Any thoughts on the whole situation with Facebooks recent increase in enforcing their 'real name' policy?
I'll try to find an article to post... or maybe just cut past text from one... so far stuff I'm finding isn't too family friendly...
Personally I am angry with Facebook. Some people need the pseudonyms. They've genuinely built whole lives/livelihoods out of them. Some people need the pseudonyms to LITERALLY survive. I'm not just talking about making money to live but I'm talking about avoiding harm to live.
There is an argument that social media is free, whatever rules Facebook wants to enforce, its their right. I don't think it really is free though when you consider that they collect data from you; 'currency' isn't always dollars and cents.
Really, my eloquence with words is soooo lacking... I'll try to find a article/piece on it... maybe they can explain things better than I can (haha actually 'definitely' not 'maybe'). I did have an article the other day to share but when I looked for it today... POOF... gone...
Peregrine wrote: Don't like it? Don't use facebook. It's a private business, not some kind of mandatory government thing.
I can kind of see that... and maybe years and years ago when it was first starting out that could be plausible. I don't really know if that's an 'out' considering how meshed in it is with a lot of things. Also its been a helpful networking tool for certain entities. To have the rug pulled out from under them kind of sucks.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: What I'd like to know is...how the hell can they enforce a "non anonymous pseudonyms" rule?? Do they demand proof of ID when a person signs up?
Actually what's been happening recently is that some parties have had their facebook profiles locked due to pseudonyms being used. and in conjunction Facebook is asking they provide Government issued identification.
EDIT: Personally I don't recall having to come up with something like my Social Security ID, lets say, to open my profile. Email and name were enough. I'm not sure if its because it wasn't in place to do so when I was joining, or maybe its something that they just weren't as strict about upholding.
EDIT: Here's an article that might be okay to post here (I'll try to work on getting a 'quote' of what the article says, in the meantime here is the link):
What happens when a culture interweaves a social media outlet into virtually every part of the human experience -- and then that platform makes a dramatic change? That's one of the questions on many people's minds with what is being referred to as a "name change" policy on social media giant Facebook.
Several days ago, a large percentage of individuals operating personal profiles on Facebook under pseudonyms, stage names, or any name not matching their legal name received this message when logging onto their Facebook accounts:
While this policy implementation, which is reportedly not new but seems to have been rarely enforced before now, is affecting a wide-range of people (both queer and not), a specific portion of the lesbian, gay, biseuxal and transgender (LGBT) community are facing an entirely new set of challenges as a result: performers, entertainers and drag queens. With this policy in effect, it is virtually impossible to find an entertainer -- or anyone who self-identifies with a name that isn't legally documented -- on Facebook unless that individual operates a separate fan page.
"The focus of my work is activism and charity," prominent Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence member Sister Roma told The Huffington Post. "I share photos and promote my events, but mostly I use my personal profile page to to raise awareness about civil rights issues, especially as they pertain to the LGBT community... I do this work as Sister Roma and that is how the Facebook community knows me and who they look for to get news about these issues and events. If you ask anyone what my name is, in or out of drag, they will tell you it's Roma. No one knows Michael Williams."
Sister Roma is currently working with openly gay San Francisco politician David Campos to organize a face-to-face meeting with Facebook. In the meantime, Roma has scheduled a protest called #MyNameIs at the Facebook headquarters in San Francisco on Tuesday, Sept. 15 at 11 a.m.
"If people want to use an alternative name on Facebook, they have several different options available to them, including providing an alias under their name on their profile, or creating a Page specifically for that alternative persona," a representative of Facebook told The Huffington Post. "As part of our overall standards, we ask that people who use Facebook provide their real name on their profile.”
However, queer performers aren't the only individuals affected by the Facebook "name change" policy. New York drag performer and artist Untitled Queen, who was forced to change her name this week, told The Huffington Post, "I feel this is a larger security issue for transgender people who are often unable to secure legal proof of their name changes, as well as those that need protection from stalkers or other aggressors." Campos echoed this statement on his Facebook, claiming "...the ability to self-identify is a matter of health and safety. Not allowing drag performers, transgender people and other members of our community to go by their chosen names can result in violence, stalking, violations of privacy and repercussions at work."
Additionally, other individuals operating under pseudonyms, like writer James St. James, are also faced with finding a way to navigate this unique set of challenges. "I’m a writer. James St James is the name I am known by," St. James told The Huffington Post. "I’ve spent the past thirty years building that name as a brand, and they took that away from me just like that?... It’s remarkably tone deaf, especially coming from a company that just recently gave us 58 gender options."
