inače ne igram te fejsbuk novotarije u poslednje vreme, ali ovo mi je kul. Fora je pogoditi pesme nakon nekoliko sekundi :)
sve fb igre o'ma blokiram. strogo moderiranje :D
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/25/5-design-tricks-facebook-uses-to-affect-your-privacy-decisions/ (http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/25/5-design-tricks-facebook-uses-to-affect-your-privacy-decisions/)
Heh heh, 51% Amerikanaca misli da kad je oblačno ili pada kiša, to remeti cloud computing servise :lol: (http://techpp.com/2012/08/29/stormy-weather-interferes-with-cloud-computing-us-survey-reveals/)
World Map of Dominating Websites
- In terms of websites (as a whole), google is the world leader.
- In terms of social networks, Facebook is the world leader.
- Baidu is undoubtedly the Chinese leader.
- Yandex is the most active website in Russia.
- Twitter is nowhere in picture.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dodaj.rs%2Ff%2F2b%2Fmo%2F1z5i7hPn%2F205917276173979161458193.jpg&hash=2191d1785de57a3561a1eb823a3462b84d91c942)
Detaljna istorija golgote i spasa jednog čoveka koja je započela time što je na tviteru napisao "Jebiga, aerodrom je zatvoren, imate nedelju dana da ga sredite inače ću da ga dignem u vazduh"
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/376645/twitter-jokes-free-speech-on-trial (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/376645/twitter-jokes-free-speech-on-trial)
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2F34g7zw4.jpg&hash=d3d07c2342b68b2ded171615e3cfbf92cc590a61)
xfoht
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/557452_385247931548241_1911336246_n.jpg)
TO JE GUGL PLUS!!!
ОНО ТВОЈЕ ЈЕ TINYPIC! 8-)
skinula se sa fejsbuka (iako će mi nedostajati dopisivanje sa nekima). možda se pojavim ponekad, ako mi ustreba ko. xyxy
:x :x :x
fejsbuk je zlo. ispada da ipak ja moram da ažuriram stranicu firme. :x :x :x
Smrznuo sam se malopre, FB ima novog, neočekivanog ZS člana! :shock: :-?
A ja sam mislio da su poslednja vremena već došla i prošla...
pa daaaa, ali meni nikako da prihvati prijateljstvo! :cry:
Možda bira društvo? Evo i mene ignoriše već čitavih 15 minuta. Da nije zaspao :!:
onda spava dva dana. :!: :mrgreen:
Jao što kasnim... Pa tek sad mi ga je FB ponudio za drugara. Ili sam nepažljiv. :(
ma neeee, samo nisi špijunčina kao ja. :mrgreen:
Zabezeknut sam! Napraviću neki prestup da me isključe sa Fejsbuka! Sad me nudi naokolo!
Prevari me Poliksena! Moja zaturena sestra od strica, koju je ovekovečio u jedinoj priči na Radionici Džek Rejnolds (Ne znam šta mu bi, valjda se još kaje.), pozvala me je da budemo prijatelji na Fejsbuku. Ja potegnem njen e-mail - jadac! Tu se nekako zabrinem, pa se u naletu emocija predam Fejsbuku, ne bih li je se domogao. I, jedino nje nema da mi se javi! :-x :-x :-x
Zaista ne razumem zašto svi sa kojima već komuniciram traže od mene da budemo prijatelji na Fejsbuku? Priznajem, jesam u zbunjenosti potvrđivao ta traženja i odjednom mi je gotovo ceo ZS bio u ambaru. Zaustavio sam se, ali kasno. Sad mi se puni g-mail, a ako slučajno kliknem na Fejsbuk vidim viđeno ili ono šta me ne zanima. Sam se skroluje. :-x
Dakle, izvinjavam se svima kojima nisam potvrdio "vezu", imaju me i bez Fejsbuka, što na e-mejl, što na Skajpu, što na ZS. Bolje je tako. Poradiću da nekako pobrišem i ostale i sebe ako to bude moguće. Debilniju pojavu na internetu nisam video.
A, sestri Polikseni ću krvi da se napijem kad je nađem. Jebene porodične veze! :-x :-x :-x
Jednom na fejsu, zauvek na fejsu, Scallope...
Buttbook!
Now Facebook wants YOU to grass-up friends not using their real name (http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/digital-policy/2012/09/now-facebook-want-you-to-grass-up-friends-not-using-their-real-name/index.htm)
Quote
Freedom to go under a pseudonym is, miraculously, one freedom to survive the security lock-down of the previous decade. Now Facebook wants to change this.Published 12:29, 21 September 12 My friend and IT, IP and Media Law researcher specialising in privacy and autonomy Paul Bernal (https://twitter.com/PaulbernalUK) has a very good blog (http://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/facebook-snitchgate/) on what seems at first glance to be a crazy move from Facebook in their ongoing war on pseudonyms.
Facebook has, from multiple independent reports, started asking friends to snitch on friends not using their real names on Facebook:
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daltonfirth.co.uk%2Ftmp%2Fsnitching1.jpg&hash=f231fbbd639a06e20f82beee9632d73894a619d5)
Now I know when it comes to privacy storms we're all getting a little jaded.
In a world where anything and everything is reported to threaten our privacy there comes a point when we are forced to don blinkers and carry on regardless, hoping it will all turn out right in the wash.
There are now so many privacy worries that we'd end up living a pretty futile existence if we tried to avoid each and every threat.
But this move, which Facebook are reported to be calling a 'limited test' (source (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Facebook-macht-Jagd-auf-Pseudonyme-1633979.html) - in German), is an outright assault on an ancient British right to go by any name we choose; with the exception, of course, of official documentation.
Yes, our right to go under a pseudonym survived numerous wars and even the terror-driven clampdown on our freedom over the last decade. It's still perfectly legal to assume any name you choose, so long as you don't want a bank account - for that you'll need to submit a deed poll.
But the right to connect with your friends without using your full real name is more than an amorphous civil right useful only to protesters, authors and actresses (etc, etc).
It's a vital tool for those escaping tricky domestic situations. I know one case of a lady hounded by another convinced that she'd had an affair with her husband. Another is in the process of escaping an abusive marriage. Both set up new profiles under pseudonyms.
Should I snitch on "Nurse Helen" (pseudonym changed to protect the innocent!) if asked?
Are these people really doing anything wrong?
Well yes, they're breaking Facebook's terms of service, points out Paul (http://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/facebook-snitchgate/). But does that really matter?
Facebook is desperate to squeeze every ounce of juice out the "value proposition" of holding a rich data set on all our lives.
But with big data comes big responsibility; and pseudonymous users are still valuable to Facebook.
They still see and click on Facebook ads.
They still leave digital footprints that Facebook can track to work out whether they prefer chicken or beef, drive a Ford or Ferrari, read James Patterson or James Joyce; so Facebook is still able to [attempt to] select the most relevant adverts for them.
In fact I can only think of two things Facebook can't do easily for pseudonymous users: (1) link to their credit score; and (2) prevent "review fraud", where users create multiple accounts to unfairly influence product reviews.
Of these, (1) causes me concern anyway. It puts an immense amount of power into the hands of a small number of credit scoring companies.
Imagine being prevented from using a Facebook app or receiving a discount voucher because your credit rating is not high enough. We shouldn't encourage discrimination based on the output of a rough algorithm designed to assess our ability to manage debt.
And for (2), yes it's useful to have a system to prevent online vote rigging. But banning pseudonyms isn't the only method. It isn't even a fool-proof method.
And it certainly shouldn't usurp the right of a hounded woman to enjoy social media free from the attentions of a slightly deranged individual.
ima li kraja ovom zlu? :shock:
Ima u Bobanovom zadatku za priču ovog meseca. Ukine ti neko svu elektroniku na 24h. Moglo bi i duže, ali Boban je srca milostva.
ja bih teško preživela, moram da priznam.
Ma, daj. Fiziologija kaže da jedino bez vazduha ne možemo da preživimo 24h.
Odvratno. Nijedan privatan podatak nisam ostavila na fejsu, osim nekih fotki i otvorenog fan pejdža firme.
"...won't affect your friends account."
Na isti način kao što i zaokruživanje odgovora "da" na pitanje da li ste se bavili terorističkim aktivnostima neće uticati na proceduru dobijanja američke vize :)
FB ima moje podatke, ništa više od onoga što bi se moglo naći i na Google-u. Ne patim od toga šta će da rade sa njima, ne pridajem sebi toliki značaj.
Quote from: scallop on 16-09-2012, 08:48:52
Dakle, izvinjavam se svima kojima nisam potvrdio "vezu", imaju me i bez Fejsbuka, što na e-mejl, što na Skajpu, što na ZS. Bolje je tako. Poradiću da nekako pobrišem i ostale i sebe ako to bude moguće. Debilniju pojavu na internetu nisam video.
Debilna ili ne, vi ste tu ispali najveći licemer. Fejsbuk jeste zlo, najčešće zato što odaje pravo lice ljudi. Otvorili ste nalog i sada
javno selektujete one koji žele da vam budu prijatelji i delite ih na one koji su podobni da vam budu na fejsu i one koji nisu. Budite svesni da to ima posledice. Na primer, ja se više neću (javno) pitati gde ste kada vas nema na forumu. Ima onih koje ste selektovali kao podobne prijatelje, oni će brinuti o vama. xyxy
Gle, šest je sati, vreme je da legnem. I
ostavim sve ostale na miru. :lol:
Od svih mogućih odgovora koji su mi pali na pamet dobar je samo jedan. Dobro.
Nezgodan taj fejsbuk, otežava koncept prijateljstva, čak i kad ga pojednostavljuje!!!!
Nego, Džeri Braun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIqESwzCGg4#)i ekipa barem rade na tome da zaštite ljude u Kaliforniji od sad već infamozne prakse da vam na razgovoru za posao potencijalni poslodavac traži login pasvord za fejsbuk nalog, ne bi li vas proverio, oh, iznutra:
Calif. governor signs bills banning employers, colleges from demanding access to social media (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/calif-governor-signs-bills-banning-employers-colleges-from-demanding-access-to-social-media/2012/09/27/0216a0d2-08dd-11e2-9eea-333857f6a7bd_story.html)
Quote
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a pair of privacy bills making it illegal for employers and colleges to demand access to social media accounts.
Brown announced on Thursday that he signed AB1844 by Assemblywoman Nora Campos, a Democrat from San Jose. The bill prohibits employers from demanding user names and passwords from employees and job applicants.The restriction does not apply to passwords or information used on employer-issued electronic devices.
The governor also signed SB1349 by Sen. Leland Yee, a Democrat from San Francisco. The companion bill makes it illegal for colleges and universities to demand social media user names and passwords from students and prospective students.
Brown announced the bills via Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus. He says the legislation will protect Californians from "unwarranted invasions."
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Zvuči kao solidan plan... dok se ne setite da neki poslodavci automatski odbijaju da razgovaraju sa vama ako nemate fejsbuk nalog:
Beware, Tech Abandoners. People Without Facebook Accounts Are 'Suspicious.' (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-tech-abandoners-people-without-facebook-accounts-are-suspicious/)
Quote
The term "Crackberry" seems silly today — and not just because consumers OD'ed on Blackberry and moved on to iDealers. The term arose in an earlier "aughts" time when Blackberry dominated the smartphone market and lawyers and execs were nearly the only ones who had them, due to their need to be able to respond to email immediately. Things have changed. Now we all need to be able to respond to email immediately. And to tweet. And to instantly share our photos on Facebook (http://www.forbes.com/companies/facebook/). We're all addicted to technology now, and not just to the Blackberry. We're "addicted" to our iPhones, and Facebook, and Twitter, and Android, and Pinterest, and iPads, and Word with Friends, and fill-in-the-blank-with-your-digital-dope-of-choice.
The sudden and dramatic advent of social-media-enabling technologies into our lives seems to be causing some mid-digital-life crises. Not only has Silicon Valley developed a guilty conscience about addicting us to screens (http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/08/06/absolving-silicon-valley-of-their-social-media-sins/), we the users are starting to question how technology is changing us: making us fat, making us unhealthy, making us depressed, making us lonely, making us narcissistic, and making us waste time worrying about whether it's making us fat, unhealthy, depressed, narcissistic and/or lonely. That's leading some users to consider abandoning the whole enterprise. My colleague Haydn Shaughnessy (http://blogs.forbes.com/haydnshaughnessy/) gave up his smartphone last year. Now, inspired by the example of former Facebooker Katherine Losse (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fugitive-from-facebook-questions-the-social-media-life/2012/08/03/5e4f855c-d0f3-11e1-adf2-d56eb210cdcd_story.html), he's considering giving up Facebook (http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2012/08/06/facebook-twitter-can-the-decline-of-social-media-come-fast-enough/).
I am writing with some words of caution. I used to say that "if you're not on Facebook, it's possible you don't actually exist. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2010/03/04/business-card-im-on-facebook/)" I think it's time to update that, courtesy of Slashdot: Facebook abstainers will be labeled suspicious (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/29/1627203/facebook-abstainers-could-be-labeled-suspicious).
Slashdot flagged a German news story in which an expert noted that mass murderers Anders Breivik and James Holmes both lacked much of a social media presence, leading to the conclusion, in Slashdot's phrasing, that "not having a Facebook account could be the first sign that you are a mass murderer."
That's a tad extreme, but I'm seeing the suggestion more and more often that a missing Facebook account raises red flags. After a woman found out via Facebook that a man who'd 'poked' her in real life had a long term girlfriend, she turned to digital manners advice givers Farhad Manjoo and Emily Yoffe of Slate (http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/manners_for_the_digital_age/2012/03/transcript_facebook_stalker_should_i_tell_a_cheating_guy_s_girlfriend_that_we_hooked_up_.single.html) to ask whether she should tell the girlfriend. They said she should and then went on a digression about transparent romances in the age of Facebook:
Farhad: I think we've mentioned it before that if you are going out with someone and they don't have a Facebook profile, you should be suspicious.
Emily: Wait a minute. You may have mentioned that.
Farhad: I think I've recommended that. You know why, though? Imagine if this guy didn't have a Facebook profile. That's why. You should be suspicious of someone who is not making your relationship known publicly on a site like Facebook. I'm going to go on record with that.
Emily: I'm fine with people not having a Facebook page if they don't want one. However, I think you're right. If you're of a certain age and you meet someone who you are about to go to bed with, and that person doesn't have a Facebook page, you may be getting a false name. It could be some kind of red flag.
via Transcript: Facebook stalker: Should I tell a cheating guy's girlfriend that we hooked up? – Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/manners_for_the_digital_age/2012/03/transcript_facebook_stalker_should_i_tell_a_cheating_guy_s_girlfriend_that_we_hooked_up_.single.html).It's not just love seekers who worry about what the lack of a Facebook account means. Anecdotally, I've heard both job seekers and employers wonder aloud about what it means if a job candidate doesn't have a Facebook account. Does it mean they deactivated it because it was full of red flags? Are they hiding something?
The idea that a Facebook resister (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/technology/shunning-facebook-and-living-to-tell-about-it.html) is a potential mass murderer, flaky employee, and/or person who struggles with fidelity is obviously flawed. There are people who choose not to be Facebookers for myriad non-psychopathic reasons (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/technology/shunning-facebook-and-living-to-tell-about-it.html?_r=1): because they find it too addictive, or because they hold their privacy dear, or because they don't actually want to know what their old high school buddies are up to. My own boyfriend isn't on Facebook and I don't hold it against him (too much).
But it does seem that increasingly, it's expected that everyone is on Facebook in some capacity, and that a negative assumption is starting to arise about those who reject the Big Blue Giant's siren call. Continuing to navigate life without having this digital form of identification may be like trying to get into a bar without a driver's license.
Case in point: Katherine Losse, the ex-Facebook employee that quit the company and the social network after cashing in her stock options, and who inspired my colleague to consider UnFacebooking, couldn't stay off Facebook for long. She wound up opening a new account.
"You can't get away from it. It's everything. It's everywhere," she told the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fugitive-from-facebook-questions-the-social-media-life/2012/08/03/5e4f855c-d0f3-11e1-adf2-d56eb210cdcd_story_3.html). "The moment we're in now is about trying to deal with all this technology rather than rejecting it, because obviously we can't reject it entirely."
Well, you can, but it might lead to your being rejected down the line too.
* Updated August 7 to include some reasons why a person might choose not to be on Facebook, beyond being too busy planning commando attacks.
* Another update: Haydn responds (http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2012/08/07/downgrading-facebook-tech-abandoner-or-rational-lifestyle-choice/) (and critiques)!
* And another update: A follow-up story from me, "You Don't Need A Facebook Account To Be Considered 'Normal' (But It Helps) (http://t.co/rqdFd7NP)"
Quote from: Meho Krljic on 30-09-2012, 10:53:52
Džeri Braun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIqESwzCGg4#)
:lol: А ја брзоплето пожурио да сам нађем песму.
Него, што се тиче ових прича о послодавцима који су сумњичави према одметницима од "Фејсбука", оне о потенцијалним терористима... Размишљам, колико маркетиншка екипа ФБ има утицаја на то, да је у питању модификована smear кампања. Јер негативне кампање су досад биле усмераване јасно, на појединце или групу, али да је сад то промењено и усмерено на недефинисану групу која не користи одређени производ, апликацију, услугу, штавећ. Можда су просто тутнули који долар новинарима да трубе о таквим појавама, јер иду на карту тога да је модерни слаби човек заправо плашљив и да ће подлећи "потенцијалној" претњи. Потенцијалној, наглашавам, јер већина некорисника највероватније нема никакве проблеме што "нема фејс", па чак им ФБ и не треба. Овако се лажно ствара атмосфера не да треба, већ је неопходан.
Друга прича би била о ФБ као испостави америчких обавештајних служби, јер сву конспиратологију на страну, то није без ђавла јер ФБ је обавештајни рај.
Da, zaboravio sam da linkujem pesmu odmah :lol:
A ovo o potpirivanju priče nije bez vraga, Amerika je ipak zemlja lobiranja. No, imajmo na umu da tekst govori o još uvek slučajevima i incidentima, ne o preovlađujućem trendu, tako da je moguće da neki novinari pišu jer su plaćeni, ali i da pišu jer im je zanimljiv ovaj ili onaj slučaj koji možda pokazuje taj neki sign of the times itd.
Па да, ја и кажем да није тренд. Не тврдим да ФБ агенти потплаћују послодавце већ новинаре. Нађу пример или два, а онда то спинују тако да само они који пажљиво читају виде да није реч о тренду.
Jasno, jasno, isto govorimo.
У ствари, то само ми који "немамо фејс" паметујемо у безнадежној нади да једнога дана нећемо робијати због тога. :lol:
Eh, da sam se ja uzdržao od fejsa. Upropasti me naša Poliksena!
Ali nisi!!! I sad si deo stada, baš kao i ja.
I ja imam svoju "Poliksenu", ako ćemo iskreno...
Nemaš, jer moja Poliksena ima 67 godina. I nisam deo stada, jer ima sve "prijatelje" da izbrišem čim se javi.
Pa dobro, moja je malo mlađa, al' me je isto tako navukla zbunjenog i nespremnog.
Samo..
Prijatelje možeš masakrirati, ali svoje podatke sa fejsa nikad.
Da znaš. xrofl xrofl xrofl Postoji samo moje ime i datum rođenja.
Možeš ti da brišeš kol'ko oćeš, meni FB odavno nudi tvoju Poliksenu za drugara :!:
Ako ti se javi reci joj da se javi meni. Onda ćemo sve da brišemo.
Šta biva sa vašim digitalnim identitetom nakon što umrete? Ovim pitanjem se bavi i jedan član američke akademske zajednice:
Facebook's Afterlife (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2142594)
Jason Mazzone
University of Illinois College of Law
QuoteNorth Carolina Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 5, pp. 1643-1685 (2012) (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2142594##)
Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 13-05 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2142594##)
Abstract:
People spend an increasing part of their lives using Facebook and other online social networking sites. However, virtually no law regulates what happens to a person's online existence after his or her death. This is true even though individuals have privacy interests in materials they post to social networking sites; such sites are repositories of intellectual property, as well as materials important to family members and friends; and historians of the future will depend upon digital archives to reconstruct the past. In the absence of legal regulation, social networking sites determine on their own what, if anything, to do with a deceased user's account and the materials the user posted to the site. Yet allowing social networking sites to set their own policies with respect to decedents' accounts does not adequately protect the individual and collective interests at stake. The law, particularly federal law, can and should play a stronger role in regulating social networking sites and in determining the contours of our digital afterlives. Number of Pages in PDF File: 45
Keywords: Facebook, digital assets, social networking, deceased users, intellectual property assets, wills, online accounts, digital afterlife
Accepted Paper Series
Upravo ovih dana mi fejs sugeriše da čestitam rođendan čoveku koji je umro pre nepunih mesec dana...
Poučna priča o internet maltretiranju
The day I confronted my troll (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/26/day-confronted-troll)
Quote
He drove me off Twitter, hacked my Facebook, and abused and terrified my family. Yet the biggest shock of all was meeting him
I'm back on Twitter.
I can imagine the cries of "I knew he wouldn't last!" from the Twitterati.
But give me a few minutes of your time and I'll tell you why I'm back and the real truth about exactly why I left in the first place.
In my blog of 12 August entitled Walking, Not Running, I talked about my time on Twitter and my basic reasons for leaving. I stand over a lot of what I said. The atmosphere there has changed and there have been negative stories in the media about trolling, etc, for months now. The brand has been damaged and Twitter needs to act fairly swiftly to repair it. At the time of writing that blog, for reasons that will become obvious, I was very sketchy about my own personal experience.
When I left Twitter numerous people thought it was as a result of an overreaction on my behalf. That my departure was a kneejerk reaction to a couple of "trolling" or "flaming" incidents or that I was attention seeking. The reality of the situation is that my wife and I were targeted for over three years.
It started in July 2009. I'd been on Twitter for over two years at that point, having joined in May 2007, and I'd never had a problem. My account was followed by a fairly innocuous looking one which I followed back and within 10 minutes I had received a direct message (DM) calling me a "Dirty fucking Jewish scumbag". I blocked the account and reported it as spam. The following week it happened again in an identical manner. A new follower, I followed back, received a string of abusive DMs, blocked and reported for spam. Two or three times a week. Sometimes two or three times a day. An almost daily cycle of blocking and reporting and intense verbal abuse. So I made my account private and the problem went away for a short while. There were no problems on Twitter but my Facebook account was hacked, my blog was spammed and my email address was flooded with foulmouthed and disgusting comments and images. Images of corpses and concentration camps and dismembered bodies.
Again, it eased off for a couple of weeks. I relaxed. Thought they'd finally tired of failing to get a reaction from me. Boy, was I wrong.
I didn't mention it to my wife. Didn't see the point of worrying her. But then she joined Twitter to see what it was like and grew to enjoy it. It wouldn't have been immediately obvious to outsiders that we were man and wife. She made the mistake, though, of changing her profile to state that she was "The long suffering wife of @LeoTraynor". Not a good idea. She received a DM stating: "Your husband is scum. A rotten bastard and you're a whore." She laughed it off. Blocked and reported and then the pattern started again. We got to the point of not accepting new followers at all and then one day my wife received a torrent of abuse via DM and on the timeline that was so vile she's never been on Twitter since – which is a real shame as she has so much to share and is far more interesting than I am.
People kept asking me, "Why you? Why would these guys want to have a go at you?" I couldn't answer them other than it was a couple of random idiots who didn't appreciate my political views or ethnic origins. Or even someone who couldn't solve my cryptic crosswords!
The whole thing escalated in June, July and August this year. I received more and more abuse on the timeline and via DMs. A crossword clue account I'd started (@Leo'sClue) was inundated with abuse too.
Then one day something happened that truly frightened me. I don't scare easily but this was vile.
I received a parcel at my home address. Nothing unusual there – I get lots of post. I ripped it open and there was a Tupperware lunchbox inside full of ashes. There was a note included, saying, "Say hello to your relatives from Auschwitz". I was physically sick.
I was petrified. They had my address. I reported it to the authorities and hoped for the best.
Two days later I opened my front door and there was a bunch of dead flowers with my wife's old Twitter username on it. Then that night I received a DM. "You'll get home some day & ur bitches throat will be cut & ur son will be gone."
I got on to the authorities again but, polite and sympathetic as they were, there didn't seem much that could be done.
Every night for weeks I lost sleep over it. Listening for noises. Opening the door everyday with trepidation. Trying to maintain a semblance of normality and not let my wife or son see that I was dying on the inside. Mortified that they might be in danger because of my big mouth or ancestry.
Then the last straw. I received another tweet, on the public timeline this time. "I hope you die screaming but not until you see me piss on ur wife."
I closed my account immediately and swore I'd never go back, in spite of the friends I have there.
I made it clear that I would pursue the troll or trolls and that I would take action. What I didn't say though was that I'd already been pursuing them for weeks and had a very good idea where, if not who, they were.
In July I was approached by a friend who's basically an IT genius, and he offered some help. He said that he could trace the hackers and trolls for me using perfectly legal technology, which would lead to their IP addresses. I said yes. Then I baited them – I was deliberately more provocative toward them than ever I'd been before.
Holidays intervened. My Twitter account was deactivated but before doing so I posted links to my Google+ account, blog and invited people to contact me on Facebook. I'm delighted that a lot of my lovely friends did. I'm also delighted that The Troll did too.
It transpired that the abuse had emanated from three separate IP addresses in different corners of Ireland. Two of them were public wifi locations but the third ... The third location was the interesting one.
The third location was a friend's house.
The Troll was his son. His 17-year-old son.
I was gobsmacked.
I spoke to my friend at length. He told me how his son was always glued to his laptop, tablet or smartphone. How he couldn't watch a TV show without tweeting about it simultaneously. About how he'd become engrossed in conspiracy sites. It also became clear that the other two IP addresses had been used by his son.
He was horrified at what his son had done. Horrified, but not surprised. He wanted to call the authorities there and then and turn him in. But I said no.
A couple of days after that conversation I met my friend, his wife and their son in a quiet and discreet location. The son, The Troll who'd almost driven me mad, was totally unaware that I'd be joining them.
I sat down and ordered a big pot of tea. "Do you still like choc chip cookies?" I asked The Troll and he nodded eagerly, a shadow of the little boy that was flickering across his face.
We had a chat. I told them about my wife and son. I told them about my recent illnesses and bereavements and about the builders having been in. I asked after their business and asked The Troll how college is going. All bright and breezy and a trip down memory lane. Then The Troll's dad tipped me the wink and I opened my bag and took out my manila folder.
I showed The Troll's mother and father screengrabs and printouts of his handiwork.
I showed them pictures of ashes and dead flowers.
I pointed out that one of the messages my wife received wishing me dead had arrived when I actually was gravely ill.
I told them of how I'd become so paranoid that I genuinely didn't know who to trust anymore.
I told them of nights when I'd walked the rooms, jumping at shadows and crying over the sleeping forms of my family for fear that they would suffer because of me.
Then it happened ...
The Troll burst into tears. His dad gently restraining him from leaving the table.
I put my hand on his shoulder and asked him: "Why?"
The Troll sat there for a moment and said "I don't know. I don't know. I'm sorry. It was like a game thing."
A game thing.
So, that's what it was ...
The Troll's mother said: "If you want to call the garda we'll support you in that. I'm ashamed of him."
I responded: "I'm not criminalising a 17-year-old kid and ruining his future. But I will write about it – and you must all guarantee me that he'll go and see a counsellor about this or I will go legal on you."
Then I got up to leave. I looked The Troll in the eye and said: "Stand up."
He stood. I said: "Look at me. I'm a middle-aged man with a limp and a wheeze and a son and a wife that I love. I'm not just a little avatar of an eye. You're better than this. You have a name of your own. Be proud of it. Don't hide it again and I won't ruin it if you play ball with your parents. Now shake hands."
"I'm sorry," he said, and looked like he meant it. "Thanks for giving me a break dude."
Then we shook on it.
And that is how I came to shake the hand of a troll.
• This article originally appeared on traynorseye.com (http://www.traynorseye.com/) and is republished with permission. The author has asked us to make clear he does not want to be paid a fee
Why I got Fired from Facebook (a $100 Million dollar lesson) (http://okdork.com/2012/09/29/why-i-got-fired-from-facebook-a-100-million-dollar-lesson/)
Quote
I'm TIRED of answering this question so I'd rather write it out and just point people to this post.
Let me start in reverse.
I can tell you every detail of the day I got fired aka "let go" aka "down-sized" aka "shit-canned."
I thought I was going to a routine coffee with my boss and randomly saw Matt Cohler sitting at the table inside (surprising)!
I knew something was amiss. Matt broke the news quickly and I was in dead-shock as the words came out of his mouth. They walked me back to the office and removed my laptop and my cell phone.
Then I proceeded to the Verizon store to use their phone, called my gf (at the time) and drove to the house I shared with 6 other FB guys.
Packed up all my stuff in my CRX, smoked a 1/2 pack of cigarettes on the balcony and drove to my friend Johnny's place. It took me a bit to let my mom know and I slept on Johnny's couch for a few days, thanks J!
Later that night we had a bbq at this place and everyone was asking me how the job was going....#awkward
I kept drinking that night to pass out and pray this was all a bad dream.
At that time, here's the order of what was important in my life:
1- Facebook
2- Myself
3- Food / Shelter
4- My gf
5- Family
6- Friends
To spell it out. Facebook was my entire life.
My social circle, my validation, my identity and everything was tied to this company.
How the fuck could have ended up like this?
WTF! I just got a promotion and a raise 2 months before!
This was my first time being fired and it took me 1 year to get over the depression.
—————————————————————————————
After running AppSumo (http://appsumo.com/) for over 2 years I've finally understood that Facebook made the right decision to let me go.
When you hire people there are three types of employees:
1- Grower. Someone who starts when the company is small and improves / adapts their skills as the company scales.
2- Show-er. Someone who can be good for the company where they are now but NOT where they are going.
3- Veteran. They've done it before and it's second nature for them to teach you how to do it in your company.
I was a show-er at Facebook. I dealt with chaos of a 30 person company extremely well. (Did I mention my boss got fired on my first day and my next boss got fired 2 months after me?)
Most decisions were me walking over to Mark's desk for approval, but at 150 people it was a group meeting of 30 people or me having to schedule time via Mark's secretary.
I was a bit annoyed with the situation even though our memories always deceive us. Ever recall how you thought all the times with your ex-girl/boy friend were great but in reality there were a lot of shitty times...
The specific reasons I wasn't able to adapt are as follows:
1- Selfish. I wanted attention, I put myself before Facebook. I hosted events at the office, published things on this blog to get attention and used the brand more than I added to it.
Lesson learned: The BEST way to get famous is make amazing stuff. That's it. Not blogging, networking, etc.
2- Marketing. The marketing team's plan was not to do anything and the night before we opened Facebook to the professional market (anyone with a @microsoft.com, @dell.com, etc...) I emailed TechCrunch to let Michael Arrington know to publish it in the morning. He ended up publishing it that night (I was at Coachella and will never again attend) before the actual product was released in the morning. I immediately notified the e-team and assumed full responsibility.
Lesson learned: I don't think what I did was that wrong since the marketing team did not do anything to promote our new features. My lesson learned was more I should have involved them instead of just going around them.
3- Skills. As I said above when things needed to get done. I was there and shit got done. As we progressed to needing to organize massive spreadsheets and big group collaboration meetings, I zoned the F out and was then shortly out of the company.
Lesson learned: Go see if your weaknesses are hindering you at your job. Ie. I wasn't great at planning or product management at this time. Fix them or move to another position. Also, constantly ask yourself how can I make the company more valuable. You do that and you will never get fired*. *unless you do something really stupid or the company goes out of business.
Each human on Earth has super powers. I've realized mine are execution, sales, marketing, eating tacos and throwing in occasional jokes.
As I've gotten older I'm more patient, a bit better at planning and able to work better with larger groups. Would I be a great fit for product management at Facebook now, likely; would I ever work there again, Frick No.
Ultimately, when I'm hiring now I'm looking for people who have gone to the promised land and can come back and teach us. They've built certain things, done the marketing we need to know, etc...
Matt Cohler (early LinkedIn, FB and now Partner at Benchmark) called me a "liability" as they let me go that day in the coffee shop on University Avenue.
This has scarred me and I've worked hard to be an asset to the companies I start and people I'm involved with. Thanks Matt!
A few key things I've learned after letting people go from AppSumo:
1- It stings the person WAY more than the company. I thought every day that the company missed me but I've learned they just keep going on with business. AND (UN)FORTUNATELY most businesses get better. So be stern when letting someone go but be reasonable and thoughtful to how it must feel. I encourage everyone to get fired once so they know that feeling. It's unbelievable and something to definitely learn from.
2- EVERYONE is replaceable. You are NOT special and there is guaranteed someone better than you on this planet. So be the opposite, find the way to be invaluable where you work. This doesn't mean locking things into you but opening things up so you are trusted and subsequently valued more.
3- Most people when they get let go, they know it's time. They may not want to accept what their subconscious tells them but they know it's right and it opens them up to something better. Instead of throwing them away, help guide / work with them to see what is their true calling and better suited for them.
People hear me speak or see my resume as awesome experiences but the details / depth of them is the interesting / meaty part.
Being at Facebook is where I grew the most professionally. I've NEVER been around such smart people. I've never felt so consistent like I wasn't the smartest person in the room.
So all this combined ended up costing me around $100,000,000. It is what it is. Ultimately, I appreciate where I am now and all the experiences I got from NOT being there.
A true measure of an entrepreneur / successful-person is how they deal with adversity.
As my high school drama teacher told me the day I ran crying off the stage, "it's not the outcome but learning from the experience that really counts...."
(Follow me on Twitter (http://twitter.com/noahkagan) for more)
Čuli ste za projekat Diaspora?
Quote
Created by four New York University students, Diaspora tried to destroy the notion that one social network could completely dominate the web (http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/10/2/what-happened-to-the-facebook-killer-it-s-complicated--2). Diaspora – 'the privacy aware, personally controlled, do-it-all distributed open source social network,' as described on their Kickstarter page – offered what seemed like the perfect antidote to Zuckerbergian tyranny. The New York Times quickly got wind. Tired of being bullied, technologists rallied behind the burgeoning startup spectacle, transforming what began as a fun project into a political movement. Before a single line of code had been written, Diaspora was a sensation. Its anti-establishment rallying cry and garage hacker ethos earned it kudos from across an Internet eager for signs of life among a generation grown addicted to status updates. And yet, the battle may have been lost before it even began. Beyond the difficulty of actually executing a project of this scope and magnitude, the team of four young kids with little real-world programming experience found themselves crushed under the weight of expectation. Even before they had tried to produce an actual product, bloggers, technologists and open-source geeks everywhere were already looking to them to save the world from tyranny and oppression. Not surprisingly, the first release, on September 15, 2010 was a public disaster (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/16/diaspora_pre_alpha_landmines/), mainly for its bugs and security holes. Former fans mockingly dismissed it as 'swiss cheese.
What Happened to the Facebook Killer? It's Complicated (http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/10/2/what-happened-to-the-facebook-killer-it-s-complicated--2)
Quote
It's impossible to grasp the consequences or outcomes of new technology, especially when that technology is developed by a twenty-something hacker.
That much was already clear in January 2010, when Mark Zuckerberg told TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington that Facebook isn't just a place to connect with your friends. It was a place to be more public than ever before. "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time," he said (http://www.switched.com/2010/01/11/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-claims-privacy-is-dead/). "But we viewed that as a really important thing, to always keep a beginner's mind and what would we do if we were starting the company now and we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it."
Zuckerberg wasn't alone. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Google CEO Eric Schmidt said (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10413473-56.html) a month earlier on his blog, just a year after news about his own personal life – a breakup with a mistress – sparked concerns (http://gawker.com/5197093/microsofts-secret-campaign-against-google-includes-ceos-ex+girlfriend) among shareholders.
Whether or not large companies should be deciding what's socially appropriate for their users, the line between meeting a new social standard and actually creating one is becoming increasingly harder to notice. To expand its user base and ad revenue Facebook slowly chipped away at user protections with its redesigns, coaxing users to share more and more, more often. The steady stream of tweaks was part of the Zuckerberg ethos, per his maxim that graces many real life walls in Menlo Park: "Always be shipping." But it also reflected Facebook's ultimate mandate: to make ad dollars with user data.
Since it launched, as Facebook made tweaks to privacy settings – with the presumption that privacy standards were changing – users were largely kept out of the loop, learning of privacy abuses after the fact. They were like the proverbial frog in the pot of water, slowly coming to a boil. The frog jumps out if the heat's turned up too fast. But if it's turned up gradually, the frog never notices, and stays in the water until it boils. Except the anecdote is fallacious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog). Most of the time, the frog notices.
The box and the boys In February of 2010, at the height of Facebook's run-in with the public's trust, a law professor named Eben Moglen delivered a public lecture at NYU titled "Freedom in the Cloud." "The human race has susceptibility to harm, but Mr. Zuckerberg has attained an unenviable record: he has done more harm to the human race than anybody else his age," Moglen declared, and outlined the dubious contract the connected world was entering into with Facebook. "Namely, 'I will give you free web hosting and some PHP doodads and you get spying for free all the time.' And it works. That's the sad part, it works."
