ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Od kad nisam cula/ procitala rec puvanje   


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

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

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 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 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, by Microsoft researcher Danah Boyd. 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

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, 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. 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 


Caught on Facebook: Nanny who stole jewellery and clothes from couple tagged herself in incriminating pictures

Lajkovao! 633

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

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.  Istovremeno, podelili su bukvalno milione zaposlenima u vidu bonusa.



Facebook paid £4,327 corporation tax despite £35m 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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.

Twitters neuer Chef will den ehemaligen Liebling der Investoren verschlanken und feuert erstmals Mitarbeiter im großen Stil.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Confirms Layoffs With Tweet

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.

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?

Quote from: Dybuk on 12-11-2015, 00:25:17
Sta hoce, da sprece zloupotrebe, Bili Ciku i ostale, npr?

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

Quote

Mark Zuckerberg 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 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 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, 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," Bloomberg glowed. The New York Times ran an article on the front page. Few news outlets initially considered the tax implications of Mr. Zuckerberg's plan. A Wall Street Journal article 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   Advertisement
  Continue reading the main story 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. 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 to the Newark school system, as Dale Russakoff detailed in her recent book, "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.

Get rich or die vlogging: The sad economics of internet fame

Is the Internet fueling social change or giving license to engage in lazy activism?

 Iran's blogfather: Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are killing the web

Quote

Late in 2014, I was abruptly pardoned and freed from Evin prison 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 – 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 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 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, using Blogger's publishing platform before Google bought it.

Then, on 5 November 2001, I published a step-by-step 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" 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 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. 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 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 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. 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, 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, 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) is a Tehran-based author. He is currently working on an art project called Link-age to promote hyperlinks and the open web.

 How the Internet changed the 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, 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? 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 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 is a hapa fiction writer and a lecturer in the English department at the University of California Irvine. He has a BA in comp lit from Oberlin College , a MFA in fiction from the University of Notre Dame, and a MA in English and a Ph.D. in Literature and Creative Writing from USC. 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

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, 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 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) 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 — 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

a i ako se desi da bude više od 140, svi koji pređu limit biće blokirani

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

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, 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 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.
"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/

Haha jao, Poreklo sveta i dalje pravi probleme, to je zaista prekrasno. 


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 
(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 

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!