With the majority of this forced "name change" occurring over the past week, the end result remains unclear. However, Sister Roma seems hopeful that those affected will be able to achieve a positive outcome.
"I don't think Facebook hates drag queens or is targeting gay people," Sister Roma continued. "I hope that we can meet with Facebook for an open dialogue with the community this affects directly. I'm hopeful this policy will be revisited and a compromise will be found."
Automatically Appended Next Post: There was a meeting Wednesday but I can't seem to find what exactly were the results/takeaways from the meeting... I'm thinking not good because some of the people I follow on twitter have expressed things along the lines that they are unhappy with how the meeting turned out... but I couldn't find any specifics yet. If I get something I'll update this thread or something.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: What I'd like to know is...how the hell can they enforce a "non anonymous pseudonyms" rule?? Do they demand proof of ID when a person signs up?
Yeah, if you say your real name is Dim Scrubadubdub, than how could Facebook know it is otherwise?
I heard about this issue on the radio yesterday. The argument that revealing real names could endanger members of the LGBTQ community is compelling considering the violence members of that community continue to face daily. One thought I had while listening to the radio program was Facebook moving those personal profiles to fan pages instead, since profiles are typically used by individuals and pages are typically used by businesses/organizations. Seems it would be the best solution within Facebook's current system.
More likely, Facebook will devise a way to charge for anonymity through "premium" profiles that allow users to use whatever moniker they desire.
Facebook employees at the firm’s Menlo Park headquarters may look out their windows Tuesday and see people in drag protesting.
The issue: Facebook’s apparent crackdown enforcing its policy requiring people to use their real names.
Unlike Twitter and services like Snapchat, Facebook requires users to use their real names, arguing that people should be who they are on the site for safety reasons. But some have been using a pseudonym anyway.
According to Sister Roma, a drag queen who is part of the performing and activist group, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Facebook has been cracking down on violators. Last week, the service automatically logged her out of her account, which she has used since 2008.
She told the Daily Dot she “was instructed to log in and forced to change the name on my profile to my ‘legal name, like the one that appears on your drivers’ license or credit card.’ ”
Worried her account would be suspended, Sister Roma changed her name to her legal name, Michael Williams on her Facebook page. She took to Twitter using the hashtag #MyNameIsRoma.
Sister Roma isn’t alone in her complaint.
Over the years, victims of sexual abuse, activists and others have raised concerns. A Change.org petition with more than 12,000 signatures accuses Facebook of forcing performers to use their real names and demands that the policy be changed.
Facebook told The Guardian:
If people want to use an alternative name on Facebook, they have several different options available to them, including providing an alias under their name on their profile, or creating a page specifically for that alternative persona…As part of our overall standards, we ask that people who use Facebook provide their real name on their profile.
That isn’t sitting well with Sister Roma and others.
Facebook has a financial incentive for its real name policy, the Wall Street Journal reports. It needs “detailed, accurate information about its users.” About 11 percent of Facebook user accounts are misclassified, alternate identities or fake, the Journal says.
On the protest’s’ Facebook page, supporters are called to show up in drag, (Even if it’s your first time!) and catch buses from San Francisco to Facebook’s Menlo Park headquarters.
Some suggested drag characters include “Tech Executive Realness, Social Media Starlet.”
Facebook has always been based on identity. Unlike other social networks, which let you pick pseudonyms and have varying degrees of anonymity, Facebook holds you accountable to reality. You are your name. It’s how people find you. But now the network’s commitment to real names is being tested—and not just by popular anonymous apps.
Facebook recently began cracking down on well-known San Francisco drag queens who use their performer names on the network instead of their birth names, going so far as to delete profiles, which has caused widespread outrage in the city’s LBGTQ community. Facebook reps met with some of the affected drag queens and city Supervisor David Campos Wednesday night, but it doesn’t look like the network will be changing its policy any time soon.
That’s unfortunate. It isn’t just drag queens who eschew their birth names on the network. There are plenty of reasons you might want to use a different moniker or a variation on your given name. What if you have a stalker or a crazy ex? What if you’re trying to escape an abusive situation? What if you don’t want prospective employers evaluating your Facebook instead of your job application? Sure, you could lock down your account’s privacy settings, but now that you can no longer hide your account from Facebook’s search, people can still find you, message you, and send you friend requests.