As chairman of the Software Freedom Law Center in New York (http://www.softwarefreedom.org/), Moglen was already known as an impresario of digital rights and liberties, an aggressive critic of code that compromised users, the sort of crusader who might even chastise you (http://betabeat.com/2011/12/in-which-eben-moglen-like-legit-yells-at-me-for-being-on-facebook/) for keeping your Facebook account. And Moglen saw a deep flaw in Facebook's centralized structure. Counter to the principles of the world wide web on which it was built – a distributed network started by a public institution and owned by no one – Facebook tilted the balance of power far away from the individual members that gave the social network any real meaning.
"The human race has susceptibility to harm, but Mr. Zuckerberg has attained an unenviable record: he has done more harm to the human race than anybody else his age." – Eben Moglen
"Everything we know about technology tells us that the current forms of social network communication, despite their enormous current value for politics, are also intensely dangerous to use," Moglen told the Times last year, inspired by the events of the Arab Spring. "They are too centralized; they are too vulnerable to state retaliation and control."
"It is not hard, when everybody is just in one big database controlled by Mr. Zuckerberg, to decapitate a revolution by sending an order to Mr. Zuckerberg that he cannot afford to refuse," Moglen said.
It's high time we overthrew our network overlords, Moglen declared, and called his fellow Facebook skeptics to arms. "I'm not suggesting it should be illegal. It should be obsolete," he rallied. "We're technologists. We should fix it."
He already had a solution too: a personal server running a free software operating system, with free applications designed to create and preserve personal privacy. He called it the "Freedom Box," and with it, users could theoretically communicate directly with each other using peer-to-peer technology, circumventing the control of dictatorial data middlemen. His initiative offered a philosophical alternative to the problem of data possession: what if instead of volunteering our information to others — keeping our personal emails and beach photos and sex diaries on their servers — we simply kept those things on our own machines? This is how Moglen described (http://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2010/isoc-ny/FreedomInTheCloud-transcript.html) it that night:
What do we need? We need a really good web server you can put in your pocket and plug in any place. In other words, it shouldn't be any larger than the charger for your cell phone and you should be able to plug it into any power jack in the world and any wire near it or sync it up to any Wi-Fi router that happens to be in its neighborhood. It should have a couple of USB ports that attach it to things. It should know how to bring itself up. It should know how to start its web server, how to collect all your stuff out of the social networking places where you've got it. It should know how to send an encrypted backup of everything to your friends' servers. It should know how to microblog. It should know how to make some noise that's like tweet but not going to infringe anybody's trademark.
In other words, it should know how to be you ...oh excuse me, I need to use a dangerous word –
avatar – in a free net that works for you and keeps the logs. You can always tell what's happening in your server and if anybody wants to know what's happening in your server they can get a search warrant. It was more than a critique, it was a call for revolution, driven by freely distributed open source software. "Mr. Zuckerberg richly deserves bankruptcy," he concluded. "Let's give it to him. For free."
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.viceland.com%2Fviceblog%2F66334347moglen-freedom-box.jpg&hash=d98e7f267ba2341ae5559f072c06428bf9af5cb0)
Eben Moglen, brandishing a Freedom Box (http://freedomboxfoundation.org/) prototype Sitting in the audience were three friends, undergraduates at NYU's Courant Institute for Computer Science, who first met during late-night tinkering sessions with a MakerBot in the school's programming club. Max Salzberg, 23, was the pragmatist, the group's natural leader; Dan Grippi, 21, was the dude, the doer who answered to nobody. Ilya Zhitomirskiy, 20. a sophomore, was the son of a proud family of Russian mathematicians, an idealist with a serious crush on privacy. And Raphael Sofaer, 19, the youngest, who couldn't make the lecture. His older brother Mike, a software engineer, was visiting from San Francisco, and in the days that followed, watched the four undergrads rave about its implications. "There was a feeling like 'we could do anything,' " Mike told (http://nymag.com/news/features/establishments/68512/) New York Magazine.
The idea was simple. Build a decentralized, open source version of Facebook for the Freedom Box. Own your data. Own your social network. No Mark Zuckerberg. No need for real names. Just the people. Hoping to raise some funds for what was supposed to be a summer distraction, the team posted their idea on then little-known microfinance site, Kickstarter, with an unfussy target of $10,000. They called it Diaspora*, which fit the project's decentralizing aims nicely. From the Greek διασπορά, "scattering, dispersion," it's "the movement, migration, or scattering of people away from an established or ancestral homeland" or "people dispersed by whatever cause to more than one location."
The pitch By then, Facebook hate had reached a fever pitch, following a string of controversial privacy updates. Diaspora – "the privacy aware, personally controlled, do-it-all distributed open source social network," as described on their Kickstarter page – offered what seemed like the perfect antidote to Zuckerbergian tyranny. The New York Times quickly got wind. Tired of being bullied, technologists rallied behind the burgeoning startup spectacle, transforming what began as a fun project into a political movement. Before a single line of code had been written, Diaspora was a sensation. Its anti establishment rallying cry and garage hacker ethos earned it kudos from across an Internet eager for signs of life among a generation grown addicted to status updates.
"For some strange reason, everyone just agreed with this whole privacy thing," Dan said at the time. "Facebook Killer!" was the battle cry heard around the 'net, a real-life story of David versus Goliath. Powerful technology investors like Fred Wilson contributed to the cause. Al Gore phoned in to let the boys know that they were fighting the good fight. Even Zuckerberg, then in the throes of one wave of bad PR over privacy, committed a respectable sum, in a move as ironic as it was ridiculous. "I think it is a cool idea," he said (http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/zuckerberg-interview). The story, like many others, spread across – where else? – Facebook.
The Times came calling But while Facebook embodied a tangible opponent, Ilya and Dan and Max and Raphael were really waging a war on the history and future of technology. "Diaspora is trying to destroy the idea that one network can be totally dominant," Rafi said. Nice guys though they were, the Diaspora boys even then carried an undeniable punk swagger, which fit their mission perfectly. Few noticed the message inscribed on the blackboard behind Ilya, on page 19 in the May 11, 2010 edition of the Times, but it didn't take an eagle-eyed coder fanboy to notice the nerds talking dirty in UNIX: "TOUCH GREP UNZIP MOUNT FSCK FSCK FSCK UNMOUNT," it read. (The Times subsequently cropped the photo on its website (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/nyregion/12about.html).) Suddenly, the prospect of bursting free of the shackles of network enslavement, of reclaiming the future of the Internet from Silicon Valley, quickly seemed as real as their draw from Kickstarter: 6,479 people had donated $200,641.
At a Kickstarter party in May 2010, Motherboard met a shy Ilya near the fridge, pouring something into a red cup. He was enthusiastic, if guarded, about the group's next steps: the four would be moving out to San Francisco for the summer. Their home would be Pivotal Labs in San Francisco, where Rafi's brother was a developer, and where they were offered free office space and development support. It sounded like the ultimate summer project, the kind of thing that an indie band does when it decamps to a farmhouse to record the new record, the sort of thing Mark Zuckerberg did the summer after sophomore year (http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/5/18/brogramming-with-zuck-at-thefacebook-bungalow). But it wasn't exactly the same.
The Kickstarter video: "Diaspora: Personally Controlled, Do-It-All, Distributed Open-Source Social Network" (daniel grippi (http://vimeo.com/danielgrippi) / Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/11099292).) Network the free The distributed, democratic model sounds great on paper. On the Internet and in other places, however, it's an ideal that also seems to go against our tendencies. Freedom and competition may be baked into our national code, but history indicates that societies are easily seduced by the ease that comes with living in a controlled system, so long as it's comfortable and predictable enough. Indeed, since the birth of the information age, argues Tim Wu, a recent F.T.C. advisor and a law professor who propagated the idea of "net neutrality" – of keeping the Internet's pipes free of top-down restrictions – we've readily sacrificed freedom for something far more seductive and perhaps, easily recognizable: convenience.
"Apart from brief periods of openness created by new inventions or antitrust breakups, every medium, starting with the telegraph, has eventually proved to be a case study in monopoly," Wu has written (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704635704575604993311538482.html?mod=googlenews_wsj), pointing out that many of those firms survive, including AT&T, Paramount and NBC.
Industries that depend upon networks, Wu argues, tend to be subject to the domination of whichever company becomes more valuable to each user as the number of users rises. "Such networks have a natural tendency to grow, and that growth leads to dominance," he wrote. "That was the key to Western Union's telegraph monopoly in the 19th century and to the telephone monopoly of its successor, AT&T. The Bell lines simply reached more people than anyone else's, so ever more customers came to depend on them in a feedback loop of expanding market share. The more customers they reached, the more impervious the firm became to challengers."
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.viceland.com%2Fviceblog%2F88724525info-monopolies.jpg&hash=0f83470fc48538f7c848a94bdc2b606713f44ae0)
Right back where we started: the AT&T engame With networks, "size brings convenience," says Wu, and the effect is only more ferocious with information monopolies. "When the people who move stuff are also the people who own the content," he told Motherboard in 2010 (http://motherboard.vice.com/2011/3/14/cmd-ctrl-motherboard-meets-tim-wu-on-net-neutrality-information-empires-and-freedom), "you have an inherent conflict of interest. This means an inherent possibility for censorship, which is very dangerous."
A prime example is Apple, and its notoriously closed ecosystem. Its beautiful line of products integrate seamlessly but chain users to an ecosystem tightly regulated by the company. Even modest tasks, like replacing a battery, now mean trips to the Genius Bar for most people (others use iFixit). When it's broken, the Geniuses aren't capable of fixing your laptop: they send it all the way to the other side of the world to get refurbished, or they trash it and offer you a new one. The integration and control of its hardware and software is a compromise in pursuit of Apple's singular vision, one not to be tampered with by mere mortals.
"Steve Jobs builds incredible products," Wu said of the former Apple chief before his death. "But then on the other hand, you have to surrender completely to his control on some level. It's like fine dining: "When you go to a restaurant, you essentially surrender to the chef and say 'make a good meal,' and he's fabulous. But you are definitely making a deal where you are surrendering some of your freedom."
- See our interview with Tim Wu (http://motherboard.vice.com/2011/3/14/cmd-ctrl-motherboard-meets-tim-wu-on-net-neutrality-information-empires-and-freedom).
Not a fan of spicy food? Too bad. Hate Timeline? Deal with it. Don't like this new map? Sorry, pal, try downloading something else. The dictatorial ethos is anathema to Apple's humble hacker beginnings, argues Wu, who compares Jobs to AT&T's original president Theodore Vail. Although from the outset a genuine telephone lover, Vale soon became enamored with crushing the competition. By pushing his integrated approach, he created an empire that spanned seven decades. This is the depressing Matrix-like paradox of technological progression. Even as each new discovery empowers us, we also risk a kind of slavish attachment, inertia and dependence. In fact, nothing short of government intervention stops the beast of disruption from mutating into something ugly. And even by then, usually, the effects have already been felt.
"Does Facebook start to copy Google, or does it start to copy Apple? We'll be in a very different future." – Tim Wu
If you're living now, the future depends upon the path that Facebook chooses for you. "Does Facebook start to copy Google," which advocates open alternatives to the offerings of austere Apple, "or does it start to copy Apple?" If Facebook picks Apple? Says Wu: "We'll be in a very different future."
Many signs already point in this direction, from the company's various privacy mishaps to the platform's agreements with advertisers. Facebook calls the shots and users play by their rules. "The criticism [of CEOs like Zuckerberg] is that they're overly Machiavellian and don't care about people," a former Facebook executive fired by Mark Zuckerberg told (http://nymag.com/news/features/mark-zuckerberg-2012-5/index4.html) Henry Blodget earlier this year. "But this is really what is required to build a long-term sustainable business."
This growing discontent over Silicon Valley's dubious terms of service drove support for movements like Moglen's, and eventually for Diaspora's. Fans scrambled to download and sign up for the alpha release in November 2010. The network was made up of pods, nodes each owned by an individual or institution that made the larger network truly decentralized. Another key feature was Diaspora's design as a federated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_social_network) network, a kind of "social aggregator" that allowed updates and content to be imported from Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter and dozens of other niche social networks. That kind of interoperability would allow the network to avoid the prying eyes of a Facebook or a Google, while still lowering the barrier to entry, and drawing in more people.
And yet, the battle may have been lost before it even began. Beyond the difficulty of actually executing a project of this scope and magnitude, the team of four young kids with little real-world programming experience found themselves crushed under the weight of expectation. Even before they had tried to produce an actual product, bloggers, technologists and open-source geeks everywhere were already looking to them to save the world from tyranny and oppression. Not surprisingly, the first release, on September 15, 2010 was a public disaster (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/16/diaspora_pre_alpha_landmines/), mainly for its bugs and security holes. Former fans mockingly dismissed it as "swiss cheese."
Deeply affected yet undeterred, the team plowed on, and around Thanksgiving, released a "pre-alpha" version of the site. Over the next few months, they'd slowly put together what appeared to be a working, open-source federated clone of Facebook. "There's something deeper than making money off stuff," Ilya Zhitomiriskiy told New York Magazine around that time. "Being a part of creating stuff for the universe is awesome."
But the universe was quickly expanding.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.viceland.com%2Fviceblog%2F885330164997314358_022f1c7d03_z.jpg&hash=ceff8d07e7e097a8ec01884a1ff8b88fff64191f)
September 16, 2010. Flickr / henrikmoltke (http://www.flickr.com/photos/henrikmoltke/) Plus one After years of social media experiments that left a cemetery of failed projects behind, Google could no longer ignore the growing threat of Zuckerberg. By early 2011, ex-Googler James Whittaker wrote in a farewell blog post (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jw_on_tech/archive/2012/03/13/why-i-left-google.aspx), Google's own social network had became the top priority. The motives smacked of desperate, imperial zeal.
Google could still put ads in front of more people than Facebook, but Facebook knows so much more about those people. Advertisers and publishers cherish this kind of personal information, so much so that they are willing to put the Facebook brand before their own. Exhibit A:
www.facebook.com/nike (http://www.facebook.com/nike), a company with the power and clout of Nike putting their own brand after Facebook's? No company has ever done that for Google, and Google took it personally. The company reinstated founder Larry Page to right the ship, and from the beginning, it was clear he had Facebook firmly in its sights. Social became state-owned, a corporate mandate called Google+. It was an ominous name invoking the feeling that Google alone wasn't enough. Search had to be social. Android had to be social. YouTube, once joyfully autonomous, had to be ... well, you get the point. Even worse was that innovation had to be social. Ideas that failed to put Google+ at the center of the universe were a distraction. "The Google I was passionate about was a technology company that empowered its employees to innovate," wrote Whittaker in his kiss-off. "The Google I left was an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus."
With the release of Google+ in June, Diaspora suddenly faced a new problem: irrelevance. $200,000 looks fairly insignificant next to Google's billions. Moreover, the search giant's new site also promised to give users more control of their data while seemingly cribbing some of Diaspora's key features. Google was "drinking Diaspora's milkshake," wrote ReadWriteWeb (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_can_diaspora_help_us_in_a_facebook_and_google.php).
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.viceland.com%2Fviceblog%2F72708768diaspora-stream.jpg&hash=f03bc8cb46c835e50bb56d389d0b101c509e2fa1)
My stream on Diaspora Outwardly, the team tried to spin it as a sign of their growing influence. "We're proud that Google+ imitated one of our core features, aspects, with their circles," the team wrote on their blog. "We're making a difference already." Behind the scenes, it was a disaster. Diaspora, which had incorporated as a class-C corporation, was already running out of money. The four founders had opted to rent individual apartments so they didn't "kill each other." With VC interest waning, their options were dwindling.
But perhaps most tellingly, Google+'s subsequent failure to make a real dent in Facebook's empire sparked a far more dire realization. Maybe people didn't want a Facebook Killer after all.
The writing was on the wall, and now the founders knew it. That summer, after all the money had been spent, Rafi returned to New York to finish school. Soon after, one of the team's key members, Yosem Companys, abruptly quit, citing internal strife. Around that time, PayPal froze Diaspora's accounts without warning, cutting them off from much needed donations — the team had gone to the community, hat in hand in October. By November, they were struggling to stay afloat.
On the 7th, the Wall Street Journal asked "Whatever Happened To Diaspora The Facebook Killer?" Five days later, in the late evening of Saturday, November 12th, the San Francisco medical examiner was standing over the body of Ilya Zhitomirskiy.
Killer app "I strongly believe that if Ilya did not start this project and stayed in school, he would be well and alive today." his mother said (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-10/on-diasporas-social-network-you-own-your-data). Ilya had always been a believer, immersing himself in tech liberation culture and frequented local hackerspaces. "He had a choice between graduate school and this project, and he chose to do the project because he wanted to do something with his time that would make freedom," Moglen told the Times after his death (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/technology/ilya-zhitomirskiy-co-founder-of-social-network-dies-at-22.html). Ilya seemed to understand the gravity of his opportunity, and he took its failures to heart. Just two months after telling New York Magazine that Disapora was a labor of love, he would leave the team amidst a series of conflicts within the camp, and fly home to Pennsylvania, weeks before the big "pre-alpha" release. Ilya would return around Thanksgiving 2010, but only after his mother begged Max over the phone to take him back.
In the year that followed, the company struggled, as most startups do, with unmet expectations. With the original $200,000 gone and venture capital interest waning, tensions ran high, according to people close to the situation. Suspicions rose. After Rafi returned to NYU that summer, Dan and Ilya contemplated leaving while Max strategized about how to best continue the project with new partners. On October 3, they announced their plans at a heated board meeting. Relations remained cold through the following month. On November 12th, a day after 11/11/11, a date significant to Ilya for its numerical beauty – he was found dead.
"Hardly anyone had even a clue that Ilya was depressed, let alone suicidal," wrote (http://blog.noisebridge.net/2011/11/19/please-reach-out/) Mitch Altman, a veteran hardware hacker who knew Ilya through Noisebridge, the San Francisco hackerspace he co-founded. "He was bubbly, cheerful, excited about all the way cool projects he was implementing, as well as the ones he had thought, and would think of."
The speculation on Hacker News (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3231531) in the days after his death pointed to the pressures (http://news.ycombinator.com/x?fnid=eny4FTx5GK) of running a hot new startup, one that would require, given its potential, as much fortitude and virtuosity as can be found in the cutthroat, hype-happy world of a TechCrunched Silicon Valley.
Interview with Ilya, October 2010. Writes a top commenter: "He's the Ian Curtis of technology." "The founders of Diaspora were in a really unenviable position," wrote a user named DevX101. "They started off with a wave of national press as well as solid financial support from grassroot users. As time went on, it became increasingly clear that they would not be able to accomplish the goal they originally set out to do. They had failed. Publicly. This can be very devastating psychologically to someone who has always 'succeeded' in life.
"I'm not saying this was the case for Ilya, or had any part in his death, but I know for me it would have been hard to swallow. There are many silent founders out there that gave up everything for an unrealized dream in the path to startup success and it has a real toll on psyches. Others downplay the effects of disappointment. "Yes, I agree that being a startup founder is stressful. But it wasn't the stress of work that killed Ilya," Max countered (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-10/on-diasporas-social-network-you-own-your-data#p3) in May. "He had his own issues. He was sick." Those close to Ilya say that privately, he struggled with depression.
"It didn't really hit me until I stopped by his place," continued DevX101. "The only sign that something had happened was a paper taped to a door saying, 'Party Cancelled.' It's a really choking feeling. I think I went there to know if it was true... to know what happened. As his death becomes more apparent, I don't care what happened. It's a huge loss. Ilya will be missed."
For some, he was the heart and soul of the project. "In the end, I'd really like to focus on Ilya's bright spots, and there were a lot of them," says one close friend. "He was a visionary, and a mathematician. He brought countless passionate people together, and was well-loved in the technology community. Ilya was really the light of Diaspora. And frankly, when he died, the project died."
Nastavak u idućem postu...
...Nastavak iz prethodnog posta
Quote
September 14, 2010. Flickr / henrikmoltke (http://www.flickr.com/photos/henrikmoltke/) In Silicon Valley, where college dropouts go on to become billionaires and takeover the world, a deadly myth propagates. "As long as you're over a certain threshold of intelligence, what matters most is determination," evangelizes Paul Graham, founder (http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html) of the legendary startup incubator Y-Combinator, which would later back Diaspora in a last gasp effort to keep the project alive. It's a beautiful thought and fundamental to the American Dream. It's a delusion that drives starry-eyed youngsters to quit school and head West, living off ramen and moving into hostel communities (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/technology/at-hacker-hostels-living-on-the-cheap-and-dreaming-of-digital-glory.html?_r=1), "not so different from crowded apartments that cater to immigrants." In Silicon Valley, they believe that if you do whatever it takes, eventually, you'll get there too. There, everyone is on the cusp of greatness. And if you haven't yet made it to the land of milk and honey, it's only because you aren't working hard enough. Or worse, you've given up.
Success, however, is never quite so straightforward, a layered concoction, equal parts good idea, perseverance and whole lot of serendipity. It's for this reason that many of the industry's biggest rock stars remain one hit wonders. Marc Andreessen has done little since his heyday with the original Netscape Navigator. Twitter co-founders Ev Williams and Biz Stone left their company a year ago to work on something called Obvious, but so far have only a single blog post to show for it. Then there's Sean Parker of Napster fame. After wiggling his way into Facebook, his latest celebrity-endorsed venture, the Chatroulette clone AirTime, has yet to take off, if it ever does. Even with their credibility, confidence and cash, repeating past success eludes Silicon Valley's finest.
Yet the myth propagates because survivor bias rules. Failure just isn't part of the vocabulary; startup honchos prefer terms like "pivot" over more straight-forward words for a coming-to-terms. It's not something winners acknowledge, nor is it something the media often reports. For every Mark Zuckerberg, there's thousands of also-rans, who had parties no one ever attended, obsolete before we ever knew they existed.
Then there's the issue of money. In the early stages of a tech startup, there are few measurable achievements and progress is abstract. At the height of Silicon Valley's second great tech bubble, new players defined themselves not by what they'd done, but how much money they raised. While raising capital is fundamental, too much too soon can be a death sentence. All that cash hangs like an albatross around your neck, explains Ben Kaufman, who just raised $68 million for his company, Quirky.
"In the eye of the public, and specifically the tech community, funding is thought to mean much more than it actually does," Kaufman writes (http://www.quirky.com/blog/post/2012/09/what-raising-money-means-to-me/). "The world views funding as a badge of honor. I view it as a scarlet letter." This is the age of Kickstarter, where you can earn press and raise millions on the back of just an idea, undermining the tech scene's supposed love affair with execution. It reinforces a false sense of success, Kaufman says, remembering the first time he raised his first $1 million at the age of nineteen. "My grandfather called me to congratulate me on building a successful company," Kaufman recalls. "We still hadn't done shit. We just got some dude to write a check." In other words, when the money is flowing, it's easy to feel like you've made it, before you've actually made it.
Though Diaspora's $200,000 now looks a pittance in hindsight, the number generated immense validation from the media, which essentially portrayed them as a serious contender before they'd even learned to fight. "Part of the problem was the massive media spotlight," said one Diaspora insider who wanted to speak anonymously. "If they hadn't gotten the attention, none of this would have happened. They would have been more humble."
The make over In spite of tragedy, the dream lived on, as the surviving members deftly leveraged the renewed publicity into the announcement of a fresh beta release. The project's future, however, remained in doubt.
Part of the problem could be the concept of peer-to-peer social networking itself. The concept of p2p first found its sea legs in 2001 with the release of BitTorrent, a protocol for peer-to-peer networking designed for massive amounts of distributed file-sharing. Instead of using a single source server to download a file, users join a "swarm" of hosts, downloading and uploading from numerous peers. By distributing and sharing bandwidth, the process reduces the load on any one server, making it easier to share large files. By some accounts (http://www.ipoque.com/sites/default/files/mediafiles/documents/internet-study-2008-2009.pdf), p2p file-sharing is now responsible for over half of all internet traffic.
"Facebook wants you to be stupid," said Bram Cohen, the creator of BitTorrent. That Facebook can have such control over our experience makes us comfortable. "Facebook clamps down on third party UIs [user interfaces] for a very basic reason," Cohen wrote in a Google+ post last July. "Those UIs will inevitably enable functionality which they don't want you to have, because it makes other people less comfortable using the system, and they've crippled the web UI in ways which make people on the whole happier."
Some of the benefits of living in a well-controlled digital city we take for granted. "Facebook doesn't want you to be able to see when people view your profile, for the simple reason that you don't want them to be able to know when you look at theirs," says Cohen. Without Facebook managing your data transactions, this sort of discrete browsing becomes impossible to guarantee. "It's a deep issue for projects like Diaspora."
Even basic tasks on Diaspora, like the crucial ability to delete a post you made on another person's wall, are complex technical problems that have no easy solution. "Obviously a client-side cache could simply keep all posts you see and remember them," says Cohen, "and any custom client would undoubtedly do that, but people like being able to delete posts, for a variety of good reasons, and want others to be forced to use their own frail human memory to get back the content. Likewise you can hide comments that you make from your main feed, so even people who are permissioned to see them will have a harder time noticing them, and relationship status changes, which are impossible to hide, can be 'hidden' in the sense that people aren't actively notified of them."
To Cohen, guru of p2p, Diaspora isn't just cumbersome: it's deeply flawed. And it's not something we really need at the moment. "There may be room for a form of social networking somewhere between email and Facebook," he wrote in an email. "It can't just be a verbatim copy of Facebook though, it would need some rethinking." And a big part of it is timing. All of this is relatively brand new and a solution like Facebook in its current form still has much to offer. "I think it's a good idea to wait for things to get more mature before trying to build something less agile."
Even Douglas Rushkoff, longtime proponent of digital distribution, isn't so sure that abandoning Facebook makes sense. After a conversation with Ethan Zuckerman, Rushkoff told Motherboard in "Free the Network" (http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/3/28/motherboard-tv-free-the-network), he began to think that "saying fuck this system, let's start our own Internet" didn't make as much sense as trying to use the existing tools in an effort to advance broader political and social ideas. To break the system down from the inside. Don't worry about starting your own medium, accept the one you've got, try to make it better, and keep moving. Using tools for things they weren't intended to be used for is the hacker way, after all. Zuckerman's idea is a distant cousin of the ones that have become Zuckerberg's mottos: not just the "keep shipping" one but "Move fast and break things."
"I think it's a good idea to wait for things to get more mature before trying to build something less agile." – Bram Cohen
Realizing that building a modified Facebook was no longer enough, the team looked for ways to reinvent itself. Two and a half years after that fateful Kickstarter project, the Diaspora team had, by its own admission (http://blog.diasporafoundation.org/2012/02/03/diaspora-grows-up.html), grown up. With that came a renewed focus, and the search for a unique identity for the project. "We are refocusing around a new design metaphor," they wrote, hoping to channel the community's creative zest, promising to roll out updates in the months that followed. But even after being accepted into YCombinator's prestigious incubator program this past summer, staying focused and keeping shipping were adages that Diaspora continued to struggle with.
In June, I asked the team how they were doing. "We are working on some exciting new+related stuff, but its all in early stages for the next month or two," Max told me over email. "We are hunkered down until then!" I followed up, but never heard back.
The team would reveal their hand two months later with the release of a new project called Makr.io, a "collaborative Web remixing tool." In other words, not the game-changing distributed social network everyone was waiting for but a meme generator for the lolcat community. "Diaspora is in our blood," said Max, "but we're a little goofier than that," comments that left some of Diaspora's core community feeling a bit jealous. "The Diaspora devs are making love with Makr.io, their back turned on Diaspora," tweeted (https://twitter.com/KevinKleinman/status/229987950098788352) Kevin Kleinman, a long time supporter.
Some weeks later, the team quit the project for good, handing (http://blog.diasporafoundation.org/2012/08/27/announcement-diaspora-will-now-be-a-community-project.html) the unfinished mess to the community at large. "This is where we were headed since day one," Max told (http://allthingsd.com/20120827/diaspora-founders-distance-themselves-from-project-turn-it-over-to-users/) AllThingsD, vowing to support the platform's "thousands" of users from afar. The current user count stands at just under 400,000, slightly down from the 600,000 Business Week reported in 2011. Far from dead, the site seems to serve as some sort of nerd ghetto for European crypto hipsters. My stream is filled with a slew of public updates from the last few days, topped by a post by United Geekdom Of GNU/Linux, whose most recent contribution is a pic titled, "Why some People use Linux." But mostly, the feed is dominated by power users like Startdust (https://joindiaspora.com/people/4d30dffc2c174376100051d9) and Apolonis Aphrodisia (https://joindiaspora.com/people/4d11bd252c174338f2002a4c) who post in Italian and French. Staying true to his word, Max popped in last week (https://joindiaspora.com/people/f278309aabb991d2?ex=true) to discuss some back-end housekeeping (https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/diaspora-dev/pduGy0Dk31E). But criticism from the community has been vehement (http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=631185). Just over two years since its first release, Diaspora remains in alpha.
Next Big Something However inevitable, Diaspora's demise arrives at a time when Moglen's darkest fears have come to bear and the need for a secure, privacy conscious way to connect with others has never been greater. In a post-Facebook world, many of the brands we've come to trust as the linchpins of a new era of democratic communication have turned their backs on such ideals in search of profits. And when the government increasingly beckons, firms like Google and Twitter are having a harder time saying no.
Google's latest transparency report revealed (http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/6/19/google-reveals-that-the-u-s-is-a-leader-in-web-censorship--2) that the U.S. is now a leader in Web censorship, submitting 6,192 items to be removed across 187 requests, more than any other country and up 103 percent over the prior year. It's no different for Twitter whose frequent reluctance to cooperate with law enforcement didn't stop it from complying with most government requests: last year, it supplied some or all of the information requested 75 percent of the time (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20170002). Earlier this year, the site acknowledged that it would begin censoring Tweets (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/27/twitter-faces-censorship-backlash) when governments asked it to do so.
We live in a world where the British Home Office wants to enact an unprecedented surveillance act (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/9525710/Internet-snoopers-charter-could-jeopardise-national-security-ISPs-warn.html) known as the "Snooper's Charter," which is expected to be passed later this year. In Utah, the NSA builds a $2 billion data center that will, according to Wired (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/), the agency intends to siphon "all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital 'pocket litter.'" It's a world where oppressive regimes like Bahrain monitor journalists and dissidents with legal spyware called FinSpy. Where proposed laws like SOPA, PIPA and CISPA have stoked new anxieties about Internet freedom. A world where Stuxnet is a household name. It's an age of cyberwarfare.
In August, the FTC finished settling its suit (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/11/privacysettlement.shtm) against Facebook over claims that it had repeatedly abused user data, "repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public." "Facebook is obligated to keep the promises about privacy that it makes to its hundreds of millions of users," said Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the FTC. "Facebook's innovation does not have to come at the expense of consumer privacy. The FTC action will ensure it will not."
Among the measures Facebook will take include subjecting itself to privacy audits every two years for two decades, giving customers "clear and prominent" warnings any time information is shared, and giving users the express consent for that information to be distributed.
Unlike a recent $22.5 million settlement with Google over its privacy policies (http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/09/google-to-pay-22-5-million-ftc-cookies/), however, Facebook was not slapped with any fines, as it has not yet violated any agreements made with the F.T.C. Curiously, despite the massive privacy overhaul mandated by the F.T.C., Facebook denied any wrongdoing. In a brief statement last November after the settlement was announced, the company said that it "expressly denies the allegations set forth in the complaint," a statement the F.T.C. still considers to be part of the case record. (The F.T.C. is now reviewing policies that allow companies to deny wrongdoing in settlement cases.) Even as it settled, the company was, in effect, recused of any guilt.
Last week, the Financial Times reported (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6cc4cf0a-0584-11e2-9ebd-00144feabdc0.html) that a newly uncovered deal between Facebook and the data firm Datalogix allows the site to track whether ads seen on Facebook lead users to buy those products in stores, which is highly attractive intelligence for advertisers. (Datalogix does this by buying consumer loyalty data from retailers, and tracks in-store purchases by matching email addresses in its database to email accounts used to set up Facebook profiles, along with other account registration information.)
Privacy advocates are having deja vu. "Facebook users had no idea of when the system was put in place, and more importantly, its consequences," said Jeff Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, which, along with the Electronic Privacy Information Center, wrote a joint letter to the F.T.C. urging an investigation. "Under the FTC settlement, Facebook is supposed to make their practices transparent." The letter also noted (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/259055-privacy-groups-call-for-ftc-probe-into-facebooks-new-ad-tracking-partnership) that the process of opting out of the program – through a browser cookie – was "confusing and ineffective."
A Facebook spokesperson said the arrangement was comparable to others it holds, and points out that the personal data is anonymized. "We also do this through our partnerships with companies like Nielsen and comScore, and through our own advertising tool. We don't sell people's personal information, and individual user data is not shared between Facebook, Datalogix or advertisers." The program is part of Facebook's ongoing effort to perfect how advertisers reach users (http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/01/facebook-ads-frequency/) . "We kept hearing back [from marketers] that we needed to push further and help them do a better job," Brad Smallwood, Facebook's head of measurement and insights, told the Financial Times.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.viceland.com%2Fviceblog%2F92251199google-requests.JPG&hash=03820951ebd89996cdb4acfeba2060036a51b2df)
"I feel like we've already succeeded in that we've brought awareness to the fact that there could be other ways of communicating on the Internet." -Ilya Zhitomirskiy
Naturally, calls for a federated network continue. "I don't know if Diaspora specifically will be the Next Big Thing in social networking, but I hope that social networking moves to a decentralized model within the next few years," Circumventor.com and Peacefire.org founder Bennett Haselton wrote (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/09/06/1428210/bring-on-the-decentralized-social-networking) on Slashdot last month. Then again, Slashdot is "news for nerds." It's hard to make fear cool. It's harder yet to make security convenient. And it's not that alternatives — projects like identi.ca (http://identi.ca/) and Appleseed (http://opensource.appleseedproject.org/) — don't already exist, as Friendica (http://friendica.com/) creator Mike Macgirvin proudly and shamelessly reminded us in August. "Friendica WORKS today," he wrote in a blog post (http://friendica.com/node/51), "unlike similar projects which are still struggling at basic communications after two years, and after squandering huge amounts of money." It's just that no one bothers to use them.
So the challenges presented by Cohen and Wu and others persist. It's privacy's perplexing paradox, the fact that people don't like privacy violations, but rarely seem to care enough to do anything about it. Like a dull drone amid the noise, the effects of its erosion are hard to detect. It often creeps up on you, and by then, your data is already not your data. If you're on Facebook, you are, after all, voluntarily giving up personal information all the time.
Now that it must answer to its shareholders, Facebook's quest for new streams of revenue is now more imperative than ever. Recent stumbles and widespread skepticism aside, the company will continue to mine a steadily growing cache of personal information, a data set like none other in history. And one whose value, some argue, is so valuable and marketable that rumors of its demise are grossly naive.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.viceland.com%2Fviceblog%2F8951765968034299_a65c80030b_z.jpg&hash=4e10681e077279edeae85fcec806bea8244c9bd8)
Dan and Ilya, July 23, 2011, Mexico (Flickr / campuspartymexico (http://www.flickr.com/photos/campuspartymexico)) But if Diaspora has shown us anything, it's that people can care enough to have a say about privacy, when the time is right. It's thanks to movements like Diaspora that the public is growing more engaged with privacy issues. In a poll released this week by The Associated Press and the National Constitution Center, Americans said their biggest perceived privacy threat, at 37 percent, were social networking Web sites like Facebook and Twitter (close behind: unmanned drones, electronic banking, GPS/smartphone tracking and roadside cameras). Less than half, 47%, give Washington good marks on protecting the right to privacy, and 40% believe the government is doing a poor job protecting that right. As Diaspora struggled in the summer of 2011, Ilya ruminated that raising consciousness was half, if not all, of the battle. "I feel like we've already succeeded in that we've brought awareness to the fact that there could be other ways of communicating on the Internet," Ilya said months (http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/the-making-of-diaspora/1) before his death. "We've brought Diaspora into the world."
As the Internet shifts to our pockets and everywhere else, it's right to be skeptical of those who promise to be the next big thing, no matter how big that thing is. What we do know is that the new new thing is always right around the corner. It probably won't be Diaspora. And it probably won't resemble Facebook. But it will probably be better. It will need to be, because it's our choice after all. These things are nothing without us.
And of course, the choice of the people that design software to begin with. Whatever succeeds Facebook, it won't be owned by Mark Zuckerberg, but it also might not be owned by the people. It might fall somewhere in between. And it will connect us in ways we've never connected before, change us in ways we have yet to comprehend, and produce a new paradigm of problems still impossible to foresee.
Until then, see you on Facebook.
And follow me (https://twitter.com/sfnuop) on Twitter.
Top photo by Gabriela Hasbun (http://gabrielahasbun.com/). Additional reporting by Alex Pasternack. Watch Motherboard's documentary "Free the Network" (http://motherboard.tv/occupy)
Correction: An earlier version said that Ilya passed away "weeks" after returning to the company. In fact, his death occurred nearly a year later. This has been fixed, with added detail.
Mnogo je kume kao prepodnevno štivo. Daj tl;dr verziju.
Pa imaš siže u prvom postu. Ponovit ću ga za ADHD čitaoce:
Quote
Created by four New York University students, Diaspora tried to destroy the notion that one social network could completely dominate the web. Diaspora – 'the privacy aware, personally controlled, do-it-all distributed open source social network,' as described on their Kickstarter page – offered what seemed like the perfect antidote to Zuckerbergian tyranny. The New York Times quickly got wind. Tired of being bullied, technologists rallied behind the burgeoning startup spectacle, transforming what began as a fun project into a political movement. Before a single line of code had been written, Diaspora was a sensation. Its anti-establishment rallying cry and garage hacker ethos earned it kudos from across an Internet eager for signs of life among a generation grown addicted to status updates. And yet, the battle may have been lost before it even began. Beyond the difficulty of actually executing a project of this scope and magnitude, the team of four young kids with little real-world programming experience found themselves crushed under the weight of expectation. Even before they had tried to produce an actual product, bloggers, technologists and open-source geeks everywhere were already looking to them to save the world from tyranny and oppression. Not surprisingly, the first release, on September 15, 2010 was a public disaster, mainly for its bugs and security holes. Former fans mockingly dismissed it as 'swiss cheese.
To je samo tizer, pročitao sam ga, i u mojoj verziji svodi se na "Kickstarter projekat Disapora je open source pokušaj da se zameni Facebook. Projekat nije uspeo zbog..." i taj nastavak je bilo moje pitanje.
Pa, piše da je complicated. :lol: I jeste. Ali naravno može se ugrubo svesti na to da je u pitanju
a) Open Source projekat pa imam mnogo kuvara i naravno da ne uspeva da se razvija kao jedan centralistički vođen projekat sa jasnim majlstounovima i budžetom
b) Ekstremno politizovana inicijativa, koju su politizovali internet aktivisti i mediji a sami autori projekta se nisu snašli u buri koja se podigla jer u startu nisu imali visokoprofilne političke intencije.
Za ostalo, mora da pročitaš sam! Zanimljivo je!!!
Fejsbuk zvanično ima jednu milijardu aktivnih korisnika :shock: Mislim, moglo se to naslutiti još kad je Ghoul prekršio zavjet i otvorio nalog, ali eto... Znate kako kaže Frenk Zapa, samo zato što milijardu ljudi misli suprotno, ne znači da ste u krivu...
Facebook passes 1 billion active users (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-04-facebook-passes-1-billion-active-users)
Quote
One billion people - a seventh of the world's total population - are now using Facebook every month.
The milestone was marked by hoodie-loving founder Mark Zuckerberg on his own Facebook profile.
"This morning, there are more than one billion people using Facebook actively each month," he wrote. "If you're reading this: thank you for giving me and my little team the honor of serving you.
"Helping a billion people connect is amazing, humbling and by far the thing I am most proud of in my life. I am committed to working every day to make Facebook better for you, and hopefully together one day we will be able to connect the rest of the world too."
Zuckerberg and his "little team" (now a staff of more than 3500) also released a brand video to mark the occasion. It centres on the notion that Facebook has become as important a tool to meeting people as other everyday things we take for granted - such as chairs, doorbells and aeroplanes. Like?
Facebook | The Things That Connect Us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7SjvLceXgU#ws)
dobar je fejsbuk
-ako se pametno koristi i ako imaš dobre frendove.
ja sam zadovoljan i ne kajem što sam pokleko.
naravno, ako si okružen moronima, onda ćeš i na fejsu gledati moronske statuse, moronske spotove i moronske sličice.
Okružen sam uglavnom mačkama pa sam pošteđen toga. Jedino što često moram da im menjam posip.
Pretpostavljam da se to sa jednom milijardom aktivnih korisnika zapravo odnosi na milijardu aktivnih naloga.
Uključujući preminule.
ukucajte ime neke dobre ženske i vidjet ćete 12 profila
a da ne spominjemo one droce ala francuska maloljetna fufi
evo zašto meho ne sme na fejsbuk:
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.tinypic.com%2Fiog39c.jpg&hash=59435685ad1db43b24f7ec7f30835b3aaa80c005)
:!: :!: :!: :!: :!:
Панчлајн је чисти ЊИН!
Quote from: Harvester on 04-11-2012, 13:52:27
:!: :!: :!: :!: :!:
Панчлајн је чисти ЊИН!
apsolutno.
kao nešto iz uncut verzije AIRPLANE-a!
da li gledaš filmove s gladijatorima?
da li si bila u turskom zatvoru?
da li ti je neko upao u kuću i maltretiro familiju?
Fejsbuk sada dozvoljava da koristite sliku bilo kog korisnika ili stranice kao emotikon prilikom slanja poruka i komentara. Svaki korisnik ima ili brojčani identifikator ili jedinstveno ime koje mu se nalazi u adresi. Svaka stranica takođe ima identifikator. Šta god da je identifikator stavite ga među dvostruke uglaste zagrade da bi dobili instant emotikon. Ako recimo u kometaru želite ikonicu Dunje Ilić onda napišite [[dunjailic1]], a ako želite ikonicu sa stranice "Хвала Алистеру Кроулију за све што је учинио за србски народ" onda u komentar upišite [[222026967809133]]. Ovaj broj stoji u adresi same stranice.
Nema na čemu.
Zanimljivo, pojavili se i neki smajlići, tj slika kodova, okačim kasnije.
Quote from: mac on 06-11-2012, 02:04:22
Fejsbuk sada dozvoljava da koristite sliku bilo kog korisnika ili stranice kao emotikon prilikom slanja poruka i komentara.
To postoji vec vise od pola godine,
samo isprva nije radilo ako je URL menjan vise od jednom,
a sad radi u svakom slucaju.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dodaj.rs%2Ff%2FF%2F3F%2FxqGhfjG%2F223323101511353588662621.jpg&hash=98339e58739577bf46ba4f3ea17ef2c4a436eb56)
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg12.imageshack.us%2Fimg12%2F8554%2Firmau.jpg&hash=924f9fa00d3ad75fe9da4de634b1b9b315dbf738) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/irmau.jpg/)
Треба покренути акцију формирања буџета путем донација за документарац о дотичној у режији Синовца xfoht
Iskreno, meni deluje kao smisljena provokacija usmerena ka osobama slicnog mentaliteta:
"Gladna sam...
Kad ce ova kisa da prestane?
Ruke su mi predugacke."
i slicni FB korisnici sa attention whore sindromom :)
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dodaj.rs%2Ff%2F1e%2F9L%2FbIVE2tH%2F2012-12-11215808.jpg&hash=516598178307a4eae40cbb180f89c5ddefe5a4ff)
:evil: :evil: :-| :-|
Ja sam Darko.
Quote from: Barbarin on 11-12-2012, 23:00:05
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dodaj.rs%2Ff%2F1e%2F9L%2FbIVE2tH%2F2012-12-11215808.jpg&hash=516598178307a4eae40cbb180f89c5ddefe5a4ff)
:evil: :evil: :-| :-|
Ja sam Darko.
a) dokaži.
b) member čega? društva ljubitelja deda mraza?
Sve je ovde http://www.facebook.com/groups/StephenKingLovers/ (http://www.facebook.com/groups/StephenKingLovers/)
Za vas, ničeg posebno član.
http://readwrite.com/2012/12/11/why-are-dead-people-liking-stuff-on-facebook (http://readwrite.com/2012/12/11/why-are-dead-people-liking-stuff-on-facebook)
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi49.tinypic.com%2F2usipgx.jpg&hash=aa8d7817db210652ae25f03f4bf0e5da33890f3a)
Ja samo ovo da izjavim. Oni ljudi sto su me prozivali npr. 2003. što kao previše pišem po internet forumima i nemam život, danas su gori ovisnici od mene 7 puta, a falabogu došli su kod mene u klub, u virtuelnu realnost, realnost kojom ja dominiram, što je i logično, jer sam tu skoro od početka. I da vam kažem, ovo sa internetom teško da će dobro da se završi, pojedinci su brate ko na gudri, jer mi im stvaramo realnost, mi smo matriks, mi koji pišemo pa bilo šta. Ne valja ovo, ali jebiga, zabole me, ja sam tu bio i ranije, baš iz razloga jer ne volim život a oni su ušli jer ga vole al' će im se ogadi, tako to ide, ko gudra bukvalno. :lol:
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_510_if-facebook-photos-told-truth/ (http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_510_if-facebook-photos-told-truth/)
Tekst koji bi svi lakoverni trebalo da procitaju:
Top 10 najčešćih Facebook prevara i hoaksa koje možete prepoznati u tri sekunde (http://www.informacija.rs/Drustvene-mreze/Top-10-najcescih-Facebook-prevara-i-hoaksa-koje-mozete-prepoznati-u-tri-sekunde.html)
Quote from: Barbarin on 11-12-2012, 23:32:42
Sve je ovde http://www.facebook.com/groups/StephenKingLovers/ (http://www.facebook.com/groups/StephenKingLovers/)
Za vas, ničeg posebno član.
hehe, ljubavnici Stivena Kinga :lol:
Detaljna analiza fejsbukovog "novog" grapsh search servisa (novog za korisnike, starog za industriju). Ništa što niste očekivali i sami, ali valja imati na umu:
http://slashdot.org/topic/cloud/facebooks-graph-search-kiss-your-privacy-goodbye/ (http://slashdot.org/topic/cloud/facebooks-graph-search-kiss-your-privacy-goodbye/)
Quote
Over the past couple of weeks, Facebook has made a lot of hoopla about its new "Graph Search." (https://www.facebook.com/about/graphsearch) Regardless of one's personal feelings about Facebook itself, the social network is deeply baked into the fabric of the Web—so whenever they introduce anything new, it has the potential to greatly impact Web developers.
Privacy advocates are also concerned about Facebook's new search tool. What does it really do? How does it compare to sites like Google with regard to tracking personal information.
Let's get under Graph Search's hood and see whether those privacy concerns are justified.
A Powerful Search Engine On the simplest level, Graph Search is a search engine that traverses the Facebook data, accessible via a box at the top of Facebook. (A solid explanation of the backend infrastructure (http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/how-facebook-will-power-graph-search/) required to make it work is available on SlashDataCenter.) The system allows users to make lengthy natural-language queries in search of Facebook-based information about photos, friends, and other content. For example, you could input "Friends of friends who like trail running" and receive a list of people who meet that description—provided their information is public, and they indicated to Facebook that they "Like" trail running.
Should you input "Friends of friends who like trail running," you'll also see a related search: "People who like trail running." This is interesting, because it goes outside your list of friends, traversing further into Facebook's enormous data tree. From there, you can refine the search still further, via a list of dropdown boxes on the right side of the page. Want to know which of those "People who like trail running" actually live near you? Simply click on the appropriate box.
When it comes to finding very specific people, how deep does this thing go?
A Brief Digression into Graph Theory As soon as Graph Search was released, I heard a lot of people—especially those with marketing backgrounds—saying it's a silly or stupid name. But there's logic behind it: in its most technical form, a graph is a set of nodes that may (or may not) be connected to what are known as edges. Nodes often represent data. (I was fortunate enough to do graduate work 20 years ago under some of the foremost modern graph theorists, but I never expected that "graph" would become such a commonplace term.)
In its purest form, graph theory doesn't concern itself with what the nodes on the graph necessarily represent. But as soon as you incorporate an application, it becomes quite useful. For example, it can be used to determine the maximum number of colors needed to color a map whereby no adjacent country shares the same color.
I suspect people think "Graph Search" is silly because they assume "graph" means plotting nodes on a two-dimensional plane. For Facebook, though, the term is much more; an early version of Facebook showed how you were connected to users who weren't on your friend list, clearly relying on graph theory to determine the connections. In 2007 the social network rolled out Facebook Platform, which included a mention of the "social graph."
Facebook's Graph In Facebook's initial conception of the graph, the nodes were just the people inside the social network, and the edges were the friend connections. Facebook later expanded the concept to represent generic "things" on the broader Web that Facebook members could interact with via apps; this concept was deemed the Open Graph (http://ogp.me/) .
In Open Graph's documentation, the example used is a food recipe: individual recipes become nodes in the entire graph, and the Facebook user can connect to those nodes by clicking the Facebook "Like" on a particular recipe's Webpage, or interacting with it in some other way. These connections are inevitably recorded in the database underlying the social graph.
The edges of the graph are now refined into types: since the nodes are nouns (such as a recipe), the types of edges are verbs (such as cooking). If I'm signed into Facebook, and I go to a recipe Website that makes use of the Facebook API through a Facebook app, and I click a button that I cooked the recipe, then a new edge is added connecting my profile to that recipe object with the action of being "cooked." At that point, the recipe app might post to my wall an announcement that I cooked the recipe, and the edge connection is stored somewhere deep inside the Facebook database servers.
The more Facebook promotes its platform, and the more web developers use the platform, the more Webpages become a part of Facebook's enormous graph. If you haven't studied the platform at all, you might be unaware of the pervasiveness of Facebook's graph: the articles on CNN are part of the graph for example. The way you can tell is the HTML source contains meta tags that include a property attribute starting with og:, such as this:
<meta content="Monster blizzard could slam Northeast" itemprop="headline" property="og:title" />
Even Slashdot is a part of this; look at the meta-tags and you'll see the og: attributes. Although a site can use their own Facebook application to take full advantage of the application (denoted by an AppId), many don't—for example, an AppId isn't present on Slashdot pages. Here's CNN's AppID, discoverable in the meta tags:
<meta content="80401312489″ property="fb:app_id"/>
These applications can either define their own actions and nouns (like the "cooking a recipe" example earlier), or use any of a set of predefined actions created by Facebook, such as "reading an article." The noun or node is the article; the action or edge is reading. When the action takes place, a REST POST is used. Here's the actual example from the Facebook docs:
POST
https://graph.facebook.com/me/ (https://graph.facebook.com/me/)[YOUR_APP_NAMESPACE]:cook?recipe=OBJECT_URL&access_token=ACCESS_TOKEN
Sometimes these actions take place automatically, such as the annoying junk you see flowing on your friends' Facebook walls about their latest horoscope or they bought a virtual tractor. These happen because the user installed an app and granted that app permission to post to their walls.
CNN currently has a list of buttons for sharing an article, one of which is for Facebook. When you click that button, a post is sent to Facebook to make the connection between you and the article. The action is "read," while the object is the article you read (or, more precisely, the URL for the article). CNN changes their layout quite often; as I write this, the button for sharing is called "Recommend."
When I click that, a popup window appears, and I recommended the article about the blizzard approaching the Northeast United States.
The article gets shared on Facebook.
And nobody tells you about the connection that was just made: I'm now connected to that article in Facebook's database, presumably forever.
Got that? When you recommend an article, it doesn't just show up in your wall. It gets saved in the central database Facebook has built—and, as far as anyone knows, it does not go away. Do you ever stay up late surfing the web and share something inappropriate on your Facebook wall—only to wake up the next morning, horrified at your impudent action, and quickly remove it from the wall? Delete all you want, but that connection has quite possibly been saved in the Open Graph database.
Google's Graph Before we tackle the privacy implications of what Facebook's doing, let's take a moment to look at Google's graph.
Sure, Google doesn't explicitly promote the concept of a graph, but the search-engine giant has one too. In its case, the connections are bit more basic regarding the literal meaning of "Web" in "World Wide Web." Web pages are interconnected through links, which are traversed by Google's robots, which save the connections between the pages. That allows you to search for all the pages that link to a particular page.
Google has been criticized because they store your search history if you're logged into a Google account. The mechanism they use is a bit simpler than Facebook's app system; the links inside the search results start with a link back to Google, which then redirects you to the destination page. (But the status bar at the bottom or top of the browser only shows the final URL, somewhat obscuring the pass through Google.)
Although Google has tracked this information for several years, its tracking wasn't broadly known until last year, when it sparked a lot of anger across the Web. Google provided a way to supposedly disable the tracking of this information. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/) has a page on its Website showing how to disable the saving of your history—at the end of the document, includes a caution that Google could still be saving that data and using it internally handing it over to law enforcement if necessary.
What Facebook Records Now consider this: Facebook doesn't just record Web searches. Just because I click on a link offered by Google doesn't mean I actually read the page that pops up. But with Facebook, the connections go much deeper. Suppose a man in his 50s is accused of being a child predator, and the court requests records from Facebook. They'll dig up everything: Facebook Pages he Liked, or temporarily Liked; Facebook groups to which he belonged, or used to belong; outside articles visited or shared; his friends and their friends, along with all their activities. While courts can't convict you for associating with people of questionable character, a jury could certainly be swayed to feel that, if you associate with such people, you may be of that character. And it's all stored in Facebook's servers.
It can and does happen. I know a man who is serving a life sentence for murder. I haven't talked to him since he went to jail about seven or eight years ago, but one of the key pieces of evidence in the trial was that he had done a lot of Google searches on ways to kill somebody; the person who died, did so by one of those methods found in this man's searches. I imagine if the guy I knew committed the crime today, the investigators would have used all the Facebook data they could find as well.
Graph Search And finally, we're back to Graph Search. Why did I wait until so late in the article to finally get here? Because it's nothing particularly groundbreaking, even though Facebook is heavily promoting it: Graph Search is a limited interface into Facebook's broader social graph, which (as outlined above) has existed for several years.
Facebook has offered an API for the graph for quite some time (documentation for searching it can be found here (https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/api/search/) ). Using a REST-based search, I could quickly find which of my friends checked into a particular restaurant I like, and I was able to see the comments they posted on it. While the results were JSON—in other words, not nearly as pretty as the "regular" Graph Search—that didn't bother me much as a programmer.
But this API doesn't let me dig as deep into the graph data as I can with Graph Search. Having watched the Facebook API for a few years now, my guess is they'll update the API to return as much as they do with the new Graph Search. Certainly the information is there, and it would be easy for them to expand the REST interface; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's already available, just undocumented.
Conclusion So what conclusions can we draw? How does this thing compare to Google's search, especially in the realm of privacy?
When a billion people are listing everything they like (or "Like") on Facebook, from travel and games to photos and people, all that information is stored in one gigantic graph. That's somewhat more ominous than Google's tracking.
The kicker is that, for years, people had no idea that Facebook saved this information. Some of the news articles I've read talk about how Graph Search will start small and slowly grow as it accumulates more information. This is wrong—Graph Search has been accumulating information since the day Facebook opened and the first connections were made in the internal graph structure. I did a search of people who like trail running and have ever visited my hometown, and the system produced several dozen people. The information is already there. (And these people weren't on my Friends list, and the few I checked didn't have any mutual friends with me.)
For users of Facebook looking to meet more friends, Graph Search might prove interesting and useful. And for law enforcement and other "Big Brother" analyses, it could be a gold mine. People were nervous about Google storing their history, but it pales in comparison to the information Facebook already has on you, me, and roughly a billion other people.
slashdot (http://s.tt/1zvIA) (http://s.tt/1zvIA (http://s.tt/1zvIA))
jao!
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/4/4183172/facebook-home-android (http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/4/4183172/facebook-home-android)
QuoteHome is a family of Facebook apps that overhauls your entire device, turning it into a Facebook phone. An app called Coverfeed overhauls the homescreen and the lockscreen, giving you updates on what your friends are doing without you having to launch an app, or even unlock your phone — and you'll get ads in all the same places (http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/4/4183688/facebook-will-put-ads-in-home-for-android-just-not-at-launch). You can comment or like posts from your homescreen — it feels incredibly native. Everything is full-screen and incredibly visual, really looking nothing like Android.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi45.tinypic.com%2F29icky.jpg&hash=600be48214b4523a46add16d9f11ef67a218c519)
ту треба да пише: got your soul
Danas sam skontao da je tviter, po zlotvornosti, maltene u istom rangu s fejsbukom!
Heh :evil:
Louis CK: Stupid Facebook Posts - Oh My God (HD) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd2sRC3K9Hs#ws)
"...Da je imao jutjub
I Isus bi bio grub
Na Tviteru da je Hrist
Ni on ne bi bio čist
I njemu bi našli bruku
Da je bio na Fejsbuku
Za heroje sad je kasno
Kada sve se vidi jasno
Sakriti se danas ne da
Niti stidna dlaka seda..."
-Miodrag Stošić-
http://laughingsquid.com/twelve-types-of-social-media-users-by-first-direct/ (http://laughingsquid.com/twelve-types-of-social-media-users-by-first-direct/)
:)
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi43.tinypic.com%2F2ah6wq8.jpg&hash=a6df39e2f382f1dd4d18a4ac389877e9fb82d84b)
Quote from: Ghoul on 05-10-2012, 14:58:40
dobar je fejsbuk
-ako se pametno koristi i ako imaš dobre frendove.
ja sam zadovoljan i ne kajem što sam pokleko.
naravno, ako si okružen moronima, onda ćeš i na fejsu gledati moronske statuse, moronske spotove i moronske sličice.
Sve sve, ali glavu dajem da se niko od vas nije reklamirao na FB. Gle'te i uč'te kako se postaje poznatim piscem, lajkovi samo sipaju, a biografiju kad mu pročitaš skoro se smrzneš.
Ghoul, ko ti je ovaj pjesnik?
https://www.facebook.com/vukic.ivan.pisac (https://www.facebook.com/vukic.ivan.pisac)
Mark Šećergrad želi da svaka osoba na svetu dobije Internet, pa je u tom smislu pokrenuo i vebsajt internet.org i razne druge inicijative.
http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-launching-project-internet-more-affordable-043724377.html (http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-launching-project-internet-more-affordable-043724377.html)
Quote
New York (Reuters) - Facebook Inc's Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has enlisted Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Qualcomm Inc and four other companies for a project aimed at bringing Internet access to people around the world who cannot afford it, following efforts by Google Inc.
The project, called Internet.org, is the latest move by an Internet company trying to expand Web access globally. Facebook rival Google is hoping technology, including balloons, wireless and fiber connections will expand connectivity.
Internet.org, which was launched on Wednesday, will focus on seeking ways to help the 5 billion people - or two-thirds of the world's population - who do not have Internet access, come online, the company said in a statement.
It added that so far, only 2.7 billion people around the world have Internet access.
The partnership's potential projects will include the development of lower-cost smartphones and the deployment of Internet access in underserved communities as well as working on ways to reduce the amount of data downloads required to run Internet applications, according to Facebook.
But at least initially, the company appeared to have few details on concrete plans.
In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Zuckerberg said the group had a "rough plan" for achieving its goal. He said the project was not just about making money for Facebook, which has more than 1 billion members and needs to keep expanding to boost revenue.
Zuckerberg noted that the first billion Facebook members "have way more money" than the rest of the world combined.
While many of today's Facebook members use the service just to keep in touch with friends, Zuckerberg said future Internet users may have more lofty needs.
"They're going to use it to decide what kind of governments they want, get access to healthcare for the first time ever, connect with family hundreds of miles away that they haven't seen in decades," he told CNN.
Facebook recently reported stronger-than-expected quarterly results due to an increase in advertising revenue from mobile users.
Other players in the Internet.org project include Ericsson, MediaTek Inc, Nokia and Opera Software ASA.
While the list did not include mobile network operators, Facebook that these companies would play a central role.
In June, Google announced it launched a small network of balloons over the Southern Hemisphere in an experiment it hopes to use to bring reliable Internet access to the world's most remote regions.
The pilot program, Project Loon, took off from New Zealand's South Island, using solar-powered, high-altitude balloons that ride the wind about 12.5 miles, or twice as high as airplanes, above the ground.
(Reporting by Reporting by Ashutosh Pandey, Krithika Krishnamurthy in Bangalore and; Sinead Carew in New York; Editing by Maureen Bavdek)
E dokurca, napisah pogolem text na temu kako opstati na fejsu al mi ga obrisa ovaj mrtvi forum. :x
Sad me mrzi da pišem jbga al' evo samo jednog saveta ljudima koji se bave pisanjem a oće to da promovišu tamo, dakle OKRUŽITE SE ŽENAMA, jer žene su mnogo lojalniji čitaoci od muških mada ne mora da znači ali ipak znači! Toliko od mene za sad. xjap
:-|
Quote from: Meho Krljic on 21-08-2013, 18:01:08
Mark Šećergrad želi da svaka osoba na svetu dobije Internet, pa je u tom smislu pokrenuo i vebsajt internet.org i razne druge inicijative.
http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-launching-project-internet-more-affordable-043724377.html (http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-launching-project-internet-more-affordable-043724377.html)
Quote
New York (Reuters) - Facebook Inc's Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has enlisted Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Qualcomm Inc and four other companies for a project aimed at bringing Internet access to people around the world who cannot afford it, following efforts by Google Inc.
The project, called Internet.org, is the latest move by an Internet company trying to expand Web access globally. Facebook rival Google is hoping technology, including balloons, wireless and fiber connections will expand connectivity.
Internet.org, which was launched on Wednesday, will focus on seeking ways to help the 5 billion people - or two-thirds of the world's population - who do not have Internet access, come online, the company said in a statement.
It added that so far, only 2.7 billion people around the world have Internet access.
The partnership's potential projects will include the development of lower-cost smartphones and the deployment of Internet access in underserved communities as well as working on ways to reduce the amount of data downloads required to run Internet applications, according to Facebook.
But at least initially, the company appeared to have few details on concrete plans.
In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Zuckerberg said the group had a "rough plan" for achieving its goal. He said the project was not just about making money for Facebook, which has more than 1 billion members and needs to keep expanding to boost revenue.
Zuckerberg noted that the first billion Facebook members "have way more money" than the rest of the world combined.
While many of today's Facebook members use the service just to keep in touch with friends, Zuckerberg said future Internet users may have more lofty needs.
"They're going to use it to decide what kind of governments they want, get access to healthcare for the first time ever, connect with family hundreds of miles away that they haven't seen in decades," he told CNN.
Facebook recently reported stronger-than-expected quarterly results due to an increase in advertising revenue from mobile users.
Other players in the Internet.org project include Ericsson, MediaTek Inc, Nokia and Opera Software ASA.
While the list did not include mobile network operators, Facebook that these companies would play a central role.
In June, Google announced it launched a small network of balloons over the Southern Hemisphere in an experiment it hopes to use to bring reliable Internet access to the world's most remote regions.
The pilot program, Project Loon, took off from New Zealand's South Island, using solar-powered, high-altitude balloons that ride the wind about 12.5 miles, or twice as high as airplanes, above the ground.
(Reporting by Reporting by Ashutosh Pandey, Krithika Krishnamurthy in Bangalore and; Sinead Carew in New York; Editing by Maureen Bavdek)
Mark Secergrad lol Meho you made my day
:lol: :lol: :lol: Reklo bi se da si imala prilično shitty day, ako je ovaj skromni, čak sirotinjski humor bio dovoljan da ga poboljša. Ne žalim se! Drago mi je!!!
Ma meni je dan tek poceo, jos nije ni svanulo. Putujem na posao i nasmejah se naglas zbog Ssecergrada.
:)
I meni je drago. Hvala :lol:
Ne bih da kvarim Mehove plemenite pokušaje da ulepšava dane, ali zar nije berg planina, a ne grad?
breg a moze i planina, al sto mehanu da pokvarimo ovo puvanje!
Od kad nisam cula/ procitala rec puvanje :?:
xrofl
I love you lilita
Naravno da je brdo u izvornom značenju, ali se u imenima toponima poistovećuje sa gradovima!!!!!!! Pa sigurno nije neko dobio to prezime jer je njegov tata imao brdo šećera nego jer je dolazio iz mesta gde se pravio šećer!!!!!!!
Lupetanje. Kod Čivuta to nema veze s geografijom, oni pojmove vezuju s onim čega bi želeli da imaju u količini brda: Cukerberg, Goldberg, CiklonBerg...
Ja sam konsterniran ovim kriptorasističkim izjavama!!!!
"Ti si prvi počeo!".
Pride, zaboravio si da ubaciš jedinicu međ' znakove uzvika. Odbiće ti od gikovskog dohotka...
http://www.quitfacebookday.com/#options (http://www.quitfacebookday.com/#options)
Prevaranti imaju nove metode. Advokat koji voli da fejsbuci.
"I am Diallo Allassane, Attorney representing the late Eng. Michael
A.Matovic, who died during the 2004 tsunami while on vacation with his
family in Thailand on the island of the famous resort of Phuket. He
seems to be related to you hence I have contacted you to discuss this
matter with you."
Zvuci pomalo kao reklama za "popularno odmaralište" Puket. Samo da nije cunamija.
nabacuje ti se frajer a ti tako
A u najnovijoj verziji izreke "ako je dete zastranilo, valja kriviti roditelje":
Don't Blame Social Media if Your Teen Is Unsocial. It's Your Fault (http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/12/ap_thompson-2/)
Quote
Are teenagers losing their social skills? Parents and pundits seem to think so. Teens spend so much time online, we're told, that they're no longer able to handle (http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/03/digital-natives-etiquette-be-damned/) the messy, intimate task of hanging out face-to-face. "After school, my son is on Facebook with his friends. If it isn't online, it isn't real to him," one mother recently told me in a panic. "Everything is virtual!"
Now, I'm not convinced this trend is real. I've read the evidence about the "narcissism epidemic" and the apparent decline in empathy in young people, and while it's intriguing, it's provisional. Lots of work offers the opposite conclusion, such as Pew surveys finding that kids who text the most also socialize the most in person. But for the sake of argument, let's agree that we have a crisis. Let's agree that kids aren't spending enough time together mastering social skills. Who's responsible? Has crafty Facebook, with its casino-like structure of algorithmic nudging, hypnotized (http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/04/facebook-home-ads-make-selfishness-contagious/) our youth?
If kids can't socialize, who should parents blame? Simple: They should blame themselves. This is the argument advanced in It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens (http://www.danah.org/itscomplicated/), by Microsoft researcher Danah Boyd (http://www.wired.com/opinion/author/danahboyd/). Boyd—full disclosure, a friend of mine—has spent a decade interviewing hundreds of teens about their online lives.
What she has found, over and over, is that teenagers would love to socialize face-to-face with their friends. But adult society won't let them. "Teens aren't addicted to social media. They're addicted to each other," Boyd says. "They're not allowed to hang out the way you and I did, so they've moved it online."
It's true. As a teenager in the early '80s I could roam pretty widely with my friends, as long as we were back by dark. But over the next three decades, the media began delivering a metronomic diet of horrifying but rare child-abduction stories, and parents shortened the leash on their kids. Politicians warned of incipient waves of youth wilding and superpredators (neither of which emerged). Municipalities crafted anti-loitering laws and curfews to keep young people from congregating alone. New neighborhoods had fewer public spaces. Crime rates plummeted, but moral panic soared. Meanwhile, increased competition to get into college meant well-off parents began heavily scheduling their kids' after-school lives.
'Teens aren't addicted to social media. They're addicted to each other.'
The result, Boyd discovered, is that today's teens have neither the time nor the freedom to hang out. So their avid migration to social media is a rational response to a crazy situation. They'd rather socialize F2F, so long as it's unstructured and away from grown-ups. "I don't care where," one told Boyd wistfully, "just not home."
Forget the empathy problem—these kids crave seeing friends in person.
In fact, Boyd found that many high school students flock to football games not because they like football but because they can meet in an unstructured context. They spend the game chatting, ignoring the field and their phones. You don't need Snapchat when your friends are right beside you.
So, parents of America: The problem is you; the solution is you.
If you want your kids to learn valuable face-to-face skills, conquer your own irrational fears and give them more freedom. They want the same face-to-face intimacy you grew up with. "Stranger danger" panic is the best gift America ever gave to Facebook.
The era of Facebook is an anomaly (http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/13/5488558/danah-boyd-interview-the-era-of-facebook-is-an-anomaly)
QuoteResearcher danah boyd talks about teens, identity, and the future of digital communication
danah boyd's SXSW keynote is sold out. When it's over, a dozen fans rush the stage.
These fans aren't young groupies hoping to get a closer glimpse at their favorite rock star, but full-grown adults hoping to hear one more word from boyd. She's one of the world's sharpest authorities on how teens interact with technology, and for many, her word has become canon for understanding why teens do what they do.
The stage-rushers are e-marketers, digital strategists, and marketing gurus, but many of them are also quite likely parents. "Why are teens creating multiple identities online?" one asks. boyd looks a little exhausted. After a 30-minute talk on her new book It's Complicated (http://www.danah.org/itscomplicated/), the sum of a decade of research and over 150 interviews with teens, boyd already allowed another 30 minutes for Q & A.
But she's smiling. This isn't her first rodeo, having already made herself famous for past SXSW keynotes and years worth of scholarly papers on teen behaviors. boyd's day job is at Microsoft Research, where she helps make sure Microsoft doesn't miss the beat on privacy and social media trends. She argues that many of the challenges Microsoft faces aren't about technology, but are instead about understanding the social dynamics of how people interact today versus when Microsoft was founded.
Because to boyd, social media isn't new. It's just the latest scapegoat for America's obsession with overprotection. She took a few minutes to speak to The Verge about her new book, human nature in the age of Snapchat, and where Facebook fits in an increasingly fragmented social landscape.
In your preface you say "the kids are alright." What do you mean by that?
My frustration about how we approach young people is that we think that everything must be so much worse because of technology. The funny thing is that we've had these moral panics for every generation. Comics were ruining everybody, rock and roll was ruining everybody, MTV was ruining everybody — we've had this in many different iterations. Part of the story of the book is that by and large, the kids are alright. The reason I say "by and large" is because the kids who have been fine are still fine. Privileged kids are relatively fine. The thing that I struggle with is that because we get so obsessed with focusing on relatively healthy, relatively fine middle- and upper-class youth, we distract ourselves in ways that don't allow us to address the problems when people actually are in trouble.
Those young people make themselves visible online as well. I think about this woman whose case I got involved with. Her name was Tess, and she lived in Colorado. She and her boyfriend at the time killed her mother (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_9159224). The media coverage of this was at the height of MySpace, so the media coverage was "Girl With MySpace Kills Mother" which is always really like, "What the hell? What does this have to do with MySpace?" So I went and looked at it. People said she was a troubled kid, and that's why she was on MySpace, and that's why she killed her mother, blah blah blah. So I found her MySpace. For a year and a half she had documented abuse she faced at home, her attempts to run away, her attempts to get help, her confusion and frustration, her own mental health issues. She was a mess, and she was putting it all out there.
I was talking to a bunch of her friends and I said, "You guys saw this, why didn't you say something?" One of her best friends said, "We did, regularly. The school told us it wasn't their problem. They told us that they blocked MySpace, and they couldn't look at it. They didn't know what we were talking about."
Meanwhile, as the case unfolded, what we learned was that the school had seen her come to school with black-and-blue marks, which they reported to Social Services, but by the time Social Services would investigate they'd say there wasn't enough evidence to proceed. All this evidence was clearly documented on social media, which is really frustrating to me, because here's this young woman who's crying out for help all over social media, using this new tool, really trying to find somebody to pay attention. And nobody's around.
And this is why I struggle with these tools; they mirror and magnify the good, bad, and ugly. We use this visibility to panic rather than using it to figure out new ways of helping young people.
Is it just human nature to be skeptical of these scary new technologies?
Nothing is more nerve-racking than capitalizing on the fear of adults about their kids. That's one of the problems; we need to be resisting that culture of fear if we want to actually get anywhere. We need to step back and think about what we're doing and the consequences of our decisions. It's not like our conversations about security in this country. We can go hog wild and spend all of our resources trying to make it marginally more secure, but we will never make the world entirely secure. We will never make anything entirely safe. The question is, what is the level of resources, time, energy, money that we want to spend. There are diminishing returns on this.
We do this thing with kids where we try to keep them safe from every form of danger. Not only do we have diminishing returns in terms of time and energy, but we have unintended consequences just like we do with security, which is that we've eroded [kids'] opportunities to learn, to participate, to make sense of this world. They need this to come of age. We make it very difficult for them to be public. We make it very difficult for them to be a part of our political life. And we justify it through everything from brain science to mistakes that they've made and stupidity.
There's an increasing gap between the teenage years and the first point in which a middle- or upper-class adult has a child. It used to be that people were having children at the age of 23 or 24. By and large middle- and upper-class parents are having their first child in their 30s. You remember certain parts of your teen years, but you don't really remember.
Why have teens taken to such a great variety of apps and services to communicate with each other? Is fragmentation okay?
The era of Facebook is an anomaly. The idea of everybody going to one site is just weird. Give me one other part of history where everybody shows up to the same social space. Fragmentation is a more natural state of being. Is your social dynamic interest-driven or is it friendship-driven? Are you going there because there's this place where other folks are really into anime, or is this the place you're going because it's where your pals from school are hanging out? That first [question] is a driving function.
There was this one teen girl I talked to, a total One Direction fan. Twitter was her One Direction space. What that meant was that her friends all knew about her Twitter account, but they weren't into One Direction, so they weren't on Twitter with her. But they all were on Instagram together because that was a fun place where they were sharing photos. And what she was sharing on Instagram was not about One Direction because that just wasn't the place for it. Meanwhile, they were also doing crazy things on Tumblr, where they were part of a little maker community.
Whereas in the Facebook era, you have to balance all these audiences simultaneously. You're saying, "Are you going to get angry with me because I posted about One Direction? Are you going to think I'm lame because I'm posting this maker stuff?" Where does this fit? And I think that's a lot of the reason why when you start to fragment your audience, you start to think about what you're looking for, you'll go to different spaces, and it parallels what we do as adults. You go to different bars when you're in the mood for different things. You see different people when you want to go listen to music or when you just want to have a quiet drink with a couple of friends.
Where does Facebook fit in to the picture? Are teens actually quitting?
I don't think people are quitting Facebook. There's quitting Facebook and there's just not making it the heart and center of your passion play. I'm of an era where I grew up and the notion that "You've Got Mail" was exciting. Everything about email — we would race home after school and be like, "What's on email" and this is great. It was like little gifts from the heavens. My relationship to email is not like that these days. That doesn't mean that I've left email, but it's not a place of passion, even when awesome things like a birth announcement come in. That's awesome, but that doesn't make me love email. That makes me love my friend who just had a baby.