For drag queens and transgendered Facebook users, names aren’t about hiding; they’re expressions of identity. Regardless of why you choose a name other than the one you were assigned at birth, you shouldn’t have to provide legal documentation to Facebook to use that name. The network earlier this year announced more gender options after meeting with LGBTQ advocacy groups and figuring out that the male-female binary was excluding many of its users. That policy doesn’t extend to names, apparently.
The network’s solution for drag performers is to create separate fan pages or use their drag names as aliases. But that’s not good enough. I know plenty of people who use made-up names to avoid being found in search, but they’re not drag queens so Facebook doesn’t bother them. A Facebook rep told TechCrunch that an algorithm had found the drag queens, causing the mass crackdown, but a user on Secret is taking credit for reporting users, making the situation seem even nastier.
Facebook has restored the deleted profiles, but is requiring all drag queens to start using their real names within the next two weeks. There’s also some talk of another meeting, perhaps with people who have more power at Facebook, but it doesn’t look like the network plans to change its policy. Drag queens are now waging a social media campaign against Facebook using the hashtag #MyNameIs.
If Facebook is examining anonymity in response to popular apps usurping its place in the phones of teens, the least it can do is look at its real names policy and see how it can make the network more inclusive. Your identity is more than your birth name.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: What I'd like to know is...how the hell can they enforce a "non anonymous pseudonyms" rule?? Do they demand proof of ID when a person signs up?
If they feel like your name is a pseudonym they can lock your account until they're satisfied that it isn't. Most likely this would be enforced when someone reports a person for using a pseudonym, though they might try to add a filter on signup to catch obvious "not a name" words.
djphranq wrote: I don't really know if that's an 'out' considering how meshed in it is with a lot of things.
Facebook isn't "meshed in" with anything vital. It's a silly time-wasting option that has some value in doing a bare minimum of keeping up with distant acquaintances, but it isn't an essential service that would cause true hardship if it disappeared.
To have the rug pulled out from under them kind of sucks.
Of course it does, and I'm not denying that facebook is probably going to have some unhappy customers to deal with or that this change might cost them users. But it's ridiculous to present this as some kind of "right" to use a pseudonym. It's just another potentially stupid business decision.
djphranq wrote: There was a meeting Wednesday but I can't seem to find what exactly were the results/takeaways from the meeting... I'm thinking not good because some of the people I follow on twitter have expressed things along the lines that they are unhappy with how the meeting turned out... but I couldn't find any specifics yet. If I get something I'll update this thread or something.
From what I can find Facebook hasn't budged on their stance, but they did reinstate the shut down profiles for two weeks. Those users can decide to change the profile or have it go dark again after the two week grace period.
One is that Facebook is in fact free for you to use as long as you agree to their rules. They can change the rules anytime they want and as soon as you no longer agree with them you can quit Facebook.
Facebook makes money by selling access to you and your data. Part of that might mean that they want to make sure that you are really you in order to make your data more marketable. Known accounts might bring more money than fake accounts.
Facebook is used by a lot of shady characters. Criminals randomly friending people using fake profiles so that they can data-mine or stalk them to find out when they won't be home. Ex-partners using fake profiles to stalk their old partners and harass them. Pedophiles using fake profiles to collect pictures of children and to stalk out new prey or using fake profiles to circumvent court ordered restrictions.
It's their playground, it's their rules. Some of the rules might have good reasons and also stupid reasons.
Facebook isn't "meshed in" with anything vital. It's a silly time-wasting option that has some value in doing a bare minimum of keeping up with distant acquaintances, but it isn't an essential service that would cause true hardship if it disappeared.
For some its actually a bit more than just some place to waste time. There is some legitimate networking that takes place for some. It may not be evident to some folks... but the being 'meshed in' with other things considered by some to be vital is indeed there.
Really, people who want to stay anonymous should just use the names and likenesses of their enemies, instead of psuedonyms. They are real names so the problem solves itself right?
daedalus wrote: Really, people who want to stay anonymous should just use the names and likenesses of their enemies, instead of psuedonyms. They are real names so the problem solves itself right?
Haha maybe that could work... like a Face/Off type of thing...
Ultimately the push behind this is the same push that Blizzard launched when switching their forums over to real names (did they ever go through with that?)