The weird thing about Facebook and the dynamics of it becoming a utility — which [teens] really despise — is the fact that it becomes this backdrop. It's not the place of passion. It's really valuable when you want to reach everybody, it's really valuable when you don't have somebody's cell to text them, it's really valuable when you need to contact somebody in a more formalistic structure. That social graph is still extraordinarily valuable — that has the potential to really be long-standing. With that said, Facebook could screw it up, and I wouldn't put it past them. But I think by and large they have the chance to make that work. The difference now is that they're a public company.
A public company is required to make more money for its investors, ideally on a quarterly basis. To do that it has three options: expand user bases, which is one of the reasons you start seeing investments into getting more people online, because they need more eyeballs for ads; increase more revenue per person, and we certainly see pressure on that, in terms of advertising dollars; and third is move into other arenas, basically have other places where people spend other parts of their time. This is why we see Instagram, this is why we see WhatsApp.
People seem very afraid of their kids creating different identities on different social networks. Why are teens doing this, and should their parents be concerned?
No, in fact, this is one of the weird oddities about Facebook. Let's go back to Usenet. People had multiple nicks, they had a field day with this. They would use these multiple "identities" to put forward different facets of who they were. It wasn't to say that they were trying to be separate individuals. Who you are sitting with me today in this professional role with a shared understanding of social media is different than how you talk to your mom. She may not understand the same things you and I are talking about. At the same time, if you were talking about your past, I'd have none of it and your mother would have a lot of it. This is this moment where you think about how you present yourself differently in these different contexts, not because you're hiding, but because you're putting forward what's relevant there.
The idea of real names being the thing that leads you — that's not actually what leads us in the physical space. We lead with our bodies. We adjust how we present our bodies by situation. We dress differently, we sit differently, we emote differently. The thing about having everything linked to this universal identifier as though that's real is just not real. That's not how this works.
That's one of the things that teenagers struggle with about Facebook: how to deal with multiple contexts simultaneously. Usually we address context collapse using alcohol in face-to-face environments, like at weddings. Online we don't have that, so we have to deal with a lot of awkwardness. So of course people are going to have multiple identities.
Did Snapchat invent "ephemeral" messaging? Did its success surprise you?
I had some conversations with Evan [Spiegel] early on, and I was totally cheering him on, because I had talked a lot about how persistence had become normative. I had certainly thought about ephemerality, and I'd watched a lot of teenagers doing things trying to make things ephemeral. They would use Facebook and delete things to try to make it a real-time activity. We saw worlds of chats, old-school chat, where things were by and large ephemeral.
What was beautiful about Snapchat was that it wasn't just that they were leading with ephemerality. They were demanding that this was a social norm. People say, "But you can find ways of recording it," and of course you can. That's just not a big deal. When you've got a way to record this, you've got a way to violate the social norms of what we had. It's like when I tell you something that you shouldn't tell anybody, and then you go and tell somebody my secret.
In hindsight, Snapchat's role in our lives feels logical. It's a way to share a photo, moment, or secret that won't last forever on a server somewhere. Are there are any other ways people communicate that you think haven't yet made the transition to digital?
In hindsight, everything looks obvious. One of the reasons why all of this visual stuff (like Snapchat) is coming down the line right now is because people don't want to be searchable all the time. Text is searchable. That causes its own set of dramas. We'll get to visual search, but this moment is challenging the norm, this thing that had become so assumed. In terms of scale, we have gotten to a point where you can speak to everybody, but you know not everybody is paying attention, and the people who are paying attention aren't always who you want them to be. So one of the things we're going to have to start playing with is a new model for how to negotiate privacy that isn't just an access control list.
You're talking about the friending model, and how over a long period of time that might not work. Facebook was made for college students, after all, but what should we do about the massive friends lists we've accumulated that stick with you once college is over?
I think back to this amazing service called Cobot, years ago. It was a little robot that would sit inside LambdaMOO. This is archaic internet history. Cobot was this little robot that went around and collected massive amounts of data about all of the interactions that would happen in LambdaMOO. It upset everybody that Cobot was collecting all of this stuff because it wasn't giving back to the community. So the programmers made an agreement on what they could do to make Cobot actually valuable and not just a sponge for content.
It was agreed upon that Cobot would be implemented in a way where it could answer questions about the community and about the data it collected. People said okay, so, "Who does Ellis talk to the most? Not me? What?" Drama drama drama drama. What ended up happening was that because you could ask Cobot all these questions about the community, it completely fragmented the community, because it meant that the realities of the data did not align with our artificial understandings of the social community. And this is one of those challenges that we have over and over again in these social environments, which is that we have these fictions that we hold on to that are extraordinarily valuable and that make us feel loved and a part of a community, and part of the social dynamic. It falls apart under deep inspection.
This is one of the challenges: in a Facebook world, this would be seen as lying, as deception. The idea that if you aren't being talked to the most, you should know it. Actually, no. There's a lot of ways in which social dynamics are about agreed-upon fictions, and agreed-upon fictions have value. Oral histories that are completely fabricated have value. They're what gel us together as people. The challenges of things like memory is that they're imperfect. That's part of the beauty of it.
This interview has been condensed and edited.
Klasičan autogol: devojka je u bogatoj kući čuvala decu pa se i poslužila nekim njihovim stvarima iz kuće - odećom, nakitom i tako tim predmetima kojih oni ionako imaju previše. No, u poučnom primeru kako socijalne mreže uništavaju ljudske živote na sve strane, ta ista devojka je posle tužena i izvedena na sud jer su ljudi koje je pokrala na Fejsbuku videli njene slike kako nosi ukradenu odeću :cry: :cry: :cry:
Caught on Facebook: Nanny who stole jewellery and clothes from couple tagged herself in incriminating pictures (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scary-poppins--nanny-stole-jewellery-and-clothes-from-couple-and-posted-pictures-on-facebook-151101785.html#TdbFcO4)
Lajkovao! 633
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FymhvpmX.jpg&hash=ae17488cb2f6f970412ab07f5a7fdf7c1863420a)
Fejsbukovo insistiranje na tome da treba da koristite svoje pravo ime je slatko, pogotovo jer je u pitanju privatna firma koja ima prilično nekonzistentne kriterijume za to kako prepoznaju kad neko ne koristi pravo ime. Recimo, neka poznanica moje žene, Holanđanka se preziva Debest i Fejsbuk joj je u nekom trenutku zaključao profil jer je neki tamo algoritam, a posle njega možda i čovek zaključio da je u pitanju očigledan pseudonim. Da ovo nije samo zabavna anegdota iz lične sfere svedoči i sledeća Wiredova reportaža:
Help, I'm Trapped in Facebook's Absurd Pseudonym Purgatory (http://www.wired.com/2015/06/facebook-real-name-policy-problems/)
Da bi se videle razmere libertarijanske drskosti, pogledajmo koliko recimo fejsbuk godišnje plati poreza u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu.
Na primer, u 2013. godini nisu platili ništa jer nisu imali nikakav prihod, a u 2014. godini su skočili na respektabilnih 4327 funti. :lol: Istovremeno, podelili su bukvalno milione zaposlenima u vidu bonusa.
Facebook paid £4,327 corporation tax despite £35m staff bonuses (http://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/oct/11/facebook-paid-4327-corporation-tax-despite-35-million-staff-bonuses)
QuoteSocial networking firm paid average of £210,000 to staff in Britain, but overall loss in UK of £28.5m meant very little corporation tax was due
Staff at Facebook's UK arm took home an average of more than £210,000 last year in pay and bonuses, while their employer paid just £4,327 in corporation tax.
Facebook made an accounting loss of £28.5m in Britain in 2014, after paying out more than £35m to its 362 staff in a share bonus scheme, according to the unit's latest published accounts. Operating at a loss meant that Facebook (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/facebook) was able to pay less than £5,000 in corporation tax to HM Revenue for the year.
The share scheme was worth an average of more than £96,000 for each member of staff. Once salaries were taken into account, a British employee of Facebook received more than £210,000 on average.
The level of tax contribution by Facebook, which claimed in 2013 (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/14/facebook-users-smartphone-tablet) that at least a third of UK adults visited its site every day, will add to the debate about how to ensure that multinationals make fair tax payments in each country in which they operate. Last year, Facebook made a profit on its worldwide operations of $2.9bn (£1.9bn), on revenue of $12.5bn. UK revenues were £105m last year.
John Christensen, the director of campaign group the Tax Justice Network (http://www.taxjustice.net/), said: "it's very likely they're using all the usual techniques to shift profits around."
A spokesperson for Facebook said: "We are compliant with UK tax law, and in fact in all countries where we have operations and offices. We continue to grow our business activities in the UK". She added that all the firm's employees paid UK income tax on their payouts.
Facebook recently secured the lease on a high-profile 227,324 sq ft office space in Rathbone Square, near Tottenham Court Road in London, where it plans to open a new headquarters (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/11/facebook-move-uk-headquarters-london) in 2017.
George Osborne, the chancellor, has pledged to crack down on tax avoidance by global firms by swiftly legislating to enact a new set of rules drafted by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which has become a hub for global tax reform in recent years.
The so-called BEPS rules (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/05/oecd-hopes-reforms-will-end-era-of-aggressive-tax-avoidance) are aimed at cracking down on "base erosion and profit-shifting": the practices used by many global firms to minimise their tax liabilities by recording profits in low-tax jurisdictions.
The chancellor has repeatedly cut corporation tax, which is levied on company profits, but he insists that in exchange all firms must pay their fair share to the exchequer. The main corporation tax rate was 28% when Osborne arrived at the Treasury, and is 21% today.
"Taxes should be paid where profits are made," Osborne tweeted from the International Monetary Fund's annual meetings last week. "Great to see OECD BEPS rules agreed here in Lima. UK will lead by example and implement early".
Separately, the chancellor has introduced a diverted profits tax, known as the "Google tax", aimed at preventing hi-tech international firms from minimising their tax liabilities in the UK. Christensen said these developments were likely to have an impact on multinationals such as Facebook. "They will have to change their model. The Google tax will probably close off some opportunities, and the BEPS rules are certainly moving in the right direction."
However, he criticised the fact that while the new framework will force firms to reveal to the authorities in their home country how much tax they pay in each jurisdiction in which they operate, that information will not be more widely available for public scrutiny.
The social and economic power of Facebook and its fellow Silicon Valley technology firms has come under increasing scrutiny in recent months.
Last week, the European court of justice struck down the 15 year old "safe harbour" pact (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice), under which US-based companies were allowed to hold the data of European citizens. Fears about US surveillance activities, as revealed by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, have intensified concerns about the role of Facebook and other social media platforms in safeguarding their users' privacy.
Max Schrems, the Austrian privacy activist who brought the case, described it as a "puzzle piece in the fight against mass surveillance, and a huge blow to tech companies who think they can act in total ignorance of the law".
sta li ce tek smisliti da ne zaostanu za najnovijim tw-potezom. :roll:
Twitters neuer Chef will den ehemaligen Liebling der Investoren verschlanken und feuert erstmals Mitarbeiter im großen Stil. (http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/it-medien/wachstum-um-jeden-preis-twitter-zieht-die-notbremse/12447326.html)
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Confirms Layoffs With Tweet (http://www.wired.com/2015/10/twitter-layoffs/)
Ova đubretarska CIA-ina ispostava od socijalne mreže traži mi da aploadujem sken svoje lične karte kako bi mi dozvolila pristup profilu. Nikada. Smrt fejsbuku. Bolna.
Huh? Koji treš, jel to realno? Ja nisam napravila profil, i ne verujem da cu. Sta je sledece, dnk, test krvi? Fak of bre.
Već drugi put. Prvi put su mi tražili da promenim ime da bi mi otključali profil, sada traže sken lične karte. Tamo sam pod pravim imenom i lažnim prezimenom. Uz poruku: fejsbuk ne dozvoljava lažne profile, pročitajte naš policy.
Hm, ja tamo imam prijatelje iz celog sveta i profil mi je dosta vredan. Čim uspem da se dočepam svog profila, uzeću sve njihove kontakte i gasim profil. Dosta je bilo. Smeće bilo, smeće ostalo.
Samo kažem. Da znate.
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2F8zit80.png&hash=82ddbaae242446b39386baecf57c62b2eb610dd0)
neko te ocinkao od kolega
kliknuo da ti je lazno ime
ma sta se smaras, posalji im neki sken pero zdero lajk, a da sadrzi i tvoje ime, i sretni.
Quote from: zosko on 11-11-2015, 23:54:59
ma sta se smaras, posalji im neki sken pero zdero lajk, a da sadrzi i tvoje ime, i sretni.
Ja ne želim profil pod svojim pravim imenom. Zato ću da ga ugasim...
LinkedIn je ozbiljna varijanta za poslovne kontakte, mada i tamo se obično ostavi pravo ime, samim tim što je to ozbiljno mesto.
Sta hoce, da sprece zloupotrebe, Bili Ciku i ostale, npr? :roll:
Quote from: Dybuk on 12-11-2015, 00:25:17
Sta hoce, da sprece zloupotrebe, Bili Ciku i ostale, npr? :roll:
Hoće da CIA ima tvoje kontakte, prijatelje, fotografije, puteve kretanja, preferencije i interesovanja.
Imaju ih i ovako, gugl i telefon odlicno znaju gde si u svakom trenutku.
upravo citam, u nj netko potegnuo sve do administrativnog suda koji potvrdio fb-ov stav. real name. bah.
To ako imaš smart telefon i koristiš Google:)
To je prevelika količina informacija. Nesumnjivo koriste i telefone i Google, ali Fejsbuk je specifičan i široko korišćen i otkriva veze koje telef. i Gugl ne vide.
Realno, FB ima pravo da traži pravo ime (diskutabilno je da li ima pravo da traži i sken lične karte). Zato me tamo više nema. I trebalo je odavno da ugasim profil, ali je tako bilo najlakše održavati kontakte sa prijateljima iz sveta (ovi iz zemlje su lakši za održavanje).
How Mark Zuckerberg's Altruism Helps Himself (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/business/dealbook/how-mark-zuckerbergs-altruism-helps-himself.html?_r=0)
Quote
Mark Zuckerberg (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/z/mark_e_zuckerberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per) did not donate $45 billion to charity. You may have heard that, but that was wrong.
Here's what happened instead: Mr. Zuckerberg created an investment vehicle.
Sorry for the slightly less sexy headline.
Mr. Zuckerberg is a co-founder of Facebook (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/facebook_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and a youthful megabillionaire. In announcing the birth of his daughter, he and his wife, Priscilla Chan, declared they would donate 99 percent of their worth, the vast majority of which is tied up in Facebook (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/facebook_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org) stock valued at $45 billion today.
In doing so, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan did not set up a charitable foundation, which has nonprofit status. He created a limited liability company (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/technology/zuckerbergs-philanthropy-uses-llc-for-more-control.html), one that has already reaped enormous benefits as public relations coup for himself. His P.R. return-on-investment dwarfs that of his Facebook stock. Mr. Zuckerberg was depicted in breathless, glowing terms for having, in essence, moved money from one pocket to the other.
An L.L.C. can invest in for-profit companies (perhaps these will be characterized as societally responsible companies, but lots of companies claim the mantle of societal responsibility). An L.L.C. can make political donations. It can lobby for changes in the law. He remains completely free to do as he wishes with his money. That's what America is all about. But as a society, we don't generally call these types of activities "charity."
What's more, a charitable foundation is subject to rules and oversight. It has to allocate a certain percentage of its assets every year. The new Zuckerberg L.L.C. won't be subject to those rules and won't have any transparency requirements.
In covering the event, many commentators praised the size and percentage of the gift and pointed out that Mr. Zuckerberg is relatively young to be planning to give his wealth away. "Mark Zuckerberg Philanthropy Pledge Sets New Giving Standard (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/zuckerberg-to-give-99-of-facebook-stock-away-during-lifetime)," Bloomberg glowed. The New York Times ran an article on the front page (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/technology/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-charity.html). Few news outlets initially considered the tax implications of Mr. Zuckerberg's plan. A Wall Street Journal article (http://www.wsj.com/articles/mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan-to-give-99-of-facebook-stock-to-philanthropy-1449005878) didn't mention taxes at all.
Nor did they grapple with the societal implications of the would-be donations.
So what are the tax implications? They are quite generous to Mr. Zuckerberg. I asked Victor Fleischer, a law professor and tax specialist at the University of San Diego School of Law, as well as a contributor to DealBook. He explained that if the L.L.C. sold stock, Mr. Zuckerberg would pay a hefty capital gains tax, particularly if Facebook stock kept climbing.
If the L.L.C. donated to a charity, he would get a deduction just like anyone else. That's a nice little bonus. But the L.L.C. probably won't do that because it can do better. The savvier move, Professor Fleischer explained, would be to have the L.L.C. donate the appreciated shares to charity, which would generate a deduction at fair market value of the stock without triggering any tax.
Mr. Zuckerberg didn't create these tax laws and cannot be criticized for minimizing his tax bills. If he had created a foundation, he would have accrued similar tax benefits. But what this means is that he amassed one of the greatest fortunes in the world — and is likely never to pay any taxes on it. Anytime a superwealthy plutocrat makes a charitable donation, the public ought to be reminded that this is how our tax system works. The superwealthy buy great public relations and adulation for donations that minimize their taxes. Advertisement
Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/business/dealbook/how-mark-zuckerbergs-altruism-helps-himself.html?_r=0#story-continues-8) Advertisement
Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/business/dealbook/how-mark-zuckerbergs-altruism-helps-himself.html?_r=0#story-continues-8) Instead of lavishing praise on Mr. Zuckerberg for having issued a news release with a promise, this should be an occasion to mull what kind of society we want to live in. Who should fund our general societal needs and how? Charities rarely fund quotidian yet vital needs (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/11/27/are-charities-more-effective-than-government/vital-needs-dont-always-attract-donations). What would $40 billion mean for job creation or infrastructure spending? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a budget of about $7 billion. Maybe more should go to that. Society, through its elected members, taxes its members. Then the elected officials decide what to do with sums of money.
In this case, it is different. One person will be making these decisions.
Of course, nobody thinks our government representatives do a good job of allocating resources. Politicians — a bunch of bums! Maybe Mr. Zuckerberg will make wonderful decisions, ones I would personally be happy with. Maybe not. He blew his $100 million donation (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/19/schooled) to the Newark school system, as Dale Russakoff detailed in her recent book (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/books/review/the-prize-by-dale-russakoff.html), "The Prize: Who's in Charge of America's Schools?" Mr. Zuckerberg has said he has learned from his mistakes. We don't know whether that's true because he hasn't made any decisions with the money he plans to put into his investment vehicle.
But I think I might do a good job allocating $45 billion. Maybe even better than Mr. Zuckerberg. I am self-aware enough to realize many people would disagree with my choices. Those who like how Mr. Zuckerberg is lavishing his funds might not like how the Koch brothers do so. Or George Soros.
Mega-donations, assuming Mr. Zuckerberg makes good on his pledge, are explicit acknowledgments that the money should be plowed back into society. They are tacit acknowledgments that no one could ever possibly spend $45 billion on himself or his family, and that the money isn't really "his," in a fundamental sense. Because that is the case, society can't rely on the beneficence and enlightenment of the superwealthy to realize this individually. We need to take a portion uniformly — some kind of tax on wealth.
The point is that we are turning into a society of oligarchs. And I am not as excited as some to welcome the new Silicon Valley overlords (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lcUHQYhPTE).
Get rich or die vlogging: The sad economics of internet fame (http://fusion.net/story/244545/famous-and-broke-on-youtube-instagram-social-media)
Is the Internet fueling social change or giving license to engage in lazy activism? (https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/2240/is-the-internet-fueling-social-change-or-offering-a-license-to-e/)
Iran's blogfather: Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are killing the web (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/29/irans-blogfather-facebook-instagram-and-twitter-are-killing-the-web)
Quote
Late in 2014, I was abruptly pardoned and freed from Evin prison (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30136003) in northern Tehran. In November 2008, I had been sentenced to nearly 20 years in jail, mostly over my web activities, and thought I would end up spending most of my life in those cells. So the moment, when it came, was unexpected. I was sharing a cup of tea when the voice of the floor announcer – another prisoner – filled all the rooms and corridors: "Dear fellow inmates, the bird of luck has once again sat on one fellow inmate's shoulders. Mr Hossein Derakhshan, as of this moment, you are free."
Outside, everything felt new: the chill autumn breeze, the traffic noise from a nearby bridge, the smell, the colours of the city I had lived in most of my life. Around me, I noticed a very different Tehran from the one I had been used to. An influx of new, shamelessly luxurious condos had replaced the charming little houses I was familiar with. New roads, new highways, hordes of invasive SUVs. Large billboards with advertisements for Swiss-made watches and Korean TVs. Women in colourful scarves and manteaus, men with dyed hair and beards, and hundreds of charming cafes with hip western music and female staff. They were the kind of changes that creep up on people; the kind you only really notice once normal life gets taken away from you.
Two weeks later, I began writing again. Some friends agreed to let me start a blog as part of their arts magazine. I called it Ketabkhan (http://tarjomaan.com/) – it means book-reader in Persian.
Six years was a long time to be in jail, but it is an entire era online. Writing on the internet had not changed, but reading – or, at least, getting things read – had altered dramatically. I'd been told how essential social networks had become, so I tried to post a link to one of my stories on Facebook. It turned out Facebook (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/facebook) didn't care much. It ended up looking like a boring classified ad. No description. No image. Nothing. It got three likes. Three! That was it.
It became clear to me, right there, that things had changed. I was not equipped to play on this new turf — all my investment and effort had burned up. I was devastated.
Blogs were gold and bloggers were rock stars back in 2008 when I was arrested. At that point, and despite the fact the state was blocking access to my blog (https://web.archive.org/web/20081030105806/http://i.hoder.com/) from inside Iran, I had an audience of around 20,000 people every day. People used to carefully read my posts and leave lots of relevant comments, even those who hated my guts. I could empower or embarrass anyone I wanted. I felt like a monarch.
The iPhone was a little over a year old, but smartphones were still mostly used to make phone calls and send short messages, handle emails, and surf the web. There were no real apps, certainly not how we think of them today. There was no Instagram, no SnapChat, WhatsApp. Instead, there was the web, and on the web, there were blogs: the best place to find alternative thoughts, news and analysis. They were my life.
It had all started with 9/11. I was in Toronto, and my father had just arrived from Tehran for a visit. We were having breakfast when the second plane hit the World Trade Center. I was puzzled and confused and, looking for insights and explanations, I came across blogs. Once I read a few, I thought: this is it, I should start one, and encourage all Iranians to start blogging as well. So, using Notepad on Windows, I started experimenting. Soon I was writing on hoder.com (https://web.archive.org/web/20020613100521/http://hoder.com/i/default.asp), using Blogger's publishing platform before Google bought it.
Then, on 5 November 2001, I published a step-by-step guide (https://web.archive.org/web/20030401200358/http://i.hoder.com/index.php?sec=guide) on how to start a blog. That sparked something that was later called a blogging revolution: soon, hundreds and thousands of Iranians made it one of the top five nations by the number of blogs. I used to keep a list of all blogs in Persian and, for a while, I was the first person any new blogger in Iran would contact, so they could get on the list. That's why they called me "the blogfather (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hoder/1878402927/)" in my mid-20s – it was a silly nickname, but at least it hinted at how much I cared.
The Iranian blogosphere was a diverse crowd – from exiled authors and journalists, female diarists, and technology experts, to local journalists, politicians, clerics, and war veterans . But you can never have too much diversity. I encouraged conservatives inside Iran to join and share their thoughts. I had left the country in late 2000 to experience living in the west, and was scared that I was missing all the rapidly emerging trends at home. But reading Iranian blogs in Toronto was the closest experience I could have to sitting in a shared taxi in Tehran (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOAOxsHVTYk) and listening to collective conversations between the talkative driver and random passengers.
There's a story in the Qur'an that I thought about a lot during my first eight months in solitary confinement. In it, a group of persecuted Christians find refuge in a cave. They, and a dog they have with them, fall into a deep sleep and wake up under the impression that they have taken a nap: in fact, it's 300 years later. One version of the story tells of how one of them goes out to buy food – and I can only imagine how hungry they must have been after 300 years – and discovers that his money is obsolete now, a museum item. That's when he realises how long they have been absent.
The hyperlink was my currency six years ago. It represented the open, interconnected spirit of the world wide web – a vision that started with its inventor, Tim Berners-Lee (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/18/tim-berners-lee-google-facebook). The hyperlink was a way to abandon centralisation – all the links, lines and hierarchies – and replace them with something more distributed, a system of nodes and networks. Since I got out of jail, though, I've realised how much the hyperlink has been devalued, almost made obsolete.
Nearly every social network now treats a link as just the same as it treats any other object – the same as a photo, or a piece of text. You're encouraged to post one single hyperlink and expose it to a quasi-democratic process of liking and plussing and hearting. But links are not objects, they are relations between objects. This objectivisation has stripped hyperlinks of their immense powers.
At the same time, these social networks tend to treat native text and pictures – things that are directly posted to them – with a lot more respect. One photographer friend explained to me how the images he uploads directly to Facebook receive many more likes than when he uploads them elsewhere and shares the link on Facebook.
Some networks, like Twitter, treat hyperlinks a little better. Others are far more paranoid. Instagram – owned by Facebook – doesn't allow its audiences to leave whatsoever. You can put up a web address alongside your photos, but it won't go anywhere. Lots of people start their daily online routine in these cul-de-sacs of social media, and their journeys end there. Many don't even realise (http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/) they are using the internet's infrastructure when they like an Instagram photograph or leave a comment on a friend's Facebook video. It's just an app.
But hyperlinks aren't just the skeleton of the web: they are its eyes, a path to its soul. And a blind webpage, one without hyperlinks, can't look or gaze at another webpage – and this has serious consequences for the dynamics of power on the web.
More or less all theorists have thought of gaze in relation to power, and mostly in a negative sense: the gazer strips the gazed and turns her into a powerless object, devoid of intelligence or agency. But in the world of webpages, gaze functions differently: it is more empowering. When a powerful website – say Google or Facebook – gazes at, or links to, another webpage, it doesn't just connect it , it brings it into existence; gives it life. Without this empowering gaze, your web page doesn't breathe. No matter how many links you have placed in a webpage, unless somebody is looking at it, it is actually both dead and blind, and therefore incapable of transferring power to any outside web page.
Apps like Instagram are blind, or almost blind. Their gaze goes inwards, reluctant to transfer any of their vast powers to others, leading them into quiet deaths. The consequence is that web pages outside social media are dying.
Even before I went to jail, though, the power of hyperlinks was being curbed. Its biggest enemy was a philosophy (http://www.academia.edu/5605971/Internet_Stoning_Power_resistance_and_the_subaltern_on_web_discourses) that combined two of the most dominant, and most overrated, values of our times: newness and popularity. (Isn't this embodied these days by the real-world dominance of young celebrities?) That philosophy is the stream (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/2013-the-year-the-stream-crested/282202/). The stream now dominates the way people receive information on the web. Fewer users are directly checking dedicated webpages, instead getting fed by a never-ending flow of information that's picked for them by complex and secretive algorithms.
The stream means you don't need to open so many websites any more. You don't need numerous tabs. You don't even need a web browser. You open the Facebook app on your smartphone and dive in. The mountain has come to you. Algorithms have picked everything for you. According to what you or your friends have read or seen before, they predict what you might like to see. It feels great not to waste time in finding interesting things on so many websites. But what are we exchanging for efficiency?
In many apps, the votes we cast – the likes, the plusses, the stars, the hearts – are actually more related to cute avatars and celebrity status than to the substance of what's posted. A most brilliant paragraph by some ordinary-looking person can be left outside the stream, while the silly ramblings of a celebrity gain instant internet presence. And not only do the algorithms behind the stream equate newness and popularity with importance, they also tend to show us more of what we have already liked. These services carefully scan our behaviour and delicately tailor our news feeds with posts, pictures and videos that they think we would most likely want to see.
Popularity is not wrong in and of itself, but it has its own perils. In a free-market economy, low-quality goods with the wrong prices are doomed to failure. Nobody gets upset when a quiet Hackney cafe with bad lattes and rude servers goes out of business. But political or religious opinions are not the same as material goods or services. They won't disappear if they are unpopular or even wrong. In fact, history has proven that most big ideas (and many bad ones) have been quite unpopular for a long time, and their marginal status has only strengthened them. Minority views are radicalised when they can't be heard or engaged with. That's how Isis is recruiting and growing. The stream suppresses other types of unconventional ideas too, with its reliance on our habits.
Today the stream is digital media's dominant form of organising information. It's in every social network and mobile application. Since I gained my freedom, everywhere I turn I see the stream. I guess it won't be too long before we see news websites organise their entire content based on the same principles. The prominence of the stream today doesn't just make vast chunks of the internet biased against quality – it also means a deep betrayal to the diversity that the world wide web had originally envisioned.
The centralisation of information also worries me because it makes it easier for things to disappear. After my arrest, my hosting service closed my account, because I wasn't able to pay its monthly fee. But at least I had a backup of all my posts in a database on my own web server. But what if my account on Facebook or Twitter is shut down for any reason? Those services themselves may not die any time soon, but it is not too difficult to imagine a day when many American services shut down the accounts of anyone from Iran (http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran), as a result of the current regime of sanctions. If that happened, I might be able to download my posts in some of them, and let's assume the backup can be easily imported into another platform. But what about the unique web address for my social network profile? Would I be able to claim it back later, after somebody else has possessed it?
But the scariest outcome of the centralisation of information in the age of social networks is something else: it is making us all much less powerful in relation to governments and corporations. Surveillance is increasingly imposed on civilised lives, and it gets worse as time goes by. The only way to stay outside of this vast apparatus of surveillance might be to go into a cave and sleep, even if you can't make it 300 years.
Ironically enough, states that cooperate with Facebook and Twitter know much more about their citizens than those, like Iran, where the state has a tight grip on the internet but does not have legal access to social media companies. What is more frightening than being merely watched, though, is being controlled. When Facebook can know us better than our parents with only 150 likes (http://www.pnas.org/content/112/4/1036.full.pdf), and better than our spouses with 300 likes, the world appears quite predictable, both for governments and for businesses. And predictability means control.
Middle-class Iranians, like most people in the world, are obsessed with new trends. Since 2014 the hype is all about Instagram. There's less and less text on social networks, and more and more video, more and more images, still or moving, to watch. Are we witnessing a decline of reading on the web in favour of watching and listening? The web started out by imitating books and for many years, it was heavily dominated by text, by hypertext. Search engines such as Google put huge value on these things, and entire companies – entire monopolies – were built off the back of them. But as the number of image scanners and digital photos and video cameras grows exponentially, this seems to be changing. Search tools are starting to add advanced image recognition algorithms; advertising money is flowing there.
The stream, mobile applications, and moving images all show a departure from a books-internet toward a television-internet. We seem to have gone from a non-linear mode of communication – nodes and networks and links – toward one that is linear, passive, programmed and inward-looking.
When I log on to Facebook, my personal television starts. All I need to do is to scroll: New profile pictures by friends, short bits of opinion on current affairs, links to new stories with short captions, advertising, and of course self-playing videos. I occasionally click on the like or share button, read peoples' comments or leave one, or open an article. But I remain inside Facebook, and it continues to broadcast what I might like. This is not the web I knew when I went to jail. This is not the future of the web. This future is television.
Soon the internet will be a collection of mobile apps rather than of websites. And the money these apps generate will be out of monthly subscription, instead of advertising – something like cable television with its various theme-based packages, and its primetime. (Already if you want to post anything to a social network, you have to do it early morning or late night, when most people are using the app.)
Sometimes I think maybe I'm becoming too strict as I age. Maybe this is all a natural evolution of a technology. But I can't close my eyes to what's happening: a loss of intellectual power and diversity. In the past, the web was powerful and serious enough to land me in jail. Today it feels like little more than entertainment. So much that even Iran doesn't take some – Instagram, for instance – serious enough to block.
I miss when people took time to be exposed to opinions other than their own, and bothered to read more than a paragraph or 140 characters. I miss the days when I could write something on my own blog, publish on my own domain, without taking an equal time to promote it on numerous social networks; when nobody cared about likes and reshares, and best time to post.
That's the web I remember before jail. That's the web we have to save.
• Hossein Derakhshan (@h0d3r (https://twitter.com/h0d3r?lang=en)) is a Tehran-based author. He is currently working on an art project called Link-age (http://newmediasoc.com/projects/link-age/) to promote hyperlinks and the open web.
How the Internet changed the way we read (http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/how-internet-changed-way-we-read/)
Quote
As a professor of literature, rhetoric, and writing at the University of California at Irvine, I've discovered that one of the biggest lies about American culture (propagated even by college students) is that Americans don't read.
The truth is that most of us read continuously in a perpetual stream of incestuous words, but instead of reading novels, book reviews, or newspapers like we used to in the ancien régime, we now read text messages, social media, and bite-sized entries about our protean cultural history on Wikipedia.
In the great epistemic galaxy of words, we have become both reading junkies and also professional text skimmers. Reading has become a clumsy science, which is why we keep fudging the lab results. But in diagnosing our own textual attention deficit disorder (ADD), who can blame us for skimming? We're inundated by so much opinion posing as information, much of it the same material with permutating and exponential commentary. Skimming is practically a defense mechanism against the avalanche of info-opinion that has collectively hijacked narrative, reportage, and good analysis.
We now skim everything it seems to find evidence for our own belief system. We read to comment on reality (Read: to prove our own belief system). Reading has become a relentless exercise in self-validation, which is why we get impatient when writers don't come out and simply tell us what they're arguing. Which reminds me: What the hell am I arguing? With the advent of microblogging platforms, Twitter activism, self-publishing companies, professional trolling, everyone has a microphone now and yet no one actually listens to each other any more. And this is literally because we're too busy reading. And when we leave comments on an online article, it's usually an argument we already agree with or one we completely reject before we've read the first paragraph. In the age of hyper-information, it's practically impossible not to be blinded by our own confirmation bias. It's hard not to be infatuated with Twitter shitstorms either, especially when we're not the target practice.
E-novels (http://www.dailydot.com/tags/e-books/), once the theater of the mind for experimental writers, are now mainstream things that look like long-winded websites. Their chapters bleed into the same cultural space on our screen as grocery lists, weather forecasts, calendar reminders, and email messages. What's the real difference between reading a blog post online by an eloquent blowhard and reading one chapter of a Jonathan Franzen novel? (http://www.dailydot.com/tags/books/) We can literally swipe from one text to another on our Kindle without realizing we changed platforms. What's the real difference between skimming an informed political critique on a political junkie Tumblr (http://www.dailydot.com/tags/tumblr/) account and reading a focused tirade on the Washington Post's blog written by putative experts?
That same blog post will get reposted on other news sites and the same news article will get reposted on other blogs interchangeably. Content—whether thought-provoking, regurgitated, or analytically superficial, impeccably-researched, politically doctrinaire, or grammatically atrocious—now occupies the same cultural space, the same screen space, and the same mental space in the public imagination. After awhile, we just stop keeping track of what's legitimately good because it takes too much energy to separate the crème from the foam.
As NPR digitizes itself in the 21st century, buries the "R" in its name, and translates its obsolete podcasts into online news features, every one of its articles now bleeds with its comment section, much of it written by posters who haven't even read the article in question—essentially erasing the dividing lines between expert, echo chamber, and dilettante, journalist, hack, and self-promoter, reportage, character assassination, and mob frenzy.
One silver lining is that the technological democratization of social media has effectively deconstructed the one-sided power of the Big Bad Media in general and influential writing in particular, which in theory makes this era freer and more decentralized than ever. One downside to technological democratization is that it hasn't lead to a thriving marketplace of ideas, but a greater retreat into the Platonic cave of self-identification with the shadow world. We have never needed a safer and quieter place to collect our thoughts from the collective din of couch quarterbacking than we do now, which is why it's so easy to preemptively categorize the articles we read before we actually read them to save ourselves the heartache and the controversy.
The abundance of texts in this zeitgeist creates a tunnel effect of amnesia. We now have access to so much information that we actually forget the specific nuances of what we read, where we read them, and who wrote them. We forget what's available all the time because we live in an age of hyperabundant textuality. Now, when we're lost, we're just one click away from the answer. Even the line separating what we know and what we don't know is blurry.
It is precisely because we now consume writing from the moment we wake until the moment we crash—most of it mundane, redundant, speculative, badly researched, partisan, and emojian—that we no longer have the same appetite (or time) for literary fiction, serious think pieces, or top-shelf journalism anymore, even though they're all readily available. If an article on the Daily Dot shows up on page 3 of a Google search, it might as well not exist at all. The New York Times article we half-read on our iPhone while standing up in the Los Angeles Metro ends up blurring with the 500 modified retweets about that same article on Twitter. Authors aren't privileged anymore because everyone writes commentary somewhere and everyone's commentary shows up some place. Only the platform and the means of production have changed.
Someday, the Centers for Disease Control will create a whole new branch of research dedicated to studying the infectious disease of cultural memes. Our continuous consumption of text is intricately linked to our continuous forgetting, our continuous reinfection, and our continuous thumbs up/thumbs down approach to reality, which is why we keep reading late into the night, looking for the next place to leave a comment someone has already made somewhere. Whether we like it or not, we're all victims and perpetrators of this commentary fractal. There seems to be no way out except deeper inside the sinkhole or to go cold turkey from the sound of our own voices.
Jackson Bliss (http://www.jacksonbliss.com/) is a hapa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapa) fiction writer and a lecturer in the English department (http://comp.humanities.uci.edu/lecturers/) at the University of California Irvine. He has a BA in comp lit from Oberlin College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberlin_College) , a MFA in fiction from the University of Notre Dame (http://english.nd.edu/creative-writing/mfa-curriculum/), and a MA in English and a Ph.D. in Literature and Creative Writing from USC (http://dornsife.usc.edu/cwphd/program/). His short stories and essays have appeared in many publications.
Ovaj Džekson Blis namerno bira reči koje me teraju da ga čitam dijagonalno. Sama je to tražila...
Whoa. Dakle, twitter će postati... ružniji fejsbuk? Imejl sa reply all funkcijom osposobljenom po difoltu?
Twitter Considering 10,000-Character Limit for Tweets (http://recode.net/2016/01/05/twitter-considering-10000-character-limit-for-tweets/)
Quote
Longer tweets are coming soon to Twitter.
Twitter is building a new feature that will allow users to tweet things longer than the traditional 140-character limit, and the company is targeting a launch date toward the end of Q1, according to multiple sources familiar with the company's plans. Twitter is currently considering a 10,000 character limit, according to these sources. That's the same character limit the company uses for its Direct Messages product (http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/12/9134175/twitter-direct-message-character-limit), so it isn't a complete surprise.
There is no official launch date set in stone, these sources say. It's also possible the character limit could fluctuate before it rolls out the final product, which people inside Twitter refer to as "Beyond 140." Re/code first reported (http://recode.net/2015/09/29/twitter-plans-to-go-beyond-its-140-character-limit/) that Twitter was building a product like this back in September. A Twitter spokesperson declined to comment.
Twitter is currently testing a version of the product in which tweets appear the same way they do now, displaying just 140 characters, with some kind of call to action that there is more content you can't see. Clicking on the tweets would then expand them to reveal more content. The point of this is to keep the same look and feel for your timeline, although this design is not necessarily final, sources say.
The design aspect is key. Making Tweets bigger by adding more content or bigger pictures has diminished user engagement in the past, according to one source. That makes sense. If tweets take a long time to consume or take up more space on your screen, it's likely that you'll view (and engage with) fewer of them. So Twitter is trying to add more content without disrupting the way you currently scroll through your timeline.
It's hard to tell if changing the character limit will make much of a difference for Twitter. CEO Jack Dorsey has been looking for ways to jumpstart user growth for some time, and the company has thrown a number of product updates at users (including new event summaries called Moments (http://recode.net/2015/10/06/twitters-next-hail-mary-project-lightning-has-arrived/)) to make this happen. None of it seems to be working, and giving users more real estate to share their thoughts may not be the answer.
Still, it's an important update in what it represents: A willingness to change one of Twitter's most established product features. The 140-character limit has been around as long as Twitter has; it's part of the product's personality. Expanding the limit is a sign that Twitter and Jack Dorsey are willing to make serious changes in hopes of luring new users. Twitter is also tinkering with the idea of changing its reverse chronological timeline (http://recode.net/2015/12/08/twitter-is-testing-a-new-order-for-tweets/) — another core Twitter feature.
With regards to expanded tweets, Twitter is also working out a plan for how to deal with potential spamming issues that might arise with an expanded character count, according to sources. It's unknown, for example, if Twitter will restrict how many users can be mentioned in a single tweet, but the company is apparently thinking through those scenarios. Twitter plans to talk with some of its analytics and measurement partners to prepare them to handle longer tweets beginning later this month, sources say.
mehane,
ne širi dezinformacije na sabahu
http://gizmodo.com/everybody-shut-up-about-the-fake-10-000-character-limit-1751191899 (http://gizmodo.com/everybody-shut-up-about-the-fake-10-000-character-limit-1751191899)
a i ako se desi da bude više od 140, svi koji pređu limit biće blokirani :lol:
http://www.commitstrip.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Strip-Jack-Dorsey-english650-final.jpg (http://www.commitstrip.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Strip-Jack-Dorsey-english650-final.jpg)
Internet Yields Uneven Dividends and May Widen Inequality, Report Says (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/world/asia/internet-yields-uneven-dividends-and-may-widen-inequality-report-says.html?_r=0)
Quote
UNITED NATIONS — Can the Internet save the world?
In some places, it has helped curb corruption, encouraged more girls to go to school and enabled citizens to monitor election violence.
But according to a report issued Wednesday by the World Bank (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/w/world_bank/index.html?inline=nyt-org), the vast changes wrought by technology have not expanded economic opportunities or improved access to basic public services in ways that many had expected. Rather, the report warned darkly, Internet innovations stand to widen inequalities and even hasten the hollowing out of middle-class employment.
"Digital technologies are spreading rapidly, but digital dividends — growth, jobs and services — have lagged behind," the bank said in a news release announcing the report.
Those who are already well-off and well-educated have been able to take advantage of the Internet economy, the report concluded pointedly, and despite the expansion of Internet access, 60 percent of humanity remains offline.
China (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/china/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) has the largest number of Internet users, followed by the United States and India, according to the report.
The bank's findings come at a time when the technology industry — which sometimes tends to see itself as the solver of the world's greatest problems — has been rushing to expand Internet access through a variety of new means. Google, through its Project Loon, aims to use a constellation of balloons to beam down wireless signals to places that lack connectivity. Facebook has offered a limited sphere of the World Wide Web for users in some developing countries — and in turn, has come under intense criticism, especially in India (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/indian-regulators-suspend-facebooks-free-basic-services/).
"Countries that are investing in both digital technology and its analog complements will reap significant dividends, while others are likely to fall behind" the report added. "Technology without a strong foundation risks creating divergent economic fortunes, higher inequality and an intrusive state."
How a society takes advantage of information technology depends on what kind of a society it is, the report concluded.
Women are discouraged from going online in some countries, the report found, and across the countries of South Asia, they were far less likely to own a mobile phone. Those who are illiterate — still 20 percent of the world's population — cannot take advantage of the Internet at all; and in the developing world, the technology industry employs barely 1 percent of the work force. In rich countries, technology employs 3 to 5 percent of the work force, still a small fraction of total employment.
According to the bank's survey, more than half of all countries had privacy laws on the books, but only 51 of them were in the developing world.
The bank, which says it has itself invested $12.6 billion in information technology projects, calls on countries to make the Internet "universal, affordable, open and safe." Yet it also takes pains to say that expanding access will not be enough for citizens to take advantage of the benefits. It also recommends enabling companies to compete, strengthening the skills of workers so they can obtain the new jobs and making government institutions accountable.
"The triple complements — a favorable business climate, strong human capital and good governance — will sound familiar — and they should because they are the foundation of economic development," the report concluded.
Facebook makes U-turn on nudes after Paris ruling
A judge at the Supreme Court in Paris has ruled that Facebook is accountable to French law after a teacher sued the website for banning an image that he had posted of Courbet's The Origin of the World, 1886, which contravened its rules on nudity. The court ruled that the case comes under its jurisdiction and it is now due to be heard by a civil court in France on 21 May. Facebook's lawyers had argued that all users agreed to use the courts in California for litigation when they joined the site. Our sister paper Le Journal des Arts said that the judge called this clause "abusive", while the teacher's lawyer noted that if it were enforced, none of France's 22 million Facebook users would "have recourse to French legal jurisdiction in the event of a dispute". In a seemingly related move, Facebook has issued new guidelines on nudity. "Photographs of paintings, sculptures and other art that depicts nude figures" will now be permitted. Facebook declined to say whether the move was prompted by the legal case.
http://theartnewspaper.com/news/news/facebook-makes-u-turn-on-nudes-after-paris-ruling/ (http://theartnewspaper.com/news/news/facebook-makes-u-turn-on-nudes-after-paris-ruling/)
Haha jao, Poreklo sveta i dalje pravi probleme, to je zaista prekrasno. :lol:
EDIT: a kad god pomenu tu sliku ja se setim kako smo u osnovnoj i na faksu od Kurbea imali samo ono standardno i dosadno, sahrane, pejzaže itd. a ovo niko ni da pomene, nepravda, pa to ti je!
Slika jeste malo "in your face", ali možda je došlo vreme da se odmaknemo od američkog čistunstva.
Upravo sam pobrisao sve slike i deaktivirao nalog. Uhvatio sam sebe kako se nerviram zbog idiotskih statusa ili ljudi koji lajkuju kojekakve banke, lance restorana brze hrane ili supermarkete - DiS, Roda, Maxi itd. i tako moram da čitam i gledam nešto što me apsolutno ne zanima. Dolazim u situaciju da mislim loše o tim ljudima a većina njih su mi dobri prijatelji ili rodbina. Osećam ogromno olakšanje.
Pa samo za sve što ne voliš odabereš da ti se ne prikazuje, i posle nekog vremena ispliva ono što te interesuje. Imaš mogućnost da skloniš postove prijatelja, ali i postove banke/supermarketa. Odabereš ovo drugo i mirna Bačka. Treba takođe povremeno nešto i da lajkuješ, čisto da bi Fejsbukov algoritam bolje razumeo šta zapravo hoćeš.
Kako ljudi olako deaktiviraju naloge... To je meni kao da odem u šumu da živim, jer mi se ogadili ljudi. Ko živi u šumi, osim životinja i šumara?
Milijarderi?
Dobro, možda ne uvek/baš u šumi, ali na ranču, udaljenom imanju, pustom ostrvu, Mesecu...
Quote from: mac on 25-02-2016, 00:35:14
To je meni kao da odem u šumu da živim, jer mi se ogadili ljudi. Ko živi u šumi, osim životinja i šumara?
Ljudi kojima su se ogadili ljudi? Oh, wait.
@mac godinama sam pokušao da gasim te reklame i uvek se pojavljuju nove. Prijatelje i rodbinu da brišem, ili njihove postove...onda mi FB ni ne treba. To je valjda socijalna mreža. Zbog par grupa ribolovačkih neću sebe da maltretiram, i ovako sve pročitam na forumima. Što se mene tiče, ovo je ultimativno rešenje.
Inače, priča o samotnom životu u šumi (pored reke) danas zvuči fantastično.
Quote from: Petronije on 25-02-2016, 00:26:48
Upravo sam pobrisao sve slike i deaktivirao nalog. Uhvatio sam sebe kako se nerviram zbog idiotskih statusa ili ljudi koji lajkuju kojekakve banke, lance restorana brze hrane ili supermarkete - DiS, Roda, Maxi itd. i tako moram da čitam i gledam nešto što me apsolutno ne zanima. Dolazim u situaciju da mislim loše o tim ljudima a većina njih su mi dobri prijatelji ili rodbina. Osećam ogromno olakšanje.
Quote from: mac on 25-02-2016, 00:35:14
Pa samo za sve što ne voliš odabereš da ti se ne prikazuje, i posle nekog vremena ispliva ono što te interesuje. Imaš mogućnost da skloniš postove prijatelja, ali i postove banke/supermarketa. Odabereš ovo drugo i mirna Bačka. Treba takođe povremeno nešto i da lajkuješ, čisto da bi Fejsbukov algoritam bolje razumeo šta zapravo hoćeš.
Kako ljudi olako deaktiviraju naloge... To je meni kao da odem u šumu da živim, jer mi se ogadili ljudi. Ko živi u šumi, osim životinja i šumara?
деактивирао сам налог 2007. године и 9 година касније и даље немам осећај да сам отишао да живим у шуми :lol:
(неам ни твитер, и не користим ни једну онлајн друштвену мрежу сем ЗС)
Kakvo digitalno pustinjaštvo, tsk tsk tsk
Za nekog pustinjaštvo, za nekog drugog nekog - samo higijena :lol: :lol: :lol:
Lako je vama kad se družite s ljudima rođenim sedamdesetih godina prošlog veka. Neki od njih sigurno i dalje koriste fiksne telefone s vremena na vreme!
Istina. Dobro, tehnički, ja se ne družim ni sa kim, ali kad bih se družio, to bi verovatno bili takvi ljudi :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Meho Krljic on 25-02-2016, 12:25:05
Za nekog pustinjaštvo, za nekog drugog nekog - samo higijena :lol: :lol: :lol:
+1
Quote from: Meho Krljic on 25-02-2016, 12:25:05
Za nekog pustinjaštvo, za nekog drugog nekog - samo higijena :lol: :lol: :lol:
ko je higijenu sproveo u 3-D životu, FB će mu biti samo prirodni produžetak toga.
dakle: s kim si - onaki si.
ako su vam prijatelji i familija ovaki i onaki - nije vam FB kriv za to.
eto, ja na FB nemam ni pozive na igrice i farme, ni smaranje, ni reklame, ni nerviranje zbog kretenskih spotova i postova u feedu - ništa što bi mi boravak na fb činilo neprijatnim, odbojnim ili nepoželjnim. naprotiv.
Verujem da si u pravu ali nemam ličnih iskustava sa Fejsbukom pa da mogu o tome da dublje diskutujem.
Ja sticem licno iskustvo, poklekla :cry:
Otkrivam da medju rodbinom i porodicnim prijateljima ima dosta (ne)ocekivanih zaokreta u veliku poboznost. Razmisljam da ih stavim na restricted ili tako nesto :lol:
Šta reče,šta reče?
Sticem licno iskustvo :lol:
Aaaa ovo drugo? Hehehe!
Mark Cakrbrg je zamolio svoje zaposlene da ne precrtavaju slogan "Black Lives Matter" sa table za ispisivanje slogana u Fejsbuk sjedištu i da ne dopisuju "All Lives Matter" (http://gizmodo.com/mark-zuckerberg-asks-racist-facebook-employees-to-stop-1761272768) jer bi ljudi koji su toliko obrazovani da rade u Facebook sjedištu trebalo makar da shvate da ekvivalentnost i ravnopravnost nisu ista stvar i da se automatsko izjednačavanje u društvu uvek završava time da manjine bivaju u nepovoljnijem polođaju.
будалаштина
Ma, lako je nama da se smejemo budalaštinama kad kod nas policija ljude svih rasa i nacija tretira sa jednakim uvažavanjem i mnogo poštovanja.
Nego, druga tema:
ISIS supporters threaten Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey (http://www.cnet.com/news/isis-supporters-threaten-zuckerberg-twitters-dorsey/)
Quote
ISIS supporters have a new target in their sights: the leaders of two of the world's most popular social networks.
The "Sons Caliphate Army," a group of hackers associated with the militant Islamic group, posted a video Tuesday that shows photos of Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter's Jack Dorsey engulfed in flames and as targets for bullets. The 25-minute video, titled "Flames of the Supporters," is said to have been authenticated by Storyful, a startup that focuses on verifying news coming from the social Web.
The two tech leaders are apparently being singled out for their efforts to combat terrorist activities on their respective social networks. Both Facebook and Twitter in recent months have announced campaigns to eliminate activities by Islamic State extremists on their platforms by suspending accounts and deleting posts that promote violence and terrorism.
The stepped-up policing came about a month after a handful of leading tech companies met with top federal law enforcement and security officials in Silicon Valley to discuss combating terrorism (http://www.cnet.com/news/antiterrorism-on-the-agenda-as-silicon-valley-meets-with-top-federal-officials/). The meeting was called after attackers inspired by the Islamic State killed more than 130 people in Paris (http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-activates-safety-status-tool-after-deadly-paris-attacks/) and 14 people in San Bernardino, California (http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/san-bernardino-california-shooters/).
With hundreds of millions of people logging in each day, Islamic State and other radicals have found social media to be a fertile recruiting ground. In response, social networks have increased the size of teams overseeing posts and traffic (http://www.cnet.com/news/rise-of-the-internet-police/).
Twitter, which has 320 million monthly active users, said earlier this month it had suspended more than 125,000 accounts (http://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-clips-wings-on-terror-tweets/) since mid-2015 "for threatening or promoting terrorist acts, primarily related to ISIS." After the massacre in San Bernardino, Facebook removed the profile belonging to Tashfeen Malik, one of two shooters in the attack, for violating community standards. Facebook prohibits any praise or promotion of "acts of terror."
The video seeks to demonstrate that hackers still have access to accounts on the social networks despite efforts by Facebook and Twitter to banish them.
"You announce daily that you suspend many of our accounts, and to you we say: Is that all you can do? You are not in our league," text on the video clip reads, according to Vocativ (http://www.vocativ.com/news/289402/isis-threatens-mark-zuckerberg-and-jack-dorsey), which first spotted the video. "If you close one account we will take 10 in return and soon your names will be erased after we delete your sites, Allah willing, and will know that we say is true."
Showing accounts that display Islamic State imagery, the video claims that ISIS-associated hackers have control of more than 10,000 Facebook accounts, 150 Facebook groups and more than 5,000 Twitter profiles.
"Many of these accounts have been given to supporters," the video says.
Twitter declined to comment, and Facebook representatives did not respond to a request for comment.
Egypt jails Facebook administrator for 3 years after unfaithful wives comments (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/egypt-jails-facebook-administrator-3-years-unfaithful-wives-130647240--sector.html)
Quote
CAIRO (Reuters) - An Egyptian court on Saturday sentenced a prominent Facebook user to three years in prison with hard labour after he asserted on television that many married women in the conservative country were unfaithful.
Taymour el-Sobky was arrested last month and accused by prosecutors of slandering Egyptian women and damaging their honour. His comments on a popular evening talk show in December caused a furore.
"Thirty percent of Egyptian women are ready for immorality, they just can't find someone to encourage them," said Sobky, whose Facebook page called "Diaries of a Suffering Husband" has more than one million followers.
"These days, it is very normal for women to cheat on their husbands and seek it out ... Many women are involved in extramarital affairs while their husbands are abroad," he claimed.
Sobky's comments included the suggestion that arranged marriages in traditional southern Egypt exacerbated the problem of infidelity because women ended up with men they didn't know.
After the claim a masked man from the region appeared in a video carried on YouTube armed with an assault rifle, and issued a death threat against Sobky.
The Internet is a digital shanty town (https://medium.com/belua-systems/the-internet-is-a-digital-shanty-town-3edc0c2ffd12#.h88ojkjuy)
Interesantna paralela i predlog novog rasporeda moći.
Social Media Use Associated With Depression Among U.S. Young Adults (http://www.upmc.com/media/NewsReleases/2016/Pages/lin-primack-sm-depression.aspx)
Quote
PITTSBURGH, March 22, 2016 – The more time young adults use social media, the more likely they are to be depressed, according to new research from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine (http://www.medschool.pitt.edu/). The findings could guide clinical and public health interventions to tackle depression, forecast to become the leading cause of disability in high-income countries by 2030. The research, funded by the National Institutes of Health (http://www.nih.gov/), is published online and scheduled for the April 1 issue of the journal Depression and Anxiety (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/da.22466/abstract). This was the first large, nationally representative study to examine associations between use of a broad range of social media outlets and depression. Previous studies on the subject have yielded mixed results, been limited by small or localized samples, and focused primarily on one specific social media platform, rather than the broad range often used by young adults. "Because social media has become such an integrated component of human interaction, it is important for clinicians interacting with young adults to recognize the balance to be struck in encouraging potential positive use, while redirecting from problematic use," said senior author Brian A. Primack, M.D., Ph.D. (http://www.upmc.com/media/experts/Pages/brian-primack.aspx), director of Pitt's Center for Research on Media, Technology and Health. In 2014, Dr. Primack and his colleagues sampled 1,787 U.S. adults ages 19 through 32, using questionnaires to determine social media use and an established depression assessment tool. The questionnaires asked about the 11 most popular social media platforms at the time: Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Google Plus, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit, Tumblr, Pinterest, Vine and LinkedIn. On average the participants used social media a total of 61 minutes per day and visited various social media accounts 30 times per week. More than a quarter of the participants were classified as having "high" indicators of depression. There were significant and linear associations between social media use and depression whether social media use was measured in terms of total time spent or frequency of visits. For example, compared with those who checked least frequently, participants who reported most frequently checking social media throughout the week had 2.7 times the likelihood of depression. Similarly, compared to peers who spent less time on social media, participants who spent the most total time on social media throughout the day had 1.7 times the risk of depression. The researchers controlled for other factors that may contribute to depression, including age, sex, race, ethnicity, relationship status, living situation, household income and education level. Lead author Lui yi Lin, B.A., who will be graduating from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine this spring, emphasized that, because this was a cross-sectional study, it does not disentangle cause and effect. "It may be that people who already are depressed are turning to social media to fill a void," she said. Conversely, Ms. Lin explains that exposure to social media also may cause depression, which could then in turn fuel more use of social media. For example: • Exposure to highly idealized representations of peers on social media elicits feelings of envy and the distorted belief that others lead happier, more successful lives. • Engaging in activities of little meaning on social media may give a feeling of "time wasted" that negatively influences mood. • Social media use could be fueling "Internet addiction," a proposed psychiatric condition closely associated with depression. • Spending more time on social media may increase the risk of exposure to cyber-bullying or other similar negative interactions, which can cause feelings of depression. In addition to encouraging clinicians to ask about social media use among people who are depressed, the findings could be used as a basis for public health interventions leveraging social media. Some social media platforms already have made forays into such preventative measures. For example, when a person searches the blog site Tumblr for tags indicative of a mental health crisis—such as "depressed," "suicidal" or "hopeless"—they are redirected to a message that begins with "Everything OK?" and provided with links to resources. Similarly, a year ago Facebook tested a feature that allows friends to anonymously report worrisome posts. The posters would then receive pop-up messages voicing concern and encouraging them to speak with a friend or helpline. "Our hope is that continued research will allow such efforts to be refined so that they better reach those in need," said Dr. Primack, who also is assistant vice chancellor for health and society in Pitt's Schools of the Health Sciences and professor of medicine. "All social media exposures are not the same. Future studies should examine whether there may be different risks for depression depending on whether the social media interactions people have tend to be more active vs. passive or whether they tend to be more confrontational vs. supportive. This would help us develop more fine-grained recommendations around social media use." Additional authors of the study were Jaime E. Sidani, Ph.D., Ariel Shensa, M.A., Ana Radovic, M.D., M.Sc., Elizabeth Miller, M.D., Ph.D., Jason B. Colditz, M.Ed., Beth Hoffman, B.Sc., and Leila M. Giles, B.S., all of Pitt. This research was funded by National Institute of Mental Health (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/index.shtml)grant R25-MH054318 and National Cancer Institute (http://www.cancer.gov/)grant R01-CA140150.
Facebook Users Are Sharing Fewer Personal Updates and It's a Big Problem (http://fortune.com/2016/04/07/facebook-sharing-decline/)
Quote
Facebook dominates social media, but future success is never a guarantee.
If you haven't posted anything personal on Facebook FB (http://fortune.com/fortune500/facebook-242/) -2.68% in awhile, you're not alone. A damning report published by The Information (https://www.theinformation.com/facebook-struggles-to-stop-decline-in-original-sharing) on Thursday revealed that Facebook has been struggling to reverse a 21% decline in "original sharing," or personal updates, from its 1.6 billion monthly active users.
This indicates a key vulnerability for the social behemoth, and failed attempts to address it reflect a point I made in a recent column: There's no guarantee that Facebook's current winning streak can last (http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/facebook-winning-streak/).
Facebook's decline in personal updates reflects a common growing pain for online communities. What starts out as as special and intimate place to share things grows into a big, impersonal, and professional platform. Some online communities try to preserve the special and intimate at the expense of adding new users. (Consider communities like Reddit: thriving, but never quite crossing over into the mainstream.) Others crumble once they do reach the mainstream, causing users to abandon the service for the latest new thing that feels more special and intimate. (There are a litany of examples: Myspace, Bebo, Flickr, Orkut, LiveJournal, Friendster.)
Facebook is remarkable in that it has managed to avoid either path. It went mainstream but didn't lose its appeal, because even if it lost that special and intimate feeling, it has become an essential utility for keeping up with friends and family. Facebook is still the first place where people are compelled to share meaningful updates like engagement announcements, baby photos, and vacation photos. A home for your personal press releases.
Which is why the decline in meaningful personal updates is a big problem. I believe there are two things driving the decline. First, there's the rise of professional content on Facebook. Second, there's the shift from content published in private to content published in public.
The increase in professional content on Facebook has been gradual, but the company has welcomed it. Facebook wants people to share this stuff—videos, news articles, entertainment—on its platform because it means people will spend more time inside its "walled garden" than anywhere else on the Internet. The company has done a great job of curating professional content and giving users what they like, and as a result, Facebook is more addictive than ever. Metrics like user engagement and time spent using the service have continued to rise. Even as analysts fret that Facebook is running out of Internet users to add, the company is turning millions of monthly active users into daily active users. (Last quarter 65% of Facebook's monthly active users came back every single day.)
One little problem: Professional content can be found anywhere online. It wouldn't be that difficult for a competitor to steal users away with a better, more addicting news app, or a better, more addicting way to watch viral videos, or a new, more addicting way to consume entertainment. Beyond that, all those inside jokes, blurry photos, and half-baked opinions you used to Post now feel out-of-place amid all the professional content.
On the other hand, personal updates—including the half-based opinions, but also the baby photos, engagement announcements, and vacation photos—are what keep people coming back to Facebook. It's unlikely that users will get that information anywhere else, and they don't want to miss important life updates from their friends and family. Without the personal updates, Facebook becomes a glorified, $327 billion (https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AFB&ei=y8IGV5HZJoSomAHGk7yoBA) content recommendation engine.
Facebook's shift from content published in private to public has been just as subtle. There's a reason the once-daily outrages over Facebook privacy scares have stopped. The platform no longer feels like an intimate conversation among friends, so users no longer expect full privacy. By default, users now expect that items posted to Facebook are done so in public. They know that, unlike in Facebook's earlier days, their status updates can now be seen by distant relatives, high school classmates, and co-workers—so they don't share anything too personal.
Besides, Facebook's privacy settings are too complicated for most people to figure out, and everyone knows private updates can be easily screen-captured and shared. There's always the risk that something could go viral and cost the person who posted it their job or worse. (Remember the death and rape threats (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/21/internet-shaming-lindsey-stone-jon-ronson) received by charity worker Lindsey Stone's offensive, but ultimately harmless, inside joke at Arlington Cemetery?)
The bar for what Facebook users once posted on the site used to be much lower, as BuzzFeed writer Alex Kantrowitz points out. A new feature showing old posts from years past only serves as a reminder of that fact.
The decline in personal sharing on Facebook is an important reminder that, even though Facebook completely dominates the social media market, its future domination is all but guaranteed. The more sophisticated the platform becomes, the more pressure the platform faces to retain a tiny bit of what first made it special: intimacy.
Летс мејк сагита грејт аген!
Growing Up On The Seedy Underbelly Of The Internet (http://kotaku.com/one-womans-story-of-growing-up-on-the-seedy-underbelly-1770262809)
ovo mora da je istina!
Затвор прети свима који су на Фејсбуку лајковали Почучу!
11. априла 2014.
Београд – Многи не знају да осим што морају да воде рачуна шта пишу на својим профилима, јер је због говора мржње и дискриминације могуће добити и до десет година затвора, мора да се пази и на тзв. лајковање туђих порука, јер је и подржавање оваквих садржаја кривично дело.
Конкретно, треба да брину сви који су лајковали или са пријатељима на друштвним мрежама поделили Фејсбук статус бившег портпарола посебних јединица полиције Радомира Почуче који је позвао навијаче да силом растуре скуп ,,Жена у црном", или спсиак србомрзаца који је објавио СНП Наши.
Према речима професора Владимира Водинелића са Правног факултета Универзитета Унион, оваква ,,Подршка" такође је кривично дело, будући да неко лајковањем потврђује нечије мишљење или претње.
,,Ви сте тада такође говорили и такав начин изражавања подједнако подлеже ограничењима Кривичног законика, без обзира на то да ли сте саучесник, подстрекивач, помагач...", каже проф. Водинелић.
http://www.vaseljenska.com/drustvo/zatvor-preti-svima-koji-su-na-fejsbuku-lajkovali-pocucu/ (http://www.vaseljenska.com/drustvo/zatvor-preti-svima-koji-su-na-fejsbuku-lajkovali-pocucu/)
Americans abandoning wired home Internet, study shows (http://www.seattletimes.com/business/americans-abandoning-wired-home-internet-study-shows/)
Quote
Americans are abandoning their wired Internet for a mobile-data-only diet — and if the trend continues, it could reflect a huge shift in the way we experience the Web.
For the most part, America's Internet-usage trends can be summed up in a few phrases. The Internet is now so common as to be a commodity; the rich have better Internet than the poor; more whites have Internet than people of color; and compared with low-income minorities, affluent whites are more likely to have fixed, wired Internet connections to their homes.
But it may be time to put an asterisk on that last point, according to new data on a sample of 53,000 Americans. In fact, Americans as a whole are growing less likely than before to have residential broadband, the figures show.
In plain English, they're abandoning their wired Internet for a mobile-data-only diet — and if the trend continues, it could reflect a huge shift in the way we experience the Web.The study, conducted for the Commerce Department by the U.S. Census Bureau, partly upholds what we already knew. Low-income Americans are still one of the biggest demographics to rely solely on their phones to get online. Today nearly a third of households earning less than $25,000 a year exclusively use mobile Internet to browse the Web. That's up from 16 percent in 2013.
They're often cited as evidence of a digital divide; families with little money to afford a home Internet subscription must resort to free Wi-Fi at libraries and even McDonald's to do homework, look for jobs and find information.
But people with higher incomes are ditching their wired Internet access at similar or even faster rates. In 2013, 8 percent of households making between $50,000 and $75,000 a year were mobile-only. Fast-forward a couple of years, and that figure is 18 percent.
Seventeen percent of households making between $75,000 and $100,000 are mobile-only now, compared with 8 percent two years ago. And 15 percent of households earning more than $100,000 are mobile-only, versus 6 percent in 2013.
As many as one in five U.S. households are now mobile-only, compared with one in 10 in 2013. That's a doubling in just two years.
This suggests that having only one form of Internet access instead of two may no longer be explained simply as the result of financial hardship but could be a conscious choice, at least for wealthier people, who are deciding it's not necessary to have both.
These results paint the clearest picture yet of a country moving from fixed networks toward wireless networks. They highlight how, for many, 4G LTE and other wireless technologies could be turning into viable substitutes for home broadband. And it helps explain many of the changes consumers are seeing.
Companies like Verizon are increasingly shifting to prioritize mobile service over wired service. Cable companies are exploring how to compete with telecom companies for wireless customers by setting up cheap, public Wi-Fi hot spots that allow for voice calls and Web browsing. Even Google and Facebook have experimented with beaming Internet wirelessly down to devices on the ground.
All this is happening because companies perceive a tremendous opportunity to make money in mobile Internet. And considering how even the wealthy appear to be voting with their feet, it appears the industry may be onto something.
dodao bih nešto što sam ranije negdje viđao, naime, da Comcast provajder ima vlasnika koji je član Demokratske partije, i da je prije par godina počelo napuštanje republikanskih mušterija
ali možda je to samo promil ovog trenda gore, koji je sasvim tržišno razuman, no, eto, neki neće kablovski net zbog politike
Stephen Fry ohrabruje mladež da preseče svoje veze sa socijalnim mrežama:
OFF THE GRID (http://www.stephenfry.com/2016/04/off-the-grid/)
Want to Know What Facebook Really Thinks of Journalists? Here's What Happened When It Hired Some. (http://gizmodo.com/want-to-know-what-facebook-really-thinks-of-journalists-1773916117)
Zanimljivo da je već dva puta, juče i danas, neko iz Novog Pazara pokušao da se uloguje na moj profil. Iz tog razloga fejsbuk je tražio da promenim šifru što sam oba puta učinio. E sad, zanima me da li lice koje pokušava da se uloguje mora da zna moj email da bi meni iz fejsa stiglo upozorenje? Pretpostavljam da je odgovor potvrdan jer ne vidim kako bi drugačije mogao da pikira baš moj profil. Ne znam da li na fejsu mogu da promenim mejl kojim se ulogujem da ne bih morao svaki dan da menjam šifru ako dotični online terorista ovako nastavi.
Ako je pokušao, a nije uspeo, onda i ne moraš da menjaš šifru. U svakom slučaju, postoje dodatne opcije u Fejsbuku koje možeš da iskoristiš da povećaš svoju bezbednost. Idi na stranicu https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=security (https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=security) I uključi "Login Alerts" na email da ti FB javi svaki put kad se uloguješ sa novog brauzera. U "Trusted Contacts" dodaj par ljudi od poverenja (blisku rodbinu recimo) koji će ti pomoći da se uloguješ ako ti neko promeni šifru. U delu "Where You're Logged In" možeš da vidiš u kojim sve brauzerima imaš aktivnu login sesiju, a možeš i da ugasiš sesiju po volji. Postoji i mogućnost da blokiraš pristup sa bilo kojeg brauzera koji nisi registrovau u fejsbuku, ali čini mi se da je to overkill.
Još jedna mogućnost, koja tebi sada ne treba, ali je interesantna, je i "Legacy Contact" koja služi da korisnik sada imenuje nekog ko će da rukovodi njegovim nalogom jednom kada premine.
Quote from: mac on 09-05-2016, 13:03:04
Još jedna mogućnost, koja tebi sada ne treba, ali je interesantna, je i "Legacy Contact" koja služi da korisnik sada imenuje nekog ko će da rukovodi njegovim nalogom jednom kada premine.
Nikad se ne zna!! Za ostalo hvala, i ja pomislih da ako nema šifru nema ni potrebe da je menjam...Videćemo koliko će biti uporan. Takođe, ovo mi je za nauk da pazim gde javno ostavljam email.
Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News (http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006)
QuoteFacebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network's influential "trending" news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site's users.
Several former Facebook "news curators," as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially "inject" selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren't popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren't trending at all. The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module.
In other words, Facebook's news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values onto the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing—but it is in stark contrast to the company's claims (https://www.facebook.com/help/737806312958641) that the trending module simply lists "topics that have recently become popular on Facebook."
These new allegations emerged after Gizmodo last week revealed (http://gizmodo.com/want-to-know-what-facebook-really-thinks-of-journalists-1773916117) details about the inner workings of Facebook's trending news team—a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the "trending" module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site. As we reported last week, curators have access to a ranked list of trending topics surfaced by Facebook's algorithm, which prioritizes the stories that should be shown to Facebook users in the trending section. The curators write headlines and summaries of each topic, and include links to news sites. The section, which launched in 2014, constitutes some of the most powerful real estate on the internet and helps dictate what news Facebook's users—167 million in the US alone—are reading at any given moment."I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news.""Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending," said the former curator. This individual asked to remain anonymous, citing fear of retribution from the company. The former curator is politically conservative, one of a very small handful of curators with such views on the trending team. "I'd come on shift and I'd discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn't be trending because either the curator didn't recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz."
The former curator was so troubled by the omissions that they kept a running log of them at the time; this individual provided the notes to Gizmodo. Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. "I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news," the former curator said.
http://gizmodo.com/want-to-know-w... (http://gizmodo.com/want-to-know-what-facebook-really-thinks-of-journalists-1773916117) Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-wing news sources. "It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is," said the former curator. "Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn't as biased."
Stories covered by conservative outlets (like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax) that were trending enough to be picked up by Facebook's algorithm were excluded unless mainstream sites like the New York Times, the BBC, and CNN covered the same stories.
Other former curators interviewed by Gizmodo denied consciously suppressing conservative news, and we were unable to determine if left-wing news topics or sources were similarly suppressed. The conservative curator described the omissions as a function of his colleagues' judgements; there is no evidence that Facebook management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at work.
Managers on the trending news team did, however, explicitly instruct curators to artificially manipulate the trending module in a different way: When users weren't reading stories that management viewed as important, several former workers said, curators were told to put them in the trending news feed anyway. Several former curators described using something called an "injection tool" to push topics into the trending module that weren't organically being shared or discussed enough to warrant inclusion—putting the headlines in front of thousands of readers rather than allowing stories to surface on their own. In some cases, after a topic was injected, it actually became the number one trending news topic on Facebook.
"We were told that if we saw something, a news story that was on the front page of these ten sites, like CNN, the New York Times, and BBC, then we could inject the topic," said one former curator. "If it looked like it had enough news sites covering the story, we could inject it—even if it wasn't naturally trending." Sometimes, breaking news would be injected because it wasn't attaining critical mass on Facebook quickly enough to be deemed "trending" by the algorithm. Former curators cited the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 and the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris as two instances in which non-trending stories were forced into the module. Facebook has struggled to compete (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/12/facebook-testing-breaking-news-app-twitter) with Twitter when it comes to delivering real-time news to users; the injection tool may have been designed to artificially correct for that deficiency in the network. "We would get yelled at if it was all over Twitter and not on Facebook," one former curator said.
"Facebook got a lot of pressure about not having a trending topic for Black Lives Matter."In other instances, curators would inject a story—even if it wasn't being widely discussed on Facebook—because it was deemed important for making the network look like a place where people talked about hard news. "People stopped caring about Syria," one former curator said. "[And] if it wasn't trending on Facebook, it would make Facebook look bad." That same curator said the Black Lives Matter movement was also injected into Facebook's trending news module. "Facebook got a lot of pressure about not having a trending topic for Black Lives Matter," the individual said. "They realized it was a problem, and they boosted it in the ordering. They gave it preference over other topics. When we injected it, everyone started saying, 'Yeah, now I'm seeing it as number one'." This particular injection is especially noteworthy because the #BlackLivesMatter movement originated on Facebook, and the ensuing media coverage of the movement often noted its powerful social media presence.
(In February, CEO Mark Zuckerberg expressed his support for the movement (http://gizmodo.com/mark-zuckerberg-asks-racist-facebook-employees-to-stop-1761272768) in an internal memo chastising Facebook employees for defacing Black Lives Matter slogans on the company's internal "signature wall.")
When stories about Facebook itself would trend organically on the network, news curators used less discretion—they were told not to include these stories at all. "When it was a story about the company, we were told not to touch it," said one former curator. "It had to be cleared through several channels, even if it was being shared quite a bit. We were told that we should not be putting it on the trending tool."
(The curators interviewed for this story worked for Facebook across a timespan ranging from mid-2014 to December 2015.)
"We were always cautious about covering Facebook," said another former curator. "We would always wait to get second level approval before trending something to Facebook. Usually we had the authority to trend anything on our own [but] if it was something involving Facebook, the copy editor would call their manager, and that manager might even call their manager before approving a topic involving Facebook."
Gizmodo reached out to Facebook for comment about each of these specific claims via email and phone, but did not receive a response.
Several former curators said that as the trending news algorithm improved, there were fewer instances of stories being injected. They also said that the trending news process was constantly being changed, so there's no way to know exactly how the module is run now. But the revelations undermine any presumption of Facebook as a neutral pipeline for news (http://recode.net/2015/08/21/how-facebook-decides-whats-trending/), or the trending news module as an algorithmically-driven list of what people are actually talking about.
Rather, Facebook's efforts to play the news game reveal the company to be much like the news outlets it is rapidly driving toward irrelevancy: a select group of professionals with vaguely center-left sensibilities. It just happens to be one that poses as a neutral reflection of the vox populi, has the power to influence what billions of users see, and openly discusses (http://gizmodo.com/facebook-employees-asked-mark-zuckerberg-if-they-should-1771012990) whether it should use that power to influence presidential elections.
"It wasn't trending news at all," said the former curator who logged conservative news omissions. "It was an opinion."
[Disclosure: Facebook has launched a program that pays publishers, including the New York Times and Buzzfeed, to produce videos for its Facebook Live tool. Gawker Media, Gizmodo's parent company, recently joined that program.]
Update: Several hours after this report was published, Gizmodo editors started seeing it as a topic in Facebook's trending section. Gizmodo's video was posted under the topic but the "Top Posts" were links to RedState.com and the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
Update 4:10 p.m. EST: A Facebook spokesperson has issued the following statement to outlets including BuzzFeed and TechCrunch (http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/09/facebook-workers/). Facebook has not responded to Gizmodo's repeated requests for comment."We take allegations of bias very seriously. Facebook is a platform for people and perspectives from across the political spectrum. Trending Topics shows you the popular topics and hashtags that are being talked about on Facebook. There are rigorous guidelines in place for the review team to ensure consistency and neutrality. These guidelines do not permit the suppression of political perspectives. Nor do they permit the prioritization of one viewpoint over another or one news outlet over another. These guidelines do not prohibit any news outlet from appearing in Trending Topics."
Update May 10, 8:50 a.m. EST: The following statement was posted (https://www.facebook.com/tstocky/posts/10100853082337958) by Vice President of Search at Facebook, Tom Stocky, late last night. It was liked by both Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg:My team is responsible for Trending Topics, and I want to address today's reports alleging that Facebook contractors manipulated Trending Topics to suppress stories of interest to conservatives. We take these reports extremely seriously, and have found no evidence that the anonymous allegations are true.
Facebook is a platform for people and perspectives from across the political spectrum. There are rigorous guidelines in place for the review team to ensure consistency and neutrality. These guidelines do not permit the suppression of political perspectives. Nor do they permit the prioritization of one viewpoint over another or one news outlet over another. These guidelines do not prohibit any news outlet from appearing in Trending Topics.
Trending Topics is designed to showcase the current conversation happening on Facebook. Popular topics are first surfaced by an algorithm, then audited by review team members to confirm that the topics are in fact trending news in the real world and not, for example, similar-sounding topics or misnomers.
We are proud that, in 2015, the US election was the most talked-about subject on Facebook, and we want to encourage that robust political discussion from all sides. We have in place strict guidelines for our trending topic reviewers as they audit topics surfaced algorithmically: reviewers are required to accept topics that reflect real world events, and are instructed to disregard junk or duplicate topics, hoaxes, or subjects with insufficient sources. Facebook does not allow or advise our reviewers to systematically discriminate against sources of any ideological origin and we've designed our tools to make that technically not feasible. At the same time, our reviewers' actions are logged and reviewed, and violating our guidelines is a fireable offense.
There have been other anonymous allegations — for instance that we artificially forced
#BlackLivesMatter (https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/blacklivesmatter?source=feed_text&story_id=10100853082337958) to trend. We looked into that charge and found that it is untrue. We do not insert stories artificially into trending topics, and do not instruct our reviewers to do so. Our guidelines do permit reviewers to take steps to make topics more coherent, such as combining related topics into a single event (such as #starwars (https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/starwars?source=feed_text&story_id=10100853082337958) and#maythefourthbewithyou (https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/maythefourthbewithyou?source=feed_text&story_id=10100853082337958)), to deliver a more integrated experience.
Our review guidelines for Trending Topics are under constant review, and we will continue to look for improvements. We will also keep looking into any questions about Trending Topics to ensure that people are matched with the stories that are predicted to be the most interesting to them, and to be sure that our methods are as neutral and effective as possible.
Technology editor at Gizmodo.
^ма немогуће!!! :lol:
Ovo mi zaista nije jasno, opet mi stize>Your account was recently logged into from a new browser or device. Was this you?
za danas 11.41 iako sam pre par minuta promenio mejl. Ne znam sad da li je ovo bilo pre ili posle promene. Verovatno posle jer mi je na nov mejl stiglo obavestenje da neko pokusava da se uloguje.
ko ti šalje to? meni to liči na neko spamovanje koje možda nema veze sa fejsbukom.
meni nedeljno stižu zahtevi da promenim podatke na pejpel nalogu, ali ne od pejpela, iako mnogo liči, logo i sve.
Šalje mi sa adrese <security@facebookmail.com>
http://youtu.be/EfO00lVC5N4 (http://youtu.be/EfO00lVC5N4)
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.makeagif.com%2Fmedia%2F11-22-2015%2FPgeGR4.gif&hash=134bda0045548d93dc24f1dfeba448587007d516)
због менталне хигијене си отишо са сагите на фејсбук
https://www.maketecheasier.com/differentiate-phishing-facebook-mail/?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C5587517411 (https://www.maketecheasier.com/differentiate-phishing-facebook-mail/?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C5587517411)
Иначе, трумане, јеси ли икад на мејл добио писмо неког сиромашног из африке, који моли за помоћ? Ја им пошаљем пар долара понекад...
Quote from: дејан on 11-05-2016, 11:06:29
^ма немогуће!!! :lol:
D plot tikns:
Senate GOP Launches Inquiry Into Facebook's News Curation (http://gizmodo.com/senate-gop-launches-inquiry-into-facebook-s-news-curati-1775767018)
Чудно. Улоговах се малопре са другог браузера а истог лаптопа и одмах добих мејл да се неко зи НИША улоговао са другог браузера. Одакле та погрешна локација да ми је знати...
Quote from: Meho Krljic on 12-05-2016, 08:46:31
Quote from: дејан on 11-05-2016, 11:06:29
^ма немогуће!!! :lol:
D plot tikns:
Senate GOP Launches Inquiry Into Facebook's News Curation (http://gizmodo.com/senate-gop-launches-inquiry-into-facebook-s-news-curati-1775767018)
Cuk fajts bek:
Mark Zuckerberg says there's 'no evidence' that Facebook staff suppressed conservative stories (http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/12/11669006/zuckerberg-facebook-trending-topics-conservative-evidence)
Facebook Reactions: Belgian police warn citizens not to react to posts on social media (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-reactions-belgian-police-warn-citizens-not-to-react-to-posts-on-social-media-a7027786.html)
Quote
Belgian police have warned citizens not to use Facebook's new Reactions (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-reactions-why-mark-zuckerberg-didn-t-just-add-a-dislike-button-a6895556.html), to protect their privacy.
In February, the site launched six new ways of reacting to a post, alongside the Like button. They were intended partly as a way of answering calls for a "Dislike" button – allowing people to share their feelings about posts without appearing to endorse what had been said.
But the Belgian police now says that the site is using them as a way of collecting information about people and deciding how best to advertise to them. As such, it has warned people that they should avoid using the buttons if they want to preserve their privacy.
"The icons help not only express your feelings, they also help Facebook assess the effectiveness of the ads on your profile," a post on Belgian's official police website reads.
The site is able to use the tool to tell when people are likely to be in a good mood and then use that to decide when is the best time to show them ads, the Belgian police has claimed.
How to use Facebook Reactions
"By limiting the number of icons to six, Facebook is counting on you to express your thoughts more easily so that the algorithms that run in the background are more effective," the post continues. "By mouse clicks you can let them know what makes you happy.
"So that will help Facebook find the perfect location, on your profile, allowing it to display content that will arouse your curiosity but also to choose the time you present it. If it appears that you are in a good mood, it can deduce that you are more receptive and able to sell spaces explaining advertisers that they will have more chance to see you react."
People have pointed out that Facebook's Reactions tool is helpful to advertisers since it was released. Though the site said as it was launched that it was a way of allowing people to react in more complex ways, it also provides valuable data to Facebook about how things make people feel, as well as encouraging them to interact with posts amid worries that people are becoming less and less personal on the site.
Soon after the feature was released, Facebook also confirmed that reacting angrily to a post would be treated as any other kind of engagement with it (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-reactions-expressing-anger-at-a-post-still-counts-as-engagement-and-will-lead-to-seeing-a6894831.html). Since Facebook treats engaging with a post as an indication that users want to see more things like it, that means that reacting angrily could lead to seeing similar posts and could be sold to advertisers, too (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-reactions-expressing-anger-at-a-post-still-counts-as-engagement-and-will-lead-to-seeing-a6894831.html).
Twitter to Stop Counting Photos and Links in 140-Character Limit (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-16/twitter-to-stop-counting-photos-and-links-in-140-character-limit)
Quote
Twitter Inc. is making a major shift in how it counts characters in Tweets, giving users more freedom to compose longer messages.
The social media company will soon stop counting photos and links as part of its 140-character limit for messages, according to a person familiar with the matter. The change could happen in the next two weeks, said the person who asked not to be named because the decision isn't yet public. Links currently take up 23 characters (https://support.twitter.com/articles/78124), even after Twitter automatically shortens them. The company declined to comment.
It's a step in a larger plan to give users more flexibility on the site. Chief Executive Officer Jack Dorsey said in January (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-05/twitter-said-to-consider-higher-character-limit-for-tweets) that the company was looking for new ways to display text on Twitter, and would experiment based on how people use the service. For example, some people tweet screenshots of longer text in articles, or send many tweets one after the other to tell a story.
Twitter's 140-character limit was originally adopted because it was a way to send Tweets while fitting all the information within a mobile text message -- a common way for sending Tweets when the service debuted in 2006, before the proliferation of smartphones.
The company earlier this year considered raising the limit to as many as 10,000 characters. But the quick, concise nature of Tweets has helped set the site apart from the competition. Executives have spent the last few months emphasizing how Twitter is a destination for live events and discussion. Removing the character requirement for links and photos may encourage users to add more media to their posts.
Twitter has been making video a priority as part of its push for live events. Earlier this year, the company agreed to pay $10 million to the National Football League for the rights to stream 10 Thursday night games during the 2016 season, people familiar with the matter have said. Twitter is working on more content deals for streaming sports, political events and entertainment.
Connecting everyone to internet 'would add $6.7tn to global economy' (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/17/connecting-everyone-to-internet-global-economy-poverty)
Quote
Bringing internet access to the 4.1 billion people in the world who do not have it would increase global economic output by $6.7 trillion (£4.6tr), raising 500 million people out of poverty, according to a study by PwC.
The report, titled Connecting the world: Ten mechanisms for global inclusion, was prepared for Facebook (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/facebook) by PwC's strategy consultants Strategy&.
Getting everyone in the world online is not as tall an order as one might think, according to the company: affordability, rather than infrastructure, is the main barrier to internet adoption in most areas. More than nine-tenths of the the world's population live in places where the infrastructure exists to get them online, but the majority of them cannot afford to do so.
For 66% of the world, a 500MB data plan costs more than 5% of their monthly income, the level the report's authors describe as "unaffordable". But some people decide to get online despite the cost – in China, just 22% of people can have a high enough income by that measure to make internet access affordable for them, even though 46% of the population is online. Even if it's expensive, if there's enough of a reason for someone to get online, they may look past the cost.
By contrast, in most of the developing world, the necessary infrastructure is already in place to get internet to the whole population, if they could afford it. China, Brazil and Indonesia all have 100% of their populations covered by internet-capable infrastructure.
While cost reductions sound easier to achieve than total infrastructure creation, that can understate the magnitude of the reductions needed. To get 80% of their populations online, for instance, Ethiopia, Nigeria and the Philippines would all have to see a cut in the price of internet access by well over 90%.
Improvement of existing technology, or even simply installing existing technology in developing nations, will suffice to bring about much of this cost reduction. For instance, the vast majority of the world's mobile spectrum is being used to deliver 2G internet: if it was upgraded to 3G or 4G, the cost of mobile data would plummet. But such an upgrade requires money spent upfront, not only by carriers, but also by users, who must buy (comparatively) more expensive phones.
The focus on cost reductions marries with Facebook's own Internet.org project, which is aimed at partnering carriers in developing nations to give low-cost internet access. It has come under criticism, however, from web luminaries such as Tim Berners-Lee (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/29/tim-berners-lee-urges-britain-to-fight-snoopers-charter), who dislike Facebook's approach of limiting the low-cost access to a subsection of the web.
So-called zero rating, which lies at the heart of Internet (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/internet).org's efforts to expand web access, involves allowing internet users to access some websites, such as Wikipedia and Facebook, without paying for the data they use. But the approach is criticised by net neutrality advocates like Berners-Lee, who said: "I tend to say 'Just say no.' In the particular case of somebody who's offering ... something which is branded internet, it's not internet, then you just say no."
But Jonathan Tate, technology consulting leader at PwC, argues that Facebook's approach is worth it in the long term. While zero rating provides access to a slimmer version the internet than the full web, he says it's a crucial stepping stone to full access. "The important thing here is to get things moving," he added.
Facebook's motivation for paying for Internet.org is partially explained by PwC's estimates of where the benefits of new access accrue. While most of the economic benefits of new internet access come to those freshly online, the consultancy estimates that content providers such as Facebook stand to gain a $200bn (£138bn) opportunity over the next five years.
But new technology will still be needed to achieve total connectivity. The reports' authors estimate that the last 500 million people to get online won't be able to rely on piecemeal improvements. Instead, they'll need new "disruptive technologies" being created by companies like Google, with its Project Loon plan to mount internet access points on balloons (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/16/project-loon-google-balloon-that-beams-down-internet-reaches-sri-lanka), and Facebook, with its solar-powered, laser-armed 4G drone called Aquila (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/31/facebook-finishes-aquila-solar-powered-internet-drone-with-span-of-a-boeing-737).
Drugim rečima, ima još mnogo potrošača čija crkavica ne stiže do velikih tehnoloških kompanija.
Malopre okačio pesmu na fejs i ispod imena piše da sam to uradio iz NIŠ! Ima li ko racionalno objašnjenje?
Isključi GPS, pa neće da piše ikakva lokacija. Možda je GPS poblesavio, jer recimo nije imao dovoljno vremena da preciznije odredi lokaciju.
Možda Truman zapravo živi u Nišu a svi oko njega su u zaveri i ubeđuju ga da je to Beograd. To bi objasnilo i zašto koristi ime Truman na internetu.
Quote from: mac on 25-05-2016, 15:00:46
Isključi GPS, pa neće da piše ikakva lokacija. Možda je GPS poblesavio, jer recimo nije imao dovoljno vremena da preciznije odredi lokaciju.
Ne isključuje mi se za sada, ako se nastavio ovakvo brljavljenje učiniću to.
Meho, otkad napredujem na duhovnoj stazi sve više svet oko sebe promatram kao matrix tako da ništa nije isključeno.
Quote from: Meho Krljic on 25-05-2016, 15:07:56
Možda Truman zapravo živi u Nišu a svi oko njega su u zaveri i ubeđuju ga da je to Beograd. To bi objasnilo i zašto koristi ime Truman na internetu.
:-D
Quote from: Truman on 25-05-2016, 15:15:11
Meho, otkad napredujem na duhovnoj stazi sve više svet oko sebe promatram kao matrix tako da ništa nije isključeno.
Odlično je to. Kad je čovek svuda kod kuće onda razlike između Niša i Beograda na kraju deluju trivijalno.
,,На Фејсбуку улудо утрошени сати, шта радите Срби кукала вам мати!"
http://oslobodjenje.rs/polupismenost-je-gora-od-nepismenosti-a-fejsbuk-je-jama-duhovnog-genocida/ (http://oslobodjenje.rs/polupismenost-je-gora-od-nepismenosti-a-fejsbuk-je-jama-duhovnog-genocida/)
Quote from: Meho Krljic on 25-05-2016, 15:42:18
Odlično je to. Kad je čovek svuda kod kuće onda razlike između Niša i Beograda na kraju deluju trivijalno.
Zar stvarno misliš da postoji nekakva razlika? Čak vas i GPS meša.
Quote from: Meho Krljic on 25-05-2016, 15:42:18
Quote from: Truman on 25-05-2016, 15:15:11
Meho, otkad napredujem na duhovnoj stazi sve više svet oko sebe promatram kao matrix tako da ništa nije isključeno.
Odlično je to. Kad je čovek svuda kod kuće onda razlike između Niša i Beograda na kraju deluju trivijalno.
Iako je dobro osećati se svuda kao kod kuće ne bih rekao da to ima veze sa posmatranjem sveta kao matrixa. Čak šta više, nigde nije kuća. No dobro, manimo se te teme...
Too fat for Facebook: photo banned for depicting body in 'undesirable manner' (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/23/facebook-bans-photo-plus-sized-model-tess-holliday-ad-guidelines)
Quote
Facebook (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/facebook) has apologized for banning a photo of a plus-sized model and telling the feminist group that posted the image that it depicts "body parts in an undesirable manner".
As a child, Lindy West was told she was 'off the charts'. In this exclusive extract from her new book, Shrill, she explains how society's fixation on thinness warps women's lives – and why she would rather be 'fat' than 'big'
Cherchez la Femme, an Australian group that hosts (http://cherchezlafemme.com.au/) popular culture talkshows with "an unapologetically feminist angle", said Facebook rejected an advert featuring Tess Holliday, a plus-sized model wearing a bikini, telling the group it violated the company's "ad guidelines".
After the group appealed against the rejection, Facebook's ad team initially defended the decision, writing that (https://www.facebook.com/cherchezlafemmo/photos/pcb.1091521380889905/1091519707556739/?type=3&theater) the photo failed to comply with the social networking site's "health and fitness policy (https://www.facebook.com/business/help/223106797811279)".
"Ads may not depict a state of health or body weight as being perfect or extremely undesirable," Facebook wrote. "Ads like these are not allowed since they make viewers feel bad about themselves. Instead, we recommend using an image of a relevant activity, such as running or riding a bike."
In a statement on Monday, Facebook apologized for its original stance and said it had determined that the photo does comply with its guidelines.
"Our team processes millions of advertising images each week, and in some instances we incorrectly prohibit ads," the statement said. "This image does not violate our ad policies. We apologize for the error and have let the advertiser know we are approving their ad."
The photo (https://www.facebook.com/cherchezlafemmo/photos/gm.1772552306293761/1089485757760134/?type=3&theater) – for an event called Cherchez La Femme: Feminism and Fat (https://www.facebook.com/events/1772552296293762/?ref=1&action_history=%5B%7B%22surface%22%3A%22permalink%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22surface%22%2C%22extra_data%22%3A%5B%5D%7D%5D) – features a smiling Holliday wearing a standard bikini.
Facebook had originally allowed the event page to remain, but refused to approve the group's advert, which would have boosted the post.
With 800,000 followers on Instagram, 1m Facebook likes and a major modelling contract, the straight-talking American model is putting a bomb under the fashion industry
The policy in question is aimed at blocking content that encourages unhealthy weight loss – the opposite intent of Cherchez la Femme, which was promoting body positivity.
This is not the first time Facebook has come under fire for its censorship of photos. In March, the site faced backlash (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/23/facebook-censorship-topless-aboriginal-women) when it concluded that a photograph (https://www.facebook.com/wingsradio/posts/10153994320284844) of topless Aboriginal women in ceremonial paint as part of a protest violated "community standards".
Critics said that ban was an obvious double standard, noting that Facebook allows (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/23/facebook-censorship-topless-aboriginal-women) celebrities such as Kim Kardashian to pose with body paint covering her nipples.
Instagram and Facebook have also faced opposition for policies banning women from exposing their nipples, with critics arguing that the guidelines are prejudiced (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2015/jul/07/instagram-facebook-female-nipple-ban-use-male-nipples-instead) against women and transgender users.
Cherchez la Femme vented its frustrations on its Facebook page.
"Facebook has ignored the fact that our event is going to be discussing body positivity (which comes in all shapes and sizes, but in the particular case of our event, fat bodies), and has instead come to the conclusion that we've set out to make women feel bad about themselves by posting an image of a wonderful plus sized woman," the group said (https://www.facebook.com/cherchezlafemmo/posts/1091521380889905). "We're raging pretty hard over here."
Internal report finds 'virtually identical' rates of conservative and liberal topics, but guidelines updated to 'exclude possibility of improper actions'
Jessamy Gleeson, co-producer of the group, said she was initially so shocked by the language in Facebook's explanation that she didn't know how to respond.
"I was utterly furious. I couldn't comprehend it, quite frankly," she said. "We thought it was really horrible and isolating and alienating ... Women (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/women) with fat bodies can, of course, be as desirable as anybody else."
Gleeson said she was not satisfied with Facebook's apology and hopes the company will re-examine its policies and address double standards in how it reviews photos of women.
"Quite simply they need to understand we can use images of fat women to promote women being happy," she said, adding, "What about all the cases that don't receive this media attention? They've been wrong in many other thousands of cases, I'm sure."
Is Facebook eavesdropping on your phone conversations? (http://news10.com/2016/05/24/is-facebook-eavesdropping-on-your-phone-conversations/)
Quote(WFLA) – It's irresistible, enticing and addicting. And, it's available 24-hours a day all over the world to billions of people. Facebook beckons to users seemingly with a two-prong approach – both the pressure and pleasure to post.
We share stories, photos, triumphs and tragedies. It is ingrained into our daily lives so deeply that studies show people check Facebook, on average, 14 times a day. With all those eyes all over the globe dialed in and the purchasing power available, the online giant has tapped into a controversial delivery of data into its intelligence gathering. It all starts with something that you may not even realize is enabled on your phone.
USF Professor Kelli Burns knows the power of social media. The longtime educator incorporates it into her classroom curriculum every day and, in the fall, will lead a graduate course in social media analytics.
One online behemoth, in particular, is more popular than ever, she admits. "People are definitely addicted to Facebook. They're addicted to their phones," she told WFLA. "We have a two-second attention span. People are always checking to see what's going on. Anytime you're using your phone, any kind of information that you're putting into your phone, looking at on your phone, Facebook can access that."
With the continuous invitation for users to share, post and like, just how much information is Facebook learning about you?
According to Kelli, more than you could ever imagine. "I don't think that people realize how much Facebook is tracking every move we're making online," she said. "Anything that you're doing on your phone, Facebook is watching." Indeed, they are.
So, be careful what you say in the presence of your phone. Facebook is not only watching, but also listening to your cell phone. It all starts with enabling your microphone feature in your settings. Once you do, choose your words carefully.
The site, itself, admits in an online statement, "We use your microphone to identify the things you're listening to or watching, based on the music and TV matches we're able to identify." But, experts contend that the site is going a step further. In what some users are calling an alarming trend, described as "Big Brother,"
Facebook also listens for certain buzz words. Once identified, those words trigger an interesting response. Items are then carefully placed in your Facebook feed, specifically crafted with your interests front and center. Wait! What?
We tested the theory with Kelli, and even we were surprised by what we found and saw.
Kelli enabled the microphone feature and talked about her desire to go on safari, right down to her mode of transportation. "I'm really interested in going on an African safari. I think it'd be wonderful to ride in one of those jeeps," she said aloud, phone in hand.
Less than 60 seconds later, the first post on her Facebook feed was a safari story that seemed to pop up out of nowhere. Turns out, it was a story that had been posted three hours earlier. And, after mentioning a jeep, a car ad also appeared on her page.
"That is kind of weird," she laughed. "I'm still not so sure this isn't just coincidence. I don't think Facebook is really listening to our conversations."
USF graduate student, Danielle Quichocho, is not at all fazed by the online "eavesdropping" with Facebook. In fact, she admits, "I don't think it's at all surprising," The 22-year-old is planning her thesis around this very topic.
"It's all about the bottom line, and if this is a way to fatten that bottom line, they're gonna do it," she told us. She maintains that people should be aware and educated as they use the popular app. Her motto? User beware.
So, how does she feel about Facebook using her interests as a basis for online ads, specifically designed for her in mind? "If you agree to the terms and conditions, then you know what to expect," she said. She also advises, choose your words carefully!
"The internet is forever! You leave a footprint there. They're going to find it. That's just how it is," she smiled.
A evo šta kaže Facebook u svom help centru (https://www.facebook.com/help/iphone-app/369513256545845):
QuoteDoes Facebook record conversations when it identifies the things I'm listening to or watching?No, we don't record your conversations. If you choose to turn on this feature, we'll only use your microphone to identify the things you're listening to (https://www.facebook.com/help/iphone-app/710615012295337) or watching based on the music and TV matches we're able to identify. If this feature is turned on, it's only active when you're writing a status update.
Note: This optional feature is only available in the US right now.
Пре неколико дана сам овде ставио поучан текст о фејсбуку, писан од стране камрада Давидовића, који је навео да фејсбук представља јаму духовног геноцида.
Линк је обрисан, нема везе (бришити другови, ја и даље држим час јер је идеологија бесмртна и надживеће све ваше модерације), али није прошло ни недељу дана од тада, а испоставило се да је камрад Давидовић био у праву.
Након ових догађаја у Русији, парафразираћу камрада Давидовића и рећи:
"На ВКонтакте улудо проведени сати, што чините Руси кукала вам мати."
Ruska tinejdžerka podsticala mlade na samoubistvo preko Fejsbuka
Srna | 29. 05. 2016 - 09:23h
Ruska policija otkrila je glavnog "administratora" na društvenim mrežama koje podstiču maloletnike na samoubistvo - to je trinaestogodišnja devojčica pod pseudonimom Eva Rejh!
Foto: Karly Domb Sadof / Tanjug
Istražioci iz Omska su, tokom provere informacija da se u grupama na društvenoj mreži "VKontakte" objavljuju informacije koje tinejdžere podstiču na izvršenje samoubistava, utvrdili da se pod pseudonimom "Eva Rejh" krije učenica iz Omska.
Istražitelji su saslušali majku devojčice i samu tinejdžerku, koja nije negirala da se, kako navodi, "zabavljala i vodila konverzaciju sa mnogim internet korisnicima, između ostalog i o suicidnim temama".
Kako bi ustanovili s kim je sve bila u kontaktu i razjasnili sve okolnosti, istražici su osumnjičenoj devojčici oduzeli mobilni telefon i hard-disk iz kompjutera, a zatim otvorili istragu koja treba da utvrdi identitet svih osoba na koje je ona imala uticaj.
Razne sekte, putem društvenih mreža u Rusiji, navode maloletnike na samoubistva - samo od novembra 2015. do aprila 2016. godine 130 mališana izvršilo je samoubistvo, a većina je bila učlanjena u sektaške grupe.
Ruski mediji objavljuju šokantne rezultate istraživanja grupa na društvenim mrežama koje podstiču kod dece želju za samoubistvom.
"Novaja gazeta" objavljuje saznanja o takozvanim "grupama smrti" na društvenoj mreži "VKontakt", inače najpopularnijoj u Rusiji. Te "zajednice" su, kako se tvrdi, navodile maloletnike na samoubistva.
Autor istraživanja Galina Mursalijeva navodi da su to velike sekte iza kojih stoje odrasli ljudi. Oni su osnovali vlastiti "klub samoubica" i već su najavili nove suicide.
Na društvenoj mreži "VKontakt" ima najmanje hiljadu i pet stotina grupa koje, na neki način, pozivaju decu da izvrše samoubistvo.
Cilj tih grupa je, kako se navodi, da "dostignu `stanje Rine`". Pod tim imenom je na internetu poznata 16-godišnja devojčica iz jednog sibirskog grada, koja je u novembru 2015. godine legla na prugu pod voz.
Fotografije njenog iskasapljenog tela dospele su na internet, a Rina je postala simbol "grupa smrti" kao "prvi sledbenik sekte".
"Stanje Rine" tinejdžeri su dostizali putem takozvanih "avantura", to jest interaktivnih zadataka, kao u video-igricama.
Administratori su, naime, davali deci lični broj i instrukciju o tome koga dana i na koji način treba dići ruku na sebe. Zatim su uključivali "tajmer".
Sve dok ne nastupi "dan D" tinejdžeri treba da rade "domaće zadatke" - da grebu ruke do krvi ili da traže rešenje "zagonetki" sastavljenih od besmislenih brojki i simbola u vidu nekakve šifre sa "onog sveta".
http://www.blic.rs/vesti/svet/ruska-tinejdzerka-podsticala-mlade-na-samoubistvo-preko-fejsbuka/5h9r36s (http://www.blic.rs/vesti/svet/ruska-tinejdzerka-podsticala-mlade-na-samoubistvo-preko-fejsbuka/5h9r36s)
Quote from: T2 on 30-05-2016, 16:43:17
Пре неколико дана сам овде ставио поучан текст о фејсбуку, писан од стране камрада Давидовића, који је навео да фејсбук представља јаму духовног геноцида.
Линк је обрисан, нема везе
Šta bre obrisan?
Quote from: T2 on 25-05-2016, 16:09:23
,,На Фејсбуку улудо утрошени сати, шта радите Срби кукала вам мати!"
http://oslobodjenje.rs/polupismenost-je-gora-od-nepismenosti-a-fejsbuk-je-jama-duhovnog-genocida/ (http://oslobodjenje.rs/polupismenost-je-gora-od-nepismenosti-a-fejsbuk-je-jama-duhovnog-genocida/)
Не знам ја шта ти муљаш и радиш са постовима :lol:, али малопре тај пост уопште нисам видео на страници.
Међутим, одлично је да пост ипак стоји јер је реч о пророчком тексту камрада Давидовића кога је само Провиђење послало да упозори младеж Србије на духовну пошаст звану фејсбук.
Jea, komrad Firer je pravi uzor :)
uzgred, jel se Firer moze uopste zvati komradom, ili je to ipak rezervisano za komuniste?
Камрад Давидовић је живући пророк чије пророчке речи надахњује Провиђење. :lol:
Човек је предвидео све што ви леваци нисте ни помишљали, јер за разлику од камрада Давидовића - ви нисте вођени Провиђењем. :lol:
За друго питање контактирај википедију, па погледај пун назив партије на коју мислиш. :lol:
Aye, ja ne verujem u proroke, zivuce ili mrtve. Fali mi imaginacije, za razliku od druga Firera :lol:
iskreno, probala sam da procitam ono brljavljenje tj prorocke reci i nikako da shvatim sta je pisac hteo da kaze, svakako nista relevantno za sadasnji trenutak i temu kojom je mislio da se pozabavi.
Quote from: T2 on 30-05-2016, 19:16:40
Не знам ја шта ти муљаш и радиш са постовима :lol:, али малопре тај пост уопште нисам видео на страници.
Nemam ja nikakve posebne administratorske ili moderatorske moći na ovom forumu, sasvim je moguće da naprosto nisi pažljivo gledao.
Као што сам ти рекао, недостаје ти Провиђење, а не машта. :lol:
Ако и после овога што се десило у Русији ти не схваташ пророчке речи камрада Давидовића, то је само због тога што ниси на правој 14/88 фреквенцији. :lol:
Mozda je drug Firer crpeo inspiraciju iz japanske kulture i filma :)
Suicide Club (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312843/?ref_=nv_sr_1)
Quote from: Dybuk on 30-05-2016, 19:19:43
uzgred, jel se Firer moze uopste zvati komradom, ili je to ipak rezervisano za komuniste?
problem je sto hrvatski u ovom segmentu zbog dugogodisnjeg komunistickog uticaja "osakacen".
dok hrvatski pod diktatom poznavao tek druga, u njemackom imamo kamerad i genosse. oba termina prevode se kao drug, no prvi oznacava odnos spram (bliske) osobe uglavnom bez naglaskna na ideoloskom, tek, primjerice, po kolegijalnoj liniji (no izrazajnije od kollege), iako se cesto rabi i u vojnickom zargonu, medju pripadnicima iste jedinice, drugi se uglavnom rabi iskljucivo medju neo-komunistima.
znaci firer bi svakako bio moj kamerad, dok nikad ne moze biti genosse.
Apartment in US asks tenants to 'like' Facebook page or face action (http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/apartment-in-us-asks-tenants-to-like-facebook-page-or-face-action-116053100955_1.html)
QuoteCall it bizarre but the management at an apartment building in Salt Lake City has told tenants living in the complex to "like" its Facebook (http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Facebook)page or they will be in breach of their lease.
According to tenants of the City Park Apartments, a "Facebook addendum" showed up taped to their doors last weekend, asking them to "like" its Facebook page, www.ksl.com (http://www.ksl.com) reported on Tuesday.
According to the contract, if tenants do not "friend" the City Park Apartments on Facebook within five days, they will be found in breach of the rental agreement.
"I don't want to be forced to be someone's friend and be threatened to break my lease because of that," tenant Jason Ring was quoted as saying.
"It's outrageous as far as I'm concerned," he added
Some of the tenants have already signed a lease agreement months ago.
The contract document also has a release allowing the apartment to post pictures of tenants and their visitors on the Facebook page.
The building currently has a 1.1-star rating on its Facebook page.
The building's managers or Facebook didn't respond to a request for comment, the report added.
E, pa, posle toliko decenija, od prvog Juna, internet se i zvanično u engleskom pravopisu piše malim slovom (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/internet-web-enjoy-final-day-proper-nouns/story?id=39508227).
How Mark Zuckerberg Led Facebook's War to Crush Google Plus (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/how-mark-zuckerberg-led-facebooks-war-to-crush-google-plus)
QuoteMark Zuckerberg is a genius.
Not in the Asperger's, autistic way depicted in the very fictional movie The Social Network, the cognitive genius of exceptional ability. That's a modern definition that reduces the original meaning.
Nor would I say he was the Steve Jobsian product genius, either. Anyone claiming as much will have to explain the crowded graveyard of forgotten Facebook product failures. Remember "Home," the Facebook-enabled home screen for Android phones, launched with much fanfare at a Facebook press event in 2013, Zuck appearing alongside the C.E.O. of the soon-to-be-disappointed smartphone-maker HTC? Or Facebook's misguided bet on HTML5 in 2012, which slowed the mobile app to a frustrating crawl? How about Facebook's first version of Search, available in English only, mostly useful for checking out your friends' single female friends, and since discontinued? The stand-alone mobile app Paper, which was a shameless rip-off of Flipboard? Some unlaunched products I can't name consumed massive resources, dying internally after Zuck changed his mind and shut them down.
If he's a product genius, then there's lots of serendipity counterbalancing his divine madness.
No. I submit he is an old-school genius, the fiery force of nature possessed by a tutelary spirit of seemingly supernatural provenance that fuels and guides him, intoxicates his circle, and compels his retinue to be great as well. The Jefferson, the Napoléon, the Alexander... the Jim Jones, the L. Ron Hubbard, the Joseph Smith. Keeper of a messianic vision that, though mercurial and stinting on specifics, presents an overwhelming and all-consuming picture of a new and different world. Have a mad vision and you're a kook. Get a crowd to believe in it as well and you're a leader. By imprinting this vision on his disciples, Zuckerberg (http://www.vanityfair.com/people/mark-zuckerberg) founded the church of a new religion. All the early Facebook employees have their story of the moment when they saw the light and realized that Facebook wasn't some measly social network like MySpace but a dream of a different human experience. With all the fervor of recent converts, newly recruited followers attracted other committed, smart, and daring engineers and designers, themselves seduced by the echoes of the Zuckian vision in others.Down in the Valley Then there was the culture he created.
Many cool Valley companies have engineering-first cultures, but Facebook took it to a different level. The engineers ran the place, and so as long as you shipped code and didn't break anything (too often), you were golden. The spirit of subversive hackery guided everything. In the early days, a Georgia college kid named Chris Putnam created a virus that made your Facebook profile resemble MySpace, then the social-media incumbent. It went rampant and started deleting user data as well. Instead of siccing the F.B.I. dogs on Putnam, Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz invited him for an interview and offered him a job. He went on to become one of Facebook's more famous and rage-filled engineers. That was the uniquely piratical attitude: if you could get shit done and quickly, nobody cared much about credentials or traditional legalistic morality. The hacker ethos prevailed above all.
This culture is what kept 23-year-old kids who were making half a million a year, in a city where there was lots of fun on offer if you had the cash, tethered to a corporate campus for 14-hour days. They ate three meals a day there, sometimes slept there, and did nothing but write code, review code, or comment on new features in internal Facebook groups. On the day of the I.P.O.—Facebook's victory rally—the Ads area was full of busily working engineers at eight P.M. on a Friday. All were at that point worth real money—even fuck-you money for some—and all were writing code on the very day their paper turned to hard cash.
At Facebook, your start date was celebrated by the company the way evangelicals celebrate the day they were baptized and found Jesus, or the way new American citizens celebrate the day they took their oath in front of the flag. This event was called (really) your Faceversary, and every colleague would rush to congratulate you on Facebook (of course), just as normal people did for one another on their birthdays. Often the company or your colleagues would order you a garish surprise bouquet for your desk, with one of those huge Mylar balloons in the shape of a 2 or whatever. When someone left Facebook (usually around when the balloons said 4 or 5), everyone would treat it as a death, as if you were leaving the current plane of existence and going to another one (though it wasn't assumed this next plane would be better than the current one). The tombstone of your Facebook death was a photo posted on Facebook of your weathered and worn corporate ID. It was customary to include a weepy suicide note/self-written epitaph, and the post would garner hundreds of likes and comments inside a minute.
To the deceased, it felt like a passing, too. When you left Facebook, you left the employee-only Facebook network, which meant that all the posts from internal groups (with secret company stuff) were gone, your posts got less distribution among other Facebook employees (who were on it 24/7, of course), and your Facebook feed, which had become your only social view of the world, suddenly slowed to a near-empty crawl. Almost instantly, someone would add you to the ex-Facebook secret groups, which served as a sort of post-employment purgatory where former employees discussed the company.
Pause and consider all this for a lingering moment: the militant engineering culture, the all-consuming work identity, the apostolic sense of devotion to a great cause. The cynics will read statements from Zuckerberg (http://www.vanityfair.com/people/mark-zuckerberg) or some other senior exec about creating "a more open and connected world" and think, "Oh, what sentimental drivel." The critics will read of a new product tweak or partnership and think Facebook is doing it only to make more money.
They're wrong.
Facebook is full of true believers who really, really, really are not doing it for the money, and really, really will not stop until every man, woman, and child on earth is staring into a blue-bannered window with a Facebook logo. Which, if you think about it, is much scarier than simple greed. The greedy man can always be bought at some price, and his behavior is predictable. But the true zealot? He can't be had at any price, and there's no telling what his mad visions will have him and his followers do.
That's what we're talking about with Mark Elliot Zuckerberg and the company he created.
In June 2011, Google launched an obvious Facebook copy called Google Plus. Obnoxiously wired in to other Google products like Gmail and YouTube, it was meant to join all users of Google services into one online identity, much as Facebook did for the Internet as a whole. Given you had a Google Plus sign-up button practically everywhere in your Google user experience, the possibility of its network growing exponentially was very real indeed. Also, the product itself was pretty good, in some ways better than Facebook. The photo sharing was better and more geared to serious photographers, and much of the design cleaner and more minimalist. An additional plus for Google Plus: it had no ads, as Google could subsidize it with AdWords, its paid-search gold mine. This was the classic one-hand-washing-the-other tactic of the ruthless monopolist, like Microsoft using the revenue from Windows to crush Netscape Navigator with Explorer back in the 90s. By owning search, Google would bankroll taking over social media as well.
This sudden move was somewhat surprising. For years Google had been famously dismissive of Facebook, the rarefied heights of its search monopoly making it feel untouchable. But as the one-way parade of expensive talent from Google to Facebook continued with no end in sight, Google got nervous. Companies are like countries: the populations really vote only with their feet, either coming or going. Google instituted a policy whereby any desirable Googler who got a Facebook offer would have it beaten instantly by a heaping Google counter-offer. This, of course, caused a rush of Googlers to interview at Facebook, only to use the resulting offer as a bargaining chip to improve their Google pay. But many were legitimately leaving. The Googlers at Facebook were a bit like the Greeks during the rise of the Roman Empire: they brought lots of civilization and tech culture with them, but it was clear who was going to run the world in the near future.
Google Plus was Google finally taking note of Facebook and confronting the company head-on, rather than via cloak-and-dagger recruitment shenanigans and catty disses at tech conferences. It hit Facebook like a bomb. Zuck took it as an existential threat comparable to the Soviets' placing nukes in Cuba in 1962. Google Plus was the great enemy's sally into our own hemisphere, and it gripped Zuck like nothing else. He declared "Lockdown," the first and only one during my time there. As was duly explained to the more recent employees, Lockdown was a state of war that dated to Facebook's earliest days, when no one could leave the building while the company confronted some threat, either competitive or technical.
How, might you ask, was Lockdown officially announced? We received an e-mail at 1:45 P.M. the day Google Plus launched, instructing us to gather around the Aquarium, the glass-walled cube that was Zuck's throne room. Actually, it technically instructed us to gather around the Lockdown sign. This was a neon sign bolted to the upper reaches of the Aquarium, above the cube of glass, almost like the NO VACANCY sign on a highway motel. By the time the company had gathered itself around, that sign was illuminated, tipping us off to what was coming. Zuckerberg was usually a poor speaker. His speech came at the rapid clip of someone accustomed to analyzing language for content only, and at the speed of a very agile mind that didn't have time for rhetorical flourishes. It was geek-speak, basically, the English language as spoken by people who have four screens of computer code open at once. His bearing was aloof and disconnected from his audience, and yet he maintained that intense stare that bordered on the psychopathic. It was an unnerving look that had irrevocably rattled more than one interlocutor, typically some poor employee undergoing a withering product review, and it stared out from every Fortune or Time cover he graced. It was easy to project a creepy persona onto that gaze. That unfortunate first impression, plus the mischaracterization in the film The Social Network, was probably responsible for half of the ever present suspicion and paranoia surrounding Facebook's motives. But occasionally Zuck would have a charismatic moment of lucid greatness, and it would be stunning.
The 2011 Lockdown speech didn't promise to be one of those moments. It was delivered completely impromptu from the open space next to the stretch of desks where the executive staff sat. All of Facebook's engineers, designers, and product managers gathered around him in a rapt throng; the scene brought to mind a general addressing his troops in the field.
The contest for users, he told us, would now be direct and zero-sum. Google had launched a competing product; whatever was gained by one side would be lost by the other. It was up to all of us to up our game while the world conducted live tests of Facebook versus Google's version of Facebook and decided which it liked more. He hinted vaguely at product changes we would consider in light of this new competitor. The real point, however, was to have everyone aspire to a higher bar of reliability, user experience, and site performance.
In a company whose overarching mantras were DONE IS BETTER THAN PERFECT and PERFECT IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD, this represented a course correction, a shift to the concern for quality that typically lost out to the drive to ship. It was the sort of nagging paternal reminder to keep your room clean that Zuck occasionally dished out after Facebook had suffered some embarrassing bug or outage.
Rounding off another beaded string of platitudes, he changed gears and erupted with a burst of rhetoric referencing one of the ancient classics he had studied at Harvard and before. "You know, one of my favorite Roman orators ended every speech with the phrase Carthago delenda est. 'Carthage must be destroyed.' For some reason I think of that now." He paused as a wave of laughter tore through the crowd.
The aforementioned orator was Cato the Elder, a noted Roman senator and inveigher against the Carthaginians, who clamored for the destruction of Rome's great challenger in what became the Third Punic War. Reputedly, he ended every speech with that phrase, no matter the topic.
Carthago delenda est. Carthage must be destroyed!
Zuckerberg's tone went from paternal lecture to martial exhortation, the drama mounting with every mention of the threat Google represented. The speech ended to a roar of cheering and applause. Everyone walked out of there ready to invade Poland if need be. It was a rousing performance. Carthage must be destroyed!In the Trenches The Facebook Analog Research Laboratory jumped into action and produced a poster with CARTHAGO DELENDA EST splashed in imperative bold type beneath a stylized Roman centurion's helmet. This improvised printshop made all manner of posters and ephemera, often distributed semi-furtively at nights and on weekends, in a fashion reminiscent of Soviet samizdat. The art itself was always exceptional, evoking both the mechanical typography of W.W. II-era propaganda posters and contemporary Internet design, complete with faux vintage logos. This was Facebook's ministry of propaganda, and it was originally started with no official permission or budget, in an unused warehouse space. In many ways, it was the finest exemplar of Facebook values: irreverent yet bracing in its martial qualities.
The Carthago posters went up immediately all over the campus and were stolen almost as fast. It was announced that the cafés would be open over the weekends, and a proposal was seriously floated to have the shuttles from Palo Alto and San Francisco run on the weekends, too. This would make Facebook a fully seven-days-a-week company; by whatever means, employees were expected to be in and on duty. In what was perceived as a kindly concession to the few employees with families, it was also announced that families were welcome to visit on weekends and eat in the cafés, allowing the children to at least see Daddy (and, yes, it was mostly Daddy) on weekend afternoons. My girlfriend and our one-year-old daughter, Zoë, came by, and we weren't the only family there, by any stretch. Common was the scene of the swamped Facebook employee with logo'd hoodie spending an hour of quality time with his wife and two kids before going back to his desk.
And what was everyone working on?
For those in the user-facing side of Facebook, it meant thinking twice on a code change amid the constant, hell-for-leather dash to ship some new product bell or whistle, so we wouldn't look like the half-assed, thrown-together, social-media Frankenstein we occasionally were.
For us in the Ads team, it was mostly corporate solidarity that made us join the weekend-working mob. At Facebook, even then and certainly later, you got along by going along, and everyone sacrificing his or her entire life for the cause was as much about self-sacrifice and team building as it was an actual measure of your productivity. This was a user battle, not a revenue one, and there was little we could do to help wage the Google Plus Punic War, other than not totally horrifying users with some aggressive new Ads product—something nobody had the nerve to do in those pre-I.P.O. days. Internal Facebook groups sprang up to dissect every element of the Google Plus product. On the day Plus launched, I noted an Ads product manager named Paul Adams in close conversation with Zuckerberg (http://www.vanityfair.com/people/mark-zuckerberg) and a couple members of the high command inside a small conference room. As was well known, before he defected to Facebook, Paul had been one of the product designers for Google Plus. Now that the product had launched, presumably he was no longer restrained by a non-disclosure agreement with Google, and Facebook was having him walk the leadership through the public aspects of Google Plus.
Facebook was not fucking around. This was total war.
I decided to do some reconnaissance. En route to work one Sunday morning, I skipped the Palo Alto exit on the 101 and got off in Mountain View instead. Down Shoreline I went and into the sprawling Google campus. The multicolored Google logo was everywhere, and clunky Google-colored bikes littered the courtyards. I had visited friends here before and knew where to find the engineering buildings. I made my way there and contemplated the parking lot.
It was empty. Completely empty.
Interesting.
I got back on the 101 North and drove to Facebook.
At the California Avenue building, I had to hunt for a parking spot. The lot was full.
It was clear which company was fighting to the death.
Carthage must be destroyed!
While Zuck wouldn't burn Google to the ground, take the wives and children of Google employees as slaves, and salt the grounds of the former Google offices so nothing would grow there for generations, as some say Rome did to Carthage, it was still about as ignominious a defeat as one got in the tech world.
Not that this was clear from the first skirmishes, mind you.
In fact, the initial signs were more than alarming. Google Plus wasn't some halfhearted effort by Google to knock off a pesky upstart. The news coming out of Google, leaked via the press, or via current Google employees (former colleagues to many Facebookers, who'd come from their current mortal rival), was that all of Google's internal product teams were being re-oriented in favor of Google Plus. Even Search, then and now the most frequented destination on the Web, was being dragged into the fray and would supposedly sport social features. Search results would now vary based on your connections via Google Plus, and anything you shared—photos, posts, even chats with friends—would now be used as part of Google's ever powerful and mysterious search algorithm.
This was shocking news, even more so to Googlers. Search was the company's tabernacular product, the holy of holies, the on-line oracle of human knowledge that had replaced libraries and encyclopedias.
By all accounts (and Google information security was clearly not as good as Facebook's), this caused a considerable stir internally. In January 2012, Google co-founder Larry Page, at the companywide Q&A session known as "TGIF," addressed this new direction forcefully, quelling the internal dissent and reportedly vowing: "This is the path we're headed down—a single, unified, 'beautiful' product across everything. If you don't get that, then you should probably work somewhere else."
Gauntlet thrown down, Google products were soon ranked via one unique metric—how much did they contribute to Google's social vision?—and were either consolidated or discarded appropriately.Ne Plus Ultra? As part of the budding media seduction around this new product, Google posted eye-popping usage numbers. In September 2012, it announced that the service had 400 million registered users and 100 million active ones. Facebook hadn't even quite reached a billion users yet, and it had taken the company four years to reach the milestone—100 million users—that Google had reached in one. This caused something close to panic inside Facebook, but as we'd soon learn, the reality on the battlefield was somewhat different than what Google was letting on.
This contest had so rattled the search giant, intoxicated as they were with unfamiliar existential anxiety about the threat that Facebook posed, that they abandoned their usual sober objectivity around engineering staples like data and began faking their usage numbers to impress the outside world, and (no doubt) intimidate Facebook.
This was the classic new-product sham, the "Fake it till you make it" of the unscrupulous startupista, meant to flatter the ego and augment chances of future (real) success by projecting an image of current (imagined) success.
The numbers were originally taken seriously—after all, it wasn't absurd to think Google could drive usage quickly—but after a while even the paranoid likes of Facebook insiders (not to mention the outside world) realized Google was juicing the numbers, the way an Enron accountant would a revenue report. Usage is always somewhat in the eye of the beholder, and Google was considering anyone who had ever so much as clicked on a Google Plus button anywhere as part of their usual Google experience a "user." Given the overnight proliferation of Google Plus buttons all over Google, like mushrooms on a shady knoll, one could claim "usage" when a Google user so much as checked e-mail or uploaded a private photo. The reality was Google Plus users were rarely posting or engaging with posted content, and they certainly weren't returning repeatedly like the proverbial lab rat in the drug experiment hitting the lever for another drop of cocaine water (as they did on Facebook). When self-delusion and self-flattery enter the mind-set of a product team, and the metrics they judge themselves by, like the first plague rat coming onto a ship, the end is practically preordained. The face of Google Plus could not have been more perfect: Vic Gundotra was a former Microsoft exec who'd climbed the treacherous corporate ladder there before jumping to Google. It was he who had whispered a litany of fear into the ear of Google co-founder Larry Page, who had green-lit the project, and it was he who headed the rushed and top-down effort (unusual for Google) to ship a product within an ambitious 100 days.
A certain resinous smarminess coated Gundotra, like a thin layer of annoying motor oil on a socket wrench, never letting you get a real grip on it. And toolish he was, stumping loudly for Google Plus in countless media interviews and at Google-sponsored events. What was most insulting to a Facebooker was his studiously avoiding mentioning the social-media behemoth in public statements, as if the very raison d'être for his now towering presence at Google didn't even exist. Like some Orwellian copywriter, engineering language and perception to suit a fictional reality, Google would rarely mention the Facebook elephant in the room in any public statement, insulting any viewer by suggesting they had practically invented the notion of Internet-mediated social interaction. "Networks are for networking," intoned Gundotra, any reference to Facebook always oblique and dismissive. "Circles are for the right people," he continued, referring to Google Circles, a way of organizing social contacts, shamelessly copied from Facebook's long-ignored Lists feature.
Vic's mere visage had an almost Emmanuel Goldstein-esque quality, and many were the rips and the gibes that he suffered in internal groups, a socially mediated Two-Minute Hate, whenever someone posted a link to some pro-Google bloviation of his. This had gone beyond mere corporate rivalry to become a personal struggle to Facebookers, many of whom saw their identities wrapped up in the company, Facebook as an expression of themselves (or was it vice versa?). In April of 2014, after the Google-Facebook war had mostly run its course, Vic suddenly announced he was leaving Google. There was a "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" note of triumph inside Facebook, as everyone breathed a sigh of relief at the passing threat.
Like a general's fall marking the rout of his army, Vic's departure was as clear a sign as any that Google had given up on social, sucking up a defeat at the hands of a company it had previously ignored, if not held in outright contempt. This was only confirmed when it was simultaneously revealed that many Google Plus product teams, such as the chat app Hangouts and the photo-sharing app Photos, would be rolled into the Android team, the mobile operating system Google owned. Google spun it as Google Plus becoming not a "product" but a "platform," a sort of general-use tool that would enhance the user experience across Google's wide array of products.
It was like a government announcing their army was not in retreat but rather advancing in reverse, and everyone at Facebook saw through the face-saving P.R. wordplay. Google Plus was over; Facebook had won. The Lockdown circling of the wagons had triumphed.The long-term conclusion was this: Facebook lived inside an unassailable redoubt of its own social network, a fortress that was completely impregnable, at least to conventional assaults via lots of money and smart people, as Google had attempted. Once everyone and his mother was on Facebook, they weren't leaving it, even when the Internet's most used site (i.e., Google Search itself) was used as inducement to join.
While Facebook clearly outpaced Google in focus and esprit de corps, the plucky upstart against the complacent incumbent, there was still the issue of revenue. Google's was still more than five times Facebook's, and the social-media giant, for however many hours of user time it managed to ingest via its blue-bannered maw, still wasn't monetizing users very well. If Facebook was ever to really hold its own against Google (not to mention revenue geysers like Apple and Amazon), it would need its own revenue geyser, like Google's AdWords or Apple's iPhone. In pursuit of that, Facebook would embark on an ambitious and ill-conceived company-spanning project of its own. Like Google Plus, that product would consume the company entirely, only to end in the smoldering ruin of abject failure. But from those ashes, plus the anxiety of a looming I.P.O., Facebook would finally find its own gold mine: monetizing mobile usage.
Adapted from Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley, by Antonio García Martínez (https://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Monkeys-Obscene-Fortune-Failure-ebook/dp/B019MMUAAQ?ie=UTF8&qid=&ref_=tmm_kin_swatch_0&sr=), to be published this month by Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers; © 2016 by the author.
LinkedIn data breach leads to hacking of Zuckerberg's social network accounts (https://thestack.com/security/2016/06/06/zuckerberg-dadada-linkedin-ourmine-breach/)
Quote
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has proven to be the highest-profile victim of the recent LinkedIn data breach, as his Twitter and Pinterest accounts were hacked and defaced on Sunday.
Saudi Arabian hacker group OurMine has claimed responsibility for the defacements, and said that it used Zuckerberg's login details included in the 2012 hack of 65 million LinkedIn accounts (http://www.pcworld.com/article/257045/security/6-5m-linkedin-passwords-posted-online-after-apparent-hack.html) – and that the most powerful individual in the global tech scene re-used the very low-security password 'dadada' (http://thehackernews.com/2016/06/facebook-zuck-hacked.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheHackersNews+%28The+Hackers+News+-+Security+Blog%29) for both accounts.
OurMine tweeted (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36457190) the details of the hack before its Twitter account (http://web.archive.org/web/20160202051942/https:/mobile.twitter.com/_OurMine_) (Wayback Machine) was suspended (https://twitter.com/_ourmine_). 'Hey @finkd we got access to your Twitter & Instagram & Pinterest, we are just testing your security, please dm us'
Facebook has denied additional claims that Zuckerberg's Instagram account was also compromised during the attacks, with a spokesperson for the social network stating (http://venturebeat.com/2016/06/05/mark-zuckerbergs-twitter-and-pinterests-accounts-hacked-linkedin-password-dump-likely-to-blame/) "No Facebook systems or accounts were accessed... The affected accounts have been re-secured."
The full extent of the LinkedIn breach was not apparent when the data was stolen in 2012, with LinkedIn later admitting that 100 million additional user/pass combos had been compromised. In the middle of last month a hacker calling themselves 'peace' offered up a total of 167 million login pairs (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/another-day-another-hack-117-million-linkedin-emails-and-password) for sale at 5 bitcoins (approx. $2,200)at Dark Web marketplace 'The Real Deal' – apparently this is the transaction that has led to the Zuckerberg breach.
Since the passwords were encrypted without salting (a randomising process which obscures the encryption algorithm and makes decryption far more problematic), the entire database proved crackable in a mere three days (https://www.leakedsource.com/blog/linkedin).
In February of 2015 LinkedIn agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle a class-action lawsuit from members who had been affected by the 2012 data hack – though at $50 a claimant (http://www.zdnet.com/article/linkedin-will-pay-1-25-million-to-settle-suit-over-password-breach/), no-one stood to be much enriched out of the settlement.
Zuckerberg's Twitter account (https://twitter.com/finkd) has been inactive since prior to the LinkedIn breach, despite over 400,000 followers, with the last post dated 18th January 2012.
The re-use of such a simple password doubtless led OurMine to try it on several other accounts and systems belonging to the Facebook multi-billionaire – the ultimate peril of creating an easily memorable password without an underlying, personalised system (https://thestack.com/security/2014/08/19/the-mnemonic-war-against-password1/) to make it a harder prospect for crackers. However, if cloud-side storage doesn't salt or provide adequate security in general, no amount of tips or tricks is likely to help much.
Social Media App Usage Down Across the Globe (https://www.similarweb.com/blog/social-media-usage)
Quote from: lilit on 08-01-2016, 11:51:02
a i ako se desi da bude više od 140, svi koji pređu limit biće blokirani :lol:
Videćemo da li će Lilita ispuniti svoju pretnju sad kad twitter zaista podiže limit. Doduše ne na 10 hiljada karaktera kako se tad pričalo, ali će iz limita biti izuzete slike, kao i citirani tvitovi:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/12/12891562/twitter-tweets-140-characters-expand-photos
Tviter se (reklo bi se) priprema da se skupo proda:
Twitter may soon get formal bid, suitors said to include Salesforce and Google (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/23/twitter-may-receive-formal-bid-shortly-suitors-said-to-include-salesforce-and-google.html)
No one wants to buy Twitter (http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/14/13287818/no-one-wants-to-buy-twitter)
Quote
The emotional roller coaster that is Twitter's future seems to have hit a new low today as Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff tells the (https://www.ft.com/content/2c8cdd72-922c-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78)Financial Times (https://www.ft.com/content/2c8cdd72-922c-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78)his company has "walked away" from making a bid to buy it.
If you're keeping track, that's now... pretty much everyone who's said they're not interested in buying Twitter. Neither Google nor Disney plan to bid on Twitter (http://www.recode.net/2016/10/5/13181704/disney-twitter-buy-iger-dorsey), despite reports saying both were interested. Recode (http://www.recode.net/2016/10/5/13181704/disney-twitter-buy-iger-dorsey)says (http://www.recode.net/2016/10/5/13181704/disney-twitter-buy-iger-dorsey) that Apple is likely also out of the picture. And Verizon immediately dismissed speculation (http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/23/investing/twitter-takeover-rumors-google-salesforce/) that it was considering a bid.
Facebook is also said to be uninterested, according to CNBC (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/26/microsoft-seen-as-possible-twitter-bidder-source.html). And while Microsoft's name has been tossed around, no one (http://fortune.com/2016/09/27/will-microsoft-buy-twitter/) seems to think (http://www.recode.net/2016/10/5/13181704/disney-twitter-buy-iger-dorsey) the acquisition would make any sense for an increasingly enterprise-focused company.
So it very much sounds like no one is going to make a bid on Twitter this week. Which means that the possibility of a Twitter acquisition, at least for now, appears to be over.
That's going to put even more pressure on Twitter to figure out a way to restart user growth, which has ranged from "stalled" to "slow" over the past year. Twitter's revenue has also been growing slowly, and it's unclear if its new embrace of live video — like streaming NFL games and the presidential debates — has been helping.
Twitter will update investors on its earnings again two weeks from now, on October 27th, and it's likely the company will either address or be asked about where acquisition talks go from here.
Twitteru baš ne ide. Prvo najava da otpuštaju 9% svojih zaposlenih a sada i ubijaju Vine....
Vine Is Dead (http://gizmodo.com/vine-is-dead-1788285242)
Facebook users sue over alleged racial discrimination in housing, job ads (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/facebook-users-sue-over-alleged-racial-discrimination-in-housing-job-ads/)
6 Scientific Reasons Facebook Turns Everybody Into A Jerk (http://www.cracked.com/article_24450_6-ways-human-biology-turns-you-into-asshole-facebook.html)
Tviter u agoniji :lol:
Twitter is 'toast' and the stock is not even worth $10: Analyst (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/21/twitter-is-toast-and-the-stock-is-not-even-worth-10-analyst.html)
Možda će se u istoriji ovo na kraju pamtiti kao definicija mjehura. Tviter nikada nije imao ne jasnu nego ni maglovitu strategiju zarade ali mu je munjevita proliferacija među korisnicima interneta omogućila da izgleda kao next big thing ma šta u svemu tome to "thing" trebalo da bude i, evo, skoro deset godina je jahao na talasu kapitala koji je naslepo jurio next big thing. Međutim, sad niko neće da kupi firmu, visokopozicionirani egzekjutivi iskaču iz broda koji tone i... na kraju će ga verovatno pazariti neka kineska firma i pretvoriti u reklamnu platformu gde će botovi jedni drugima tvitovati genijalne i tajne tehnike za povećanje penisa.
bolje povećanje penisa nego sve te tviter revolucije. :lol:
Normalno da ćeš to ti da kažeš, pa ti si ŽENA!!!!
How tech ate the media and our minds (https://www.axios.com/searching-for-information-nirvana-2248588151.html)
QuoteLet's face it: most of us are more distracted and more frazzled than ever. We are prisoners to our phones: tweeting our every thought, or snapping our every emotion, or Facebooking our every fantasy, feeling or family moment. We scroll, click and swipe our days away, better connected than at any point in humanity — but not necessarily better informed.
We've been hit with more technological innovations than we are capable of responsibly handling. Ten short years ago: The iPhone was born, Facebook was a small social network used mostly by college students, and there was no Snapchat, Instagram or Pinterest. Most people still relied on three network evening newscasts and a local newspaper, hand delivered, to be informed about current events. If you wanted to share a photo, you probably mailed it; if you wanted to share your opinion, you screamed it at the TV in your basement or wrote a letter to the editor, maybe by hand.
But then technology blew up — and blew (and took over) our minds. Now, every day there are:
- 1.2 billion web pageviews, per Chartbeat
- Billions of Google searches, per Google
- 13.8 billion hours + of video shared on YouTube, per Google
- 13M audio/video calls made on Facebook Messenger, per Facebook
- 50 billion messages sent on WhatsApp, per Facebook
- 500 million Tweets sent, per Twitter
Our brains have been literally swamped and reprogrammed. On average, we check our phones 50 times each day — with some studies suggesting it could three times that amount. We spend around 6 hours per day (https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Growth-Time-Spent-with-Media-Slowing/1014042) consuming digital media. As a result, the human attention span has fallen (http://time.com/3858309/attention-spans-goldfish/) from 12 seconds to eight seconds since 2000, while the goldfish attention span is nine seconds. And we just mindlessly pass along information without reading or checking it. Columbia University found (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/06/16/six-in-10-of-you-will-share-this-link-without-reading-it-according-to-a-new-and-depressing-study/?utm_term=.b58dd76d7790) that nearly 60 percent of all social media posts are shared without being clicked on.
For better or worse, Google and Facebook are mostly to blame. Nearly 60% of our media-consumption time happens in mobile apps (http://www.slideshare.net/comScoremarcom/comscore-2016-us-mobile-app-report), and a majority that traffic is owned by those two companies. (See below). This paradigm has destroyed the business model for news publishers, creating perverse incentives for publishers to generate as many clicks as possible, creating a "crap trap" — the deal media companies made with the devil to dumb things down (and lose credibility) by seeking the broadest reach. But, the house always wins: Facebook and Google now eat up almost two thirds (https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-11-21/google-and-facebook-divide-up-your-advertising-viewing) of all ads and gobbled up 90 percent (https://digitalcontentnext.org/blog/2016/06/16/google-and-facebook-devour-the-ad-and-data-pie-scraps-for-everyone-else/) of all growth in media spend — while publishers perish.
Data: 2016 Mobile App Report, comScore Mobile Metrix, U.S., Age 18+, June 2016; Chart: Lazaro Gamio / Axios
And, at least for now, the more we know, or can see, the less we trust. Roughly 62% of U.S. adults get news (http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/) on social media and 68% of people don't trust (http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx) the news they see or read. Think about that: most people don't trust REAL news. The proliferation of fake news is almost certain to get worse, as we see left-leaning (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/viva-la-resistance-content/515532/) groups racing to adapt manipulative techniques that helped conservatives in 2016. Case in point: A 2016 BuzzFeed News analysis (https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook) found that top fake election news stories generated more total engagement on Facebook than top election stories from 19 major news outlets combined.
This has created a conundrum: There is more good information than at any point in humanity, but it's harder than ever to find and trust. Almost every trend cited here is getting worse, not better. And so much of the power to change it rests in the hands of the few, mainly Facebook but also Google, Twitter and Snapchat. Some publishers are putting the emphasis on quality content, which can help. And others are moving fast to adapt serious news and information to better fit in these exploding off-platform ecosystems. But ultimately, the burden will fall on individual consumers to exploit what should be the golden age of information by adjusting their own habits.
U sličnom tonu:
Social Media Are Driving Americans Insane (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-23/social-media-is-driving-americans-insane)
Vid', je'ote, ovaj mi postavio dijagnozu. Ja telefon i u klonju ponesem....
De se dede divno vreme kada se u klonji čitao sastav praška, omekšivača, dezodoransa,... :lol:
Jes, vala, mnogo edukativnije doba je to bilo :D a ne ovo sada, kenjaš i blejiš na sagiti
fax helzim bioaktiv
How technology created a global village — and put us at each other's throats (http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/04/21/how-technology-created-global-village-and-put-each-other-throats/pu7MyoAkdyVComb9aKyu6K/story.html)
QuoteBy Nicholas Carr April 21, 2017 Welcome to the global village. It's a nasty place.
On Easter Sunday, a man in Cleveland filmed himself murdering a random 74-year-old and posted the video on Facebook. The social network took the grisly clip down within two or three hours, but not before users shared it on other websites — where people around the world can still view it.
Advertisement
Surely incidents like this aren't what Mark Zuckerberg had in mind. In 2012, as his company was preparing to go public, the Facebook founder wrote an earnest letter to would-be shareholders explaining that his company was more than just a business. It was pursuing a "social mission" to make the world a better place by encouraging self-expression and conversation. "People sharing more," the young entrepreneur wrote, "creates a more open culture and leads to a better understanding of the lives and perspectives of others."
Earlier this year, Zuckerberg penned another public letter, expressing even grander ambitions. Facebook, he announced, is expanding its mission from "connecting friends and family" to building "a global community that works for everyone." The ultimate goal is to turn the already vast social network into a sort of supranational state "spanning cultures, nations and regions." Get Arguable with Jeff Jacoby in your inbox:
Our conservative columnist offers a weekly take on everything from politics to pet peeves.But the murder in Cleveland, and any similar incidents that inevitably follow, reveal the hollowness of Silicon Valley's promise that digital networks would bring us together in a more harmonious world.
Whether he knows it or not, Zuckerberg is part of a long tradition in Western thought. Ever since the building of the telegraph system in the 19th century, people have believed that advances in communication technology would promote social harmony. The more we learned about each other, the more we would recognize that we're all one. In an 1899 article celebrating the laying of transatlantic Western Union cables, a New York Times columnist expressed the popular assumption well: "Nothing so fosters and promotes a mutual understanding and a community of sentiment and interests as cheap, speedy, and convenient communication."
The great networks of the 20th century — radio, telephone, TV — reinforced this sunny notion. Spanning borders and erasing distances, they shrank the planet. Guglielmo Marconi declared in 1912 that his invention of radio would "make war impossible, because it will make war ridiculous." AT&T's top engineer, J.J. Carty, predicted in a 1923 interview that the telephone system would "join all the peoples of the earth in one brotherhood." In his 1962 book "The Gutenberg Galaxy," the media theorist Marshall McLuhan gave us the memorable term "global village" to describe the world's "new electronic interdependence." Most people took the phrase optimistically, as a prophecy of inevitable social progress. What, after all, could be nicer than a village?
Advertisement
If our assumption that communication brings people together were true, we should today be seeing a planetary outbreak of peace, love, and understanding. Thanks to the Internet and cellular networks, humanity is more connected than ever. Of the world's 7 billion people, 6 billion have access to a mobile phone — a billion and a half more, the United Nations reports, than have access to a working toilet. Nearly 2 billion are on Facebook, more than a billion upload and download YouTube videos, and billions more converse through messaging apps like WhatsApp and WeChat. With smartphone in hand, everyone becomes a media hub, transmitting and receiving ceaselessly.
Yet we live in a fractious time, defined not by concord but by conflict. Xenophobia is on the rise. Political and social fissures are widening. From the White House down, public discourse is characterized by vitriol and insult. We probably shouldn't be surprised.
For years now, psychological and sociological studies have been casting doubt on the idea that communication dissolves differences. The research suggests that the opposite is true: free-flowing information makes personal and cultural differences more salient, turning people against one another instead of bringing them together. "Familiarity breeds contempt" is one of the gloomiest of proverbs. It is also, the evidence indicates, one of the truest.
In a series of experiments reported in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20frost%20ariely.pdf) in 2007, Harvard psychologist Michael Norton and two colleagues found that, contrary to our instincts, the more we learn about someone else, the more we tend to dislike that person. "Although people believe that knowing leads to liking," the researchers wrote, "knowing more means liking less." Worse yet, they found evidence of "dissimilarity cascades." As we get additional information about others, we place greater stress on the ways those people differ from us than on the ways they resemble us, and this inclination to emphasize dissimilarities over similarities strengthens as the amount of information accumulates. On average, we like strangers best when we know the least about them.
An earlier study, published in 1976, revealed a similar pattern in communities. Three professors from the University of California at San Diego studied a condominium development near Los Angeles, charting relationships among neighbors. They discovered that as people live more closely together, the likelihood that they'll become friends goes up, but the likelihood that they'll become enemies goes up even more. The scholars traced the phenomenon to what they called "environmental spoiling." The nearer we get to others, the harder it becomes to avoid evidence of their irritating habits. Proximity makes differences stand out.
The effect intensifies in the virtual world, where everyone is in everyone else's business. Social networks like Facebook and messaging apps like Snapchat encourage constant self-disclosure. Because status is measured quantitatively online, in numbers of followers, friends, and likes, people are rewarded for broadcasting endless details about their lives and thoughts through messages and photographs. To shut up, even briefly, is to disappear. One study found that people share four times as much information about themselves when they converse through computers as when they talk in person.
Being exposed to this superabundance of personal information can create an oppressive sense of "digital crowding," a group of British scholars wrote in a 2011 paper, and that in turn can breed stress and provoke antisocial reactions. "With the advent of social media," they concluded (https://books.google.com/books?id=ru2aU0r7sM0C&lpg=PA39&ots=BKwJn9UYLE&dq=%E2%80%9Cit%20is%20inevitable%20that%20we%20will%20end%20up%20knowing%20more%20about%20people%2C%20and%20also%20more%20likely%20that%20we%20end%20up%20disliking%20them%20because%20of%20it.%E2%80%9D&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9Cit%20is%20inevitable%20that%20we%20will%20end%20up%20knowing%20more%20about%20people,%20and%20also%20more%20likely%20that%20we%20end%20up%20disliking%20them%20because%20of%20it.%E2%80%9D&f=false), "it is inevitable that we will end up knowing more about people, and also more likely that we end up disliking them because of it."
If social media brings out the misanthrope in us, it can also unleash darker impulses. In a 2014 article in Personality and Individual Differences, three Canadian psychologists reported on research that found that people with sadistic tendencies tend to be among the most active commenters in online forums. Like other sadists, so-called trolls are motivated by the anticipation of pleasure, the study revealed; they take joy in inflicting psychic pain on others. Although it's not clear whether the Internet breeds cruelty or just encourages it, the findings "add to accumulating evidence linking excessive technology use to antisociality," the researchers wrote. "Sadists just want to have fun . . . and the Internet is their playground!"
Despite his occasional utopian rhetoric, Marshall McLuhan himself harbored few illusions about life in a global village. He saw villages as inherently tribal, marked by mistrust and friction and prone to viciousness and violence. "When people get close together, they get more and more savage and impatient with each other," he said in a 1977 television interview. "The global village is a place of very arduous interfaces and very abrasive situations." That's a pretty good description of where we find ourselves today.
Still, the yearning to see communications technology as a remedy for social ills remains strong, as Zuckerberg's February missive underscores. Despite Facebook's well-publicized recent struggle to control hate speech, propaganda, and fake news, Zuckerberg seems more confident than ever that a "global community" can be constructed out of software. The centerpiece of his new project is a computerized "social infrastructure" that will use artificial-intelligence routines to manage information flows in a way that makes everyone happy. The system will promote universal self-expression while at the same time shielding individuals from "objectionable content."
The problem with such geeky grandiosity goes beyond its denial of human nature. It reinforces the idea, long prevalent in American culture, that technological progress is sufficient to ensure social progress. If we get the engineering right, our better angels will triumph. It's a pleasant thought, but it's a fantasy. Progress toward a more amicable world will require not technological magic but concrete, painstaking, and altogether human measures: negotiation and compromise, a renewed emphasis on civics and reasoned debate, a citizenry able to appreciate contrary perspectives. At a personal level, we may need less self-expression and more self-examination.
Technology is an amplifier. It magnifies our best traits, and it magnifies our worst.
What it doesn't do is make us better people. That's a job we can't offload on machines.Nicholas Carr is the author of "Utopia Is Creepy," "The Shallows," and other books.
Amerika na kolenima, Rusija je kontroliše preko Tvitera!!!!
...ili bih tako nekako ja smislio naslov da je ovo vest u Kuriru/ Blicu/ Informeru/ Alou... Ali nije, ovo je Time.
Inside Russia's Social Media War on America (http://time.com/4783932/inside-russia-social-media-war-america/)
Quote
On March 2, a disturbing report hit the desks of U.S. counterintelligence officials in Washington. For months, American spy hunters had scrambled to uncover details of Russia's influence operation against the 2016 presidential election. In offices in both D.C. and suburban Virginia, they had created massive wall charts to track the different players in Russia's multipronged scheme. But the report in early March was something new.
It described how Russia had already moved on from the rudimentary email hacks against politicians it had used in 2016. Now the Russians were running a more sophisticated hack on Twitter. The report said the Russians had sent expertly tailored messages carrying malware to more than 10,000 Twitter users in the Defense Department. Depending on the interests of the targets, the messages offered links to stories on recent sporting events or the Oscars, which had taken place the previous weekend. When clicked, the links took users to a Russian-controlled server that downloaded a program allowing Moscow's hackers to take control of the victim's phone or computer--and Twitter account.
As they scrambled to contain the damage from the hack and regain control of any compromised devices, the spy hunters realized they faced a new kind of threat. In 2016, Russia had used thousands of covert human agents and robot computer programs to spread disinformation referencing the stolen campaign emails of Hillary Clinton, amplifying their effect. Now counterintelligence officials wondered: What chaos could Moscow unleash with thousands of Twitter handles that spoke in real time with the authority of the armed forces of the United States? At any given moment, perhaps during a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, Pentagon Twitter accounts might send out false information. As each tweet corroborated another, and covert Russian agents amplified the messages even further afield, the result could be panic and confusion.
For many Americans, Russian hacking remains a story about the 2016 election. But there is another story taking shape. Marrying a hundred years of expertise in influence operations to the new world of social media, Russia may finally have gained the ability it long sought but never fully achieved in the Cold War: to alter the course of events in the U.S. by manipulating public opinion. The vast openness and anonymity of social media has cleared a dangerous new route for antidemocratic forces. "Using these technologies, it is possible to undermine democratic government, and it's becoming easier every day," says Rand Waltzman of the Rand Corp., who ran a major Pentagon research program to understand the propaganda threats posed by social media technology.
Current and former officials at the FBI, at the CIA and in Congress now believe the 2016 Russian operation was just the most visible battle in an ongoing information war against global democracy. And they've become more vocal about their concern. "If there has ever been a clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the very foundation of our democratic political system, this episode is it," former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified before Congress on May 8.
If that sounds alarming, it helps to understand the battlescape of this new information war. As they tweet and like and upvote their way through social media, Americans generate a vast trove of data on what they think and how they respond to ideas and arguments--literally thousands of expressions of belief every second on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Google (http://fortune.com/fortune500/alphabet-36/). All of those digitized convictions are collected and stored, and much of that data is available commercially to anyone with sufficient computing power to take advantage of it.
That's where the algorithms come in. American researchers have found they can use mathematical formulas to segment huge populations into thousands of subgroups according to defining characteristics like religion and political beliefs or taste in TV shows and music. Other algorithms can determine those groups' hot-button issues and identify "followers" among them, pinpointing those most susceptible to suggestion. Propagandists can then manually craft messages to influence them, deploying covert provocateurs, either humans or automated computer programs known as bots, in hopes of altering their behavior.
That is what Moscow is doing, more than a dozen senior intelligence officials and others investigating Russia's influence operations tell TIME. The Russians "target you and see what you like, what you click on, and see if you're sympathetic or not sympathetic," says a senior intelligence official. Whether and how much they have actually been able to change Americans' behavior is hard to say. But as they have investigated the Russian 2016 operation, intelligence and other officials have found that Moscow has developed sophisticated tactics.
In one case last year, senior intelligence officials tell TIME, a Russian soldier based in Ukraine successfully infiltrated a U.S. social media group by pretending to be a 42-year-old American housewife and weighing in on political debates with specially tailored messages. In another case, officials say, Russia created a fake Facebook account to spread stories on political issues like refugee resettlement to targeted reporters they believed were susceptible to influence.
As Russia expands its cyberpropaganda efforts, the U.S. and its allies are only just beginning to figure out how to fight back. One problem: the fear of Russian influence operations can be more damaging than the operations themselves. Eager to appear more powerful than they are, the Russians would consider it a success if you questioned the truth of your news sources, knowing that Moscow might be lurking in your Facebook or Twitter feed. But figuring out if they are is hard. Uncovering "signals that indicate a particular handle is a state-sponsored account is really, really difficult," says Jared Cohen, CEO of Jigsaw, a subsidiary of Google's parent company, Alphabet, which tackles global security challenges.
Like many a good spy tale, the story of how the U.S. learned its democracy could be hacked started with loose lips. In May 2016, a Russian military intelligence officer bragged to a colleague that his organization, known as the GRU, was getting ready to pay Clinton back for what President Vladimir Putin believed was an influence operation she had run against him five years earlier as Secretary of State. The GRU, he said, was going to cause chaos in the upcoming U.S. election.
What the officer didn't know, senior intelligence officials tell TIME, was that U.S. spies were listening. They wrote up the conversation and sent it back to analysts at headquarters, who turned it from raw intelligence into an official report and circulated it. But if the officer's boast seems like a red flag now, at the time U.S. officials didn't know what to make of it. "We didn't really understand the context of it until much later," says the senior intelligence official. Investigators now realize that the officer's boast was the first indication U.S. spies had from their sources that Russia wasn't just hacking email accounts to collect intelligence but was also considering interfering in the vote. Like much of America, many in the U.S. government hadn't imagined the kind of influence operation that Russia was preparing to unleash on the 2016 election. Fewer still realized it had been five years in the making.
In 2011, protests in more than 70 cities across Russia had threatened Putin's control of the Kremlin. The uprising was organized on social media by a popular blogger named Alexei Navalny, who used his blog as well as Twitter and Facebook to get crowds in the streets. Putin's forces broke out their own social media technique to strike back. When bloggers tried to organize nationwide protests on Twitter using #Triumfalnaya, pro-Kremlin botnets bombarded the hashtag with anti-protester messages and nonsense tweets, making it impossible for Putin's opponents to coalesce.
Putin publicly accused then Secretary of State Clinton of running a massive influence operation against his country, saying she had sent "a signal" to protesters and that the State Department had actively worked to fuel the protests. The State Department said it had just funded pro-democracy organizations. Former officials say any such operations--in Russia or elsewhere--would require a special intelligence finding by the President and that Barack Obama was not likely to have issued one.
After his re-election the following year, Putin dispatched his newly installed head of military intelligence, Igor Sergun, to begin repurposing cyberweapons previously used for psychological operations in war zones for use in electioneering. Russian intelligence agencies funded "troll farms," botnet spamming operations and fake news outlets as part of an expanding focus on psychological operations in cyberspace.
It turns out Putin had outside help. One particularly talented Russian programmer who had worked with social media researchers in the U.S. for 10 years had returned to Moscow and brought with him a trove of algorithms that could be used in influence operations. He was promptly hired by those working for Russian intelligence services, senior intelligence officials tell TIME. "The engineer who built them the algorithms is U.S.-trained," says the senior intelligence official.
Soon, Putin was aiming his new weapons at the U.S. Following Moscow's April 2014 invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. considered sanctions that would block the export of drilling and fracking technologies to Russia, putting out of reach some $8.2 trillion in oil reserves that could not be tapped without U.S. technology. As they watched Moscow's intelligence operations in the U.S., American spy hunters saw Russian agents applying their new social media tactics on key aides to members of Congress. Moscow's agents broadcast material on social media and watched how targets responded in an attempt to find those who might support their cause, the senior intelligence official tells TIME. "The Russians started using it on the Hill with staffers," the official says, "to see who is more susceptible to continue this program [and] to see who would be more favorable to what they want to do."
On Aug. 7, 2016, the infamous pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli declared that Hillary Clinton had Parkinson's. That story went viral in late August, then took on a life of its own after Clinton fainted from pneumonia and dehydration at a Sept. 11 event in New York City. Elsewhere people invented stories saying Pope Francis had endorsed Trump and Clinton had murdered a DNC staffer. Just before Election Day, a story took off alleging that Clinton and her aides ran a pedophile ring in the basement of a D.C. pizza parlor.
Congressional investigators are looking at how Russia helped stories like these spread to specific audiences. Counterintelligence officials, meanwhile, have picked up evidence that Russia tried to target particular influencers during the election season who they reasoned would help spread the damaging stories. These officials have seen evidence of Russia using its algorithmic techniques to target the social media accounts of particular reporters, senior intelligence officials tell TIME. "It's not necessarily the journal or the newspaper or the TV show," says the senior intelligence official. "It's the specific reporter that they find who might be a little bit slanted toward believing things, and they'll hit him" with a flood of fake news stories.
Russia plays in every social media space. The intelligence officials have found that Moscow's agents bought ads on Facebook to target specific populations with propaganda. "They buy the ads, where it says sponsored by--they do that just as much as anybody else does," says the senior intelligence official. (A Facebook official says the company has no evidence of that occurring.) The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner of Virginia, has said he is looking into why, for example, four of the top five Google search results the day the U.S. released a report on the 2016 operation were links to Russia's TV propaganda arm, RT. (Google says it saw no meddling in this case.) Researchers at the University of Southern California, meanwhile, found that nearly 20% of political tweets in 2016 between Sept. 16 and Oct. 21 were generated by bots of unknown origin; investigators are trying to figure out how many were Russian.
As they dig into the viralizing of such stories, congressional investigations are probing not just Russia's role but whether Moscow had help from the Trump campaign. Sources familiar with the investigations say they are probing two Trump-linked organizations: Cambridge Analytica, a data-analytics company hired by the campaign that is partly owned by deep-pocketed Trump backer Robert Mercer; and Breitbart News, the right-wing website formerly run by Trump's top political adviser Stephen Bannon.
The congressional investigators are looking at ties between those companies and right-wing web personalities based in Eastern Europe who the U.S. believes are Russian fronts, a source familiar with the investigations tells TIME. "Nobody can prove it yet," the source says. In March, McClatchy newspapers reported that FBI counterintelligence investigators were probing whether far-right sites like Breitbart News and Infowars had coordinated with Russian botnets to blitz social media with anti-Clinton stories, mixing fact and fiction when Trump was doing poorly in the campaign.
There are plenty of people who are skeptical of such a conspiracy, if one existed. Cambridge Analytica touts its ability to use algorithms to microtarget voters, but veteran political operatives have found them ineffective political influencers. Ted Cruz first used their methods during the primary, and his staff ended up concluding they had wasted their money. Mercer, Bannon, Breitbart News and the White House did not answer questions about the congressional probes. A spokesperson for Cambridge Analytica says the company has no ties to Russia or individuals acting as fronts for Moscow and that it is unaware of the probe.
Democratic operatives searching for explanations for Clinton's loss after the election investigated social media trends in the three states that tipped the vote for Trump: Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. In each they found what they believe is evidence that key swing voters were being drawn to fake news stories and anti-Clinton stories online. Google searches for the fake pedophilia story circulating under the hashtag #pizzagate, for example, were disproportionately higher in swing districts and not in districts likely to vote for Trump.
The Democratic operatives created a package of background materials on what they had found, suggesting the search behavior might indicate that someone had successfully altered the behavior in key voting districts in key states. They circulated it to fellow party members who are up for a vote in 2018.
Even as investigators try to piece together what happened in 2016, they are worrying about what comes next. Russia claims to be able to alter events using cyberpropaganda and is doing what it can to tout its power. In February 2016, a Putin adviser named Andrey Krutskikh compared Russia's information-warfare strategies to the Soviet Union's obtaining a nuclear weapon in the 1940s, David Ignatius of the Washington Post reported. "We are at the verge of having something in the information arena which will allow us to talk to the Americans as equals," Krutskikh said.
But if Russia is clearly moving forward, it's less clear how active the U.S. has been. Documents released by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and published by the Intercept suggested that the British were pursuing social media propaganda and had shared their tactics with the U.S. Chris Inglis, the former No. 2 at the National Security Agency, says the U.S. has not pursued this capability. "The Russians are 10 years ahead of us in being willing to make use of" social media to influence public opinion, he says.
There are signs that the U.S. may be playing in this field, however. From 2010 to 2012, the U.S. Agency for International Development established and ran a "Cuban Twitter" network designed to undermine communist control on the island. At the same time, according to the Associated Press, which discovered the program, the U.S. government hired a contractor to profile Cuban cell phone users, categorizing them as "pro-revolution," "apolitical" or "antirevolutionary."
Much of what is publicly known about the mechanics and techniques of social media propaganda comes from a program at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) that the Rand researcher, Waltzman, ran to study how propagandists might manipulate social media in the future. In the Cold War, operatives might distribute disinformation-laden newspapers to targeted political groups or insinuate an agent provocateur into a group of influential intellectuals. By harnessing computing power to segment and target literally millions of people in real time online, Waltzman concluded, you could potentially change behavior "on the scale of democratic governments."
In the U.S., public scrutiny of such programs is usually enough to shut them down. In 2014, news articles appeared about the DARPA program and the "Cuban Twitter" project. It was only a year after Snowden had revealed widespread monitoring programs by the government. The DARPA program, already under a cloud, was allowed to expire quietly when its funding ran out in 2015.
In the wake of Russia's 2016 election hack, the question is how to research social media propaganda without violating civil liberties. The need is all the more urgent because the technology continues to advance. While today humans are still required to tailor and distribute messages to specially targeted "susceptibles," in the future crafting and transmitting emotionally powerful messages will be automated.
The U.S. government is constrained in what kind of research it can fund by various laws protecting citizens from domestic propaganda, government electioneering and intrusions on their privacy. Waltzman has started a group called Information Professionals Association with several former information operations officers from the U.S. military to develop defenses against social media influence operations.
Social media companies are beginning to realize that they need to take action. Facebook issued a report in April 2017 acknowledging that much disinformation had been spread on its pages and saying it had expanded its security. Google says it has seen no evidence of Russian manipulation of its search results but has updated its algorithms just in case. Twitter claims it has diminished cyberpropaganda by tweaking its algorithms to block cleverly designed bots. "Our algorithms currently work to detect when Twitter accounts are attempting to manipulate Twitter's Trends through inorganic activity, and then automatically adjust," the company said in a statement.
In the meantime, America's best option to protect upcoming votes may be to make it harder for Russia and other bad actors to hide their election-related information operations. When it comes to defeating Russian influence operations, the answer is "transparency, transparency, transparency," says Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. He has written legislation that would curb the massive, anonymous campaign contributions known as dark money and the widespread use of shell corporations that he says make Russian cyberpropaganda harder to trace and expose.
But much damage has already been done. "The ultimate impact of [the 2016 Russian operation] is we're never going to look at another election without wondering, you know, Is this happening, can we see it happening?" says Jigsaw's Jared Cohen. By raising doubts about the validity of the 2016 vote and the vulnerability of future elections, Russia has achieved its most important objective: undermining the credibility of American democracy.
For now, investigators have added the names of specific trolls and botnets to their wall charts in the offices of intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. They say the best way to compete with the Russian model is by having a better message. "It requires critical thinkers and people who have a more powerful vision" than the cynical Russian view, says former NSA deputy Inglis. And what message is powerful enough to take on the firehose of falsehoods that Russia is deploying in targeted, effective ways across a range of new media? One good place to start: telling the truth.
--With reporting by PRATHEEK REBALA/WASHINGTON
Correction: The original version of this story misstated Jared Cohen's title. He is CEO, not president.
Bem ti život, čak i piše da praktično svako ovo može da radi, ali Rusi....
Quote from: Meho KrljicAmerika na kolenima, Rusija je kontroliše preko Tvitera!!!!
...ili bih tako nekako ja smislio naslov da je ovo vest u Kuriru/ Blicu/ Informeru/ Alou... Ali nije, ovo je Time.
Zato i nisi *novinar* kurira/blica/informera/aloa!!!
Nemas štofa, kakav ti je ovo klikbejt, molim te?? Da probam ja:
Amerika na kolenima... A EVO I ZAŠTO!!!
Nego ja sam došla ovde da okačim vest koja nema direktne veze sa Z-bergovom politikom i tekovinama f-buka, ali KAD PROČITATE ŠOKIRAĆETE SE !!! (stvarno)
Prva smrtna kazna izrečena zbog objave na Fejsbuku
shokiran sam. kako je mogao biti toliko naivan; ne samo da je niz vodu pustio ovozemaljski zivot, vec i ono bitno! vrh autodestrukcije - fejsbuk. sve mu je to amerika dala...
Jel kažnjen zbog toga šta je objavio, ili gde je objavio? ;)
Možda se u našim krajevima Fejsbuk ne shvata sasvim ozbiljno, ali islam sve shvata ozbiljno.
sad kad kazes... meni rodbina preko fb-a redovno cestita bozic i uskrs. i jos su zivi, hm.
German police raid 36 homes over hateful postings on social media (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/web-culture/german-police-raid-36-homes-over-hateful-postings-on-social-media-20170620-gwv6h2.html)
takoe! pišaj po fespučarima
Regulisanje govora mržnje je komplikovano (za robote):
Facebook's Secret Censorship Rules Protect White Men from Hate Speech But Not Black Children (https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-hate-speech-censorship-internal-documents-algorithms)
Ovo nema direktne veze s fejsbukom al ne znam ni na koji bih topik stavio pa neka ga ovde... Da se vidi da Bighed iz serije Silikon Veli nije tek slučajno izmišljen lik :lol:
Inside the world of Silicon Valley's 'coasters' — the millionaire engineers who get paid gobs of money and barely work (http://www.businessinsider.com/rest-and-vest-millionaire-engineers-who-barely-work-silicon-valley-2017-7)
Facebook has mapped populations in 23 countries as it explores satellites to expand internet (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/facebook-has-mapped-human-population-building-internet-in-space.html)
A Startling Anecdote About Online Ad Spending From Restoration Hardware (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-11/startling-anecdote-about-online-advertising-restoration-hardware)
(https://i.imgur.com/AAfewzV.jpg)
Microsoft, Facebook, Complete Enormous Undersea Cable (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a28324/microsoft-facebook-complete-historic-undersea-cable/)
Russia Threatens to Shut Facebook Over Local Data Storage Laws (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-26/russia-threatens-to-shut-facebook-over-local-data-storage-laws)
Srećom, ostaje im VK.
Capitalism without consequences (https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/01/capitalism-without-consequences/)
Radical Leftists Built Their Own Reddit After It Banned Them (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/zm3wbj/radical-leftists-built-their-own-reddit-after-it-banned-them)
Pa da vidimo koliko će im TO pomoći :lol: (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/zm3wbj/radical-leftists-built-their-own-reddit-after-it-banned-them)
How Facebook Outs Sex Workers (https://gizmodo.com/how-facebook-outs-sex-workers-1818861596)
How Silicon Valley Divided Society and Made Everyone Raging Mad (http://www.newsweek.com/how-silicon-valley-divided-society-and-made-everyone-raging-mad-689811)
Stalno se pitam kakva je razlika između FB i ovog našeg drljavog foruma. Na obe strane naizgled mnogo učesnika, 2-5% se ponašaju kao "perjanice", do 10% bi da "ćeraju kera", a ostali su negde drugde. A, bre, na FB Skrobonja ima mnogo više "prijatelja" (2142), nego ZS zvaničnih članova (1802).
Neke od očiglednih razlika su:
1. Znak Sagite ne prikuplja naše privatne podatke da bih ih prosledio advertajzerima.
2. Ne poostoji "lajkovanje" na Znaku Sagite, što znači da se izražavanje slaganja ili neslaganja ne može svesti na klik i zahteva kakvu-takvu verbalnu ekspresiju.
:cry:
Evo ti lajk.
A za prikupljanje podataka će da se ubrišeš. Bilo koji link na ZS automatski uvodi nadzirače. Jedino smo pošteđeni reklama, što i nije fajda nego zijan.
Nisam siguran na koje nadzirače misliš, ali svakako je zgodno da Znak Sagite nema reklame koje su ugođene sa našim ponašanjem na internetu...
Ja jesam, ali je besmisleno da ti objašnjavam. Da si pročitao UNAZAD bilo bi ti jasno. (Druga rečenica je replika metoda kojom jedan pisac pokušava da natera svoje "prijatelje" na FB da ga čitaju. I ona je besmislena.)
lajk!
Facebook to Fight Revenge Porn by Letting Potential Victims Upload Nudes in Advance (https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/facebook-to-fight-revenge-porn-by-letting-potential-victims-upload-nudes-in-advance/)
Ovo rešenje, naravno, podrazumeva da sami imate te slike koje smatrate potencijalno kompromitujućim i da verujete da ih niko od zaposlenih na fejsbuku neće videti jer će Fejsbuk imati samo haševe...
Sean Parker unloads on Facebook "exploiting" human psychology (https://www.axios.com/sean-parker-unloads-on-facebook-2508036343.html)
Šon Parker je, naravno, jedan od osnivača firme.
Thirty countries use 'armies of opinion shapers' to manipulate democracy – report (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/14/social-media-influence-election-countries-armies-of-opinion-shapers-manipulate-democracy-fake-news)
Genitalno! U ogledalo nisu stigli da pogledaju?
Demokratija...to u prevodu beše 'samoupravljanje' ...ili 'narodna vlas'?
Quote from: Ugly MF on 16-11-2017, 12:30:55
Demokratija...to u prevodu beše 'samoupravljanje' ...ili 'narodna vlas'?
Aha, i ne maže se na leba. Služi za zamajavanje i manipulaciju.
Evo transkripta jednog odličnog predavanja koje pruža odgovor na ova pitanja na sistematičan, lak za razumevanje način. (http://pescanik.net/o-ustavu-i-demokratiji/)
Facebook rolls out AI to detect suicidal posts before they're reported (https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/27/facebook-ai-suicide-prevention/)
I taj bioskop smo već gledali, sa sve Tom Kukuruzom.
I dalje u reonu Persone od interesa. Nije Tom Kruz, jer je AI umesto nekakvih prekoga, i pritom input za taj AI je samo ono što je dostupno Fejsbuku, i što korisnik sam napiše.
Neko se upilji u sličnosti, neko u razlike, ali saldo je uvek 1. Biće mi krivo ako opet nisi "razumeo".
Verovatno nisam, jer ne vidim šta ovde ima da se "razume", ali nemoj da ti bude krivo. Koje su sličnosti između Suvišnog izveštaja i ove veste, a da istovremeno nisu pokrivene Personom od interesa?
O sličnostima sam i napisao. A, ako je neko pisao o Person of Interest to sam bio ja. Koliko puta si pogledao jednu knjigu na Amazonu, a on ti ponudio još deset sličnih? Internet se odavno petlja sa našim životima. Da ne osećam, zar bih pisao nepostojeći roman UNAZAD? Zloupotreba, sugestija šta da mislimo i podvaljivanje su deo tvog života čim uključiš kompjuter. Neko je otporan, ali većina nije i sa tim se računa.
Facebook's New Captcha Test: 'Upload A Clear Photo of Your Face' (https://www.wired.com/story/facebooks-new-captcha-test-upload-a-clear-photo-of-your-face/)
Ne mož se čoek dubije više ako oće, ša je sljedeće, bećarski porez na fejsbuk profilu...
Former Facebook exec says social media is ripping apart society (https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/11/16761016/former-facebook-exec-ripping-apart-society)
QuoteChamath Palihapitiya, who joined Facebook in 2007 and became its vice president for user growth, said he feels "tremendous guilt" about the company he helped make.
A 17-year-old YouTube star insulted a notorious drug lord. The teen was found with at least 15 bullet wounds. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/21/a-17-year-old-youtube-star-insulted-a-notorious-drug-lord-he-was-found-with-at-least-15-bullet-wounds/?utm_term=.0e15ca410980)
Inside the Two Years that Shook Facebook—and the World (https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-2-years-of-hell/)
Anfrendovao me poznanik jer sam kontrirao njegovom vrlo zagrejanom stavu. Fejsbukom se širi fotka strane iz neke knjižice za decu "Priče o životinjama", Blicov dodatak iz oktobra, u kojoj neka deca prvo planiraju kako da usmrte nekog psa, pa onda krenu i u realizaciju. Emotivna Srbija želi da, pa ne znam tačno šta žele, ali ima veze sa zaštitom male dece od ove priče. Logika je valjda da će deca, kad pročitaju priču, i sama početi prvo da ubijaju životinje, a onda kad porastu postaće nasilnici u kući, manijaci, i ostali zlotvori. Ja kažem treba nam kontekst, šta piše na sledećoj strani, možda su deca kažnjena, pas preživeo, pravda zadovoljena. On kaže odjebi sa kontekstom, ova jedna stranica je dovoljna za momentalnu akciju protivu knjižice. I anfrendova me. Zabrinjava me to skupljanje svesti u sve širem svetu.
Quote from: mac on 20-02-2018, 12:38:06
Zabrinjava me to skupljanje svesti u sve širem svetu.
Prednost FB što se suženi lako ukinu. U poslednjih nekoliko dana sam skinuo dvojicu. Lakne mi.
Mene više zabrinjava na ovom forumu. Svakojaka suženja. :shock:
Kažnjeni su i nacisti zbog holokausta pa ništa
The intensifying battle for Africa's burgeoning tech landscape (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/intensifying-battle-africa-burgeoning-tech-220027951.html)
Sasvim očekivani "Ou maj gad uot hev aj dan" momenat, ispeglan za PR potrebe:
Twitter CEO Admits Company Didn't Fully Grasp Abuse Problem (http://variety.com/2018/digital/news/twitter-ceo-abuse-1202714236/)
Nije fejsbuk sasvim besmislen.
Jutros nađem zanimljivu priču o manastiru i novom kandidatu.
Pita kandidat priora šta treba da učini da bi ga primili. Ovaj mu kaže da se zavetuje da će svake tri godine reći samo dve reči.
Posle tri godine ćutanja pita ga prior koje su mu reči.
"Hladna hrana."
Posle tri godine imao je da kaže:
"Prljav veš."
Posle tri godine kaže:
"Dosta je." I ode.
Prior je samo promrmljao:
"Ionako je uvek zvocao."
Sajt sa vicevima krajnje osvežava:
Utetura Norman mortus pijan u kuću, naleti na svoju besnu ženu i "objasni" joj:
"Bio sam u neverovatnom baru SILVER NIGHT BAR. Ulazna vrata su od srebra, pod je od srebra, ma, sve je od srebra. I pisoar im je od srebra..."
Sutradan žena proverava na internetu - ima takav bar. Nađe broj telefona i pozove.
"Da li je stvarno sve kod vas od srebra?"
"Sve."
"I ulazna vrata?"
"Naravno."
"I pod...?"
"Kako da ne."
"I pisoari...?
Posle kraće pauze čuje sagovornika kako se dere:
"Hej, Stiv! Otkrio sam trag do čoveka koji ti se noćas popišao u saksafon!"
Ludujem za otkačenim vicevima.
Uđe čovek u bar sa oktopodom u rukama. Posadi ga kraj sebe za sto, pa izazove sve prisutne:
"Ovaj oktopod svira svaki instrument bolje od ikoga na svetu. Po 50$ da je tako."
Prvi čovek donese gitaru, a oktopod odvali bolje rifove od Džimi Hendriksa. Ćovek plati 50$ i odnese gitaru.
Drugi čovek donese trubu, a oktopod oduva bolje od Dizija Gilespija. Čovek plati i ode.
Onda dođe Škotlanđanin i donese gajde. Oktopod duva li duva, pa zbunjeno spusti gajde kraj sebe.
"Šta je? Ništa?", likuje Škotlanđanin, a oktopod mu odgovori:
"Ma, jeb'o bih je, ali ne znam kako da joj skinem pidžamu."
Fejsbuk gradi... pa... gradić:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/technology/facebook-zucktown-willow-village.html
Elon Musk pulls Tesla and SpaceX pages after #DeleteFacebook challenge (https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/23/elon-musk-pulls-tesla-and-spacex-facebook-pages/)
Quote from: Meho Krljic on 25-03-2018, 07:18:59
Elon Musk pulls Tesla and SpaceX pages after #DeleteFacebook challenge (https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/23/elon-musk-pulls-tesla-and-spacex-facebook-pages/)
Pa sad je to u modi, trigerovalo ih to što je Šeherbreg prodavo informacije u koris Denisa Napasti. A i da poslušaju onu mađarsku mumiju, neka se pripremi gugl, Evinu Stambolsku đulu neće diraju, treba im za milenijarske zombije.
Saće svi bujrum na Crvleta i Pčelcu (al ne Maju) da se kače, jer je tako cool i tamo ima safe space i nema hate speech....
Nemam nameru da dešifrujem...
Quote from: mac on 25-03-2018, 22:34:06
Nemam nameru da dešifrujem...
Da ti olakšam, ili barem pokušam da olakšam.
Ne verujem da nisi čuo da je Soroš (mađarska mumija) izjavio da treba razmontirati FB, Google i tako to, jer su zbog svoje veličine postali brana "napretku" (sic). Shodno tome, FB je i pored P.C saradnje sa muterkom vaskolikog islama frau Merkel, postao prva žrtva napada, tvrdnjom da je prodavao podatke korisnika trećim stranama, i to u korist kampanje arhi neprijatelja napretka Donalda Trampa (Denis Napast). Zato je i ovaj "napredni" kapitalista odlučio da ugasi svoju stranicu na FB, uz hashtag. Naravno, sledeći za napad je Google, ali su se oni pripremili da izdrže udar (Youtube armija zombija inkvizitora). Crvle je Tviter, omiljeno sredstvo raspomamljenih milenijaraca, kao i Buzzfeed. A Evina stambolska đula je Apple, omiljeni "napredni" proizvođač gadgeta za "društveno" svesne fluid gender potomke.
vidim pizde po netu o toj Cambridge Analytica aferi, a niđe neki kršten, detaljan tekst da se nađe?
i sve po Trampu lupaju a realno su prvi počeli da koriste sve ovo haha
Gardijan ima dosta detalja, mada ne znam je li to tebi dovoljno:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election
da, ali
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/23/four-and-a-half-reasons-not-to-worry-that-cambridge-analytica-skewed-the-2016-election/?utm_term=.ad945b275dd2
kako šljaka?
to jest oni se ubiše da objasne kako su podaci prikupljeni da bi se neko igro s našim "inner demons", al pošto koriste te neke fantastične pojmove pitanje ostaje kolko je ovo realno, dal radi, i kolko je efikasno
u suštini, oni ništa od toga ne govore
[emoji6](https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180326/628c07eab22691a5d398fc4bfb1a0364.jpg)
Sent from my Le X626 using Tapatalk
Džon Oliver ima koju reč o Fejsbuku
https://youtu.be/OjPYmEZxACM
https://www.kurir.rs/planeta/3128299...loge-i-podatke
Сад је јасно зашто данас нисам могао да се улогујем па сам променио шифру...
... I ovaj link hakovan 😅
Или уклоњен.
The Facebook Security Meltdown Exposes Way More Sites Than Facebook (https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-security-breach-third-party-sites/)
Quote
If your account was impacted it means that a hacker could have accessed any account that you log into using Facebook.
А тражио сам утеху. :cry:
Jeste, FB pravi sranja. Svaki drugi dan mi traži da se ponovo ulogujem, a pre toga su savetovali, ne samo oni, da koristimo različite lozinke za različite aplikacije. Zbog toga se ubih sa spiskovima svojih lozinki.
Facebook investors call on Mark Zuckerberg to resign as chairman following damaging report (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/11/16/facebook-investors-call-mark-zuckerberg-resign-chairman-following/)
Doakaće Soroš i Cukerbergu.
Facebook Is Just Casually Asking Some New Users for Their Email Passwords (https://gizmodo.com/facebook-is-just-casually-asking-some-new-users-for-the-1833764891)
Facebook Turned Off Search Features Used To Catch War Criminals, Child Predators, And Other Bad Actors (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook-graph-search-war-crimes)
O Fejsbukovoj kriptovaluti, libri, piše Max Read:
Facebook's New Competition: The U.S. Dollar (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/what-is-libra-facebooks-new-cryptocurrency.html)
Larry Sanger, jedan od osnivača wikipedije poziva na štrajk na socijalnim mrežama 4. i 5. jula:
Social Media Strike! (https://larrysanger.org/2019/06/social-media-strike/)
Facebook wants to be the hot new dating app (https://www.fastcompany.com/90399185/facebook-wants-to-be-the-hot-new-dating-app)
Facebook Launches News Section, Will Pay Publishers (https://www.voanews.com/silicon-valley-technology/facebook-launches-news-section-will-pay-publishers)
E, pa, ovo zvuči kao distopijska šala ali rano je za prvi April...
Twitter announces paid Super Follows to let you charge for tweets (https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/25/22301375/twitter-super-follows-communities-paid-followers?utm_campaign=theverge&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter)
Facebook Is Considering Facial Recognition For Its Upcoming Smart Glasses (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/ryanmac/facebook-considers-facial-recognition-smart-glasses)
Kontrirao sam nekome na fejsbuku, a ne znam više ni kome. Čovek rekao da voli Ruse više nego zapadnjake jer nam nisu ništa loše učinili u Drugom svetskom ratu. I ja mu tu kažem ono što ja znam o učešću Rusa u SFRJ, i pritom i pogrešno kažem da nisu Nemci streljali đake nego nacisti. Htedoh posle da se ispravim, ali ne mogu više da nađem taj post, čak ni u svom Activity Logu. Kao da me čovek blokirao ili obrisao originalni post. Zna li neko o kom postu pričam, i da li je još uvek vidljiv?
Ili sam ja to sve sanjao?
vidim te postove ali ne i tvoj.
Neki ljudi ostaju principijelni:
Pink Floyd's Roger Waters says he turned down a 'huge, huge amount of money' from Facebook to use a song, calling Zuckerberg 'one of the most powerful idiots in the world' (https://www.businessinsider.com/pink-floyd-roger-waters-turns-down-facebook-song-ad-zuckerberg-2021-6)
Facebook is planning to rebrand the company with a new name (https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/19/22735612/facebook-change-company-name-metaverse)
Tviter pod Maskom napreduje tako što... uklanja bazičnu funkcionalnost interneta:
Twitter bans links and username mentions relating to Facebook, Instagram and other rivals (https://www.engadget.com/vivaldi-integrates-mastodon-desktop-browser-163705757.html)
Ovo je bukvalno kao neka parodija koju bi mnogi smatrali isuviše grubom da bi bila uverljiva...
Da ne pominjem:
Musk's new poll: Should I stay or go as Twitter CEO? (https://www.engadget.com/elon-musk-asks-twitter-users-to-decide-000451423.html)
BTW po podacima sajta isitdownrightnow trenutno su i twitter i paypal nedostupni. Kakav momenat modernog interneta :lol: :lol:
Kori Doktovor lično objašnjava svoj termin enshittification. Fejsbuk je centralni primer.
The "Ensh*ttification" of the Internet and How to Fix It | Amanpour and Company (https://youtu.be/I8l1uSb0LZg)
Cory Doctorow još promoviše svoju knjigu. Evo ga sad u The Daily Show.
Cory Doctorow - Rescuing the Internet From "Enshittification" (https://youtu.be/d2e-c9SF5nE)
Cory Doctorow objašnjava kako je Tramp svojim tarifama nehotice otvorio vrata ideji da možemo da prčkamo po zaštićenom softveru i hardveru, ako odlučimo da nije zakonom zaštićen.
A post-American, enshittification-resistant internet (a speech at 39C3 in Hamburg on Dec 28, 2025) (https://youtu.be/39jsstmmUUs)
Priča o toj ideji, da Amerika nije više tehnološki neutralna, kao ni Kina, i da ne moramo da imamo zakone koji nam zabranjuju da menjamo ono što posedujemo. Predavanje traje 60 minuta s pitanjima publike.
Quote from: mac on 04-01-2026, 02:19:55Cory Doctorow objašnjava kako je Tramp svojim tarifama nehotice otvorio vrata ideji da možemo da prčkamo po zaštićenom softveru i hardveru, ako odlučimo da nije zakonom zaštićen.
A post-American, enshittification-resistant internet (a speech at 39C3 in Hamburg on Dec 28, 2025) (https://youtu.be/39jsstmmUUs)
Priča o toj ideji, da Amerika nije više tehnološki neutralna, kao ni Kina, i da ne moramo da imamo zakone koji nam zabranjuju da menjamo ono što posedujemo. Predavanje traje 60 minuta s pitanjima publike.
Video unavailable
This video is restricted. Please check the Google Workspace administrator and/or the network administrator restrictions.
Ja ga vidim i na kompu i na mobilnom. Probaj refresh.
Meni radi i to na superarmiranom brauzeru na kome se pola rendom jutjub videa ne otvara. Morad a je do regionalih restrikcija.