It's really about all the negative press. Think of GamerGate and how that's errupted into a war across social media. While it's not FaceBooks fault that happened, it is hurting their image. Social media sites have always tried to make policies to reduce flame wars, and the idea that "people would be less douchy" if they weren't anonymous is kind of the mythical unicorn* they're chasing.
*People aren't douches because they're anonymous. They're just douches. This has been the 5 O'Clock News, with Hats
DarkTraveler777 wrote: The argument that revealing real names could endanger members of the LGBTQ community is compelling considering the violence members of that community continue to face daily.
Is it?
Wouldn't it be more compelling to suggest that if people are worried about the things they are sharing publicly over social media causing them problems later, that maybe they should reconsider what they choose to share publicly over social media?
One thought I had while listening to the radio program was Facebook moving those personal profiles to fan pages instead, since profiles are typically used by individuals and pages are typically used by businesses/organizations. Seems it would be the best solution within Facebook's current system.
That certainly seems like the obvious solution for those using 'stage names' to promote themselves.
It's not like pages are hard to maintain or use either. I keep my photography stuff (and associated "name") to a page and my regular Facebook on my real name.
djphranq wrote: According to some folks, pages have some communication limits that personal profiles don't.
What are some comparable alternatives to Facebook that you think people can use?
Socializing and networking IRL. ....
Google+
Setting up own forums.
Dunno there's options depending on what you want to use FB for. Most of the time FB is just a giant competitive game where the aim is to collect as many likes and friends as possible while sharing random and pointless information.
LInkedin is going the way of Facebook too in that requests to link are being made by people who have no relevance or expertise to help you and your business. Its just braggadocio.
Some people don't necessarily need a platform but they just want a place they can 'be'... but maybe G+ will pick up speed given the situation. I spoke to many friends... they're scrambling to collect their pictures/posts/writings/whathaveyou from facebook to move them over.
djphranq wrote: Some people don't necessarily need a platform but they just want a place they can 'be'... but maybe G+ will pick up speed given the situation. I spoke to many friends... they're scrambling to collect their pictures/posts/writings/whathaveyou from facebook to move them over.
Seriously, if you "scramble personal data" from Facebook instead of any local device, you should not use social networks. At all.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: The argument that revealing real names could endanger members of the LGBTQ community is compelling considering the violence members of that community continue to face daily.
Is it?
Wouldn't it be more compelling to suggest that if people are worried about the things they are sharing publicly over social media causing them problems later, that maybe they should reconsider what they choose to share publicly over social media?
I don't think it is a black and white as you are suggesting. On one level I agree with you. In fact I agree with you so much I don't engage with social media because I don't want any of my private information floating around on the internet (as futile as that desire may actually be).
However, Drag Queens and other LGBTQ community members who are concerned about their private lives being threatened due to the public personas they adopt for business or lifestyle purposes should be able to shield themselves from threats of violence and the loss of professional and personal connections. if elements of our culture were not still hostile to the LGBTQ community then I'd agree with you 100%, but the sad fact is people are still fired from jobs, assaulted, or even murdered for belonging to that community. So isn't it irresponsible for Facebook to force those people to reveal themselves? All in the name of what? More accurate targeted advertising (not a strong argument for the policy in my opinion)? Transparency on the internet (a better argument, but still not strong enough for me to ignore the potential for harm the policy can cause)?
Again, I think Facebook could find a happy medium. Move the profiles to pages, or charge a premium to use an alias, or something. Just digging in and saying "no" seems shortsighted on Facebook's part.
Again, I think Facebook could find a happy medium. Move the profiles to pages, or charge a premium to use an alias, or something. Just digging in and saying "no" seems shortsighted on Facebook's part.
Why should Facebook care for a specific population?
DarkTraveler777 wrote: However, Drag Queens and other LGBTQ community members who are concerned about their private lives being threatened due to the public personas they adopt for business or lifestyle purposes should be able to shield themselves from threats of violence and the loss of professional and personal connections.
And they can. By not sharing with the public any personal information that they don't want the public to have.
If people want to set up a profile for a stage character, then they can do so as a fan page.
if elements of our culture were not still hostile to the LGBTQ community then I'd agree with you 100%, but the sad fact is people are still fired from jobs, assaulted, or even murdered for belonging to that community. So isn't it irresponsible for Facebook to force those people to reveal themselves?
I must have missed the part in the Facebook terms and conditions that requires you to state publicly that you are gay.
Again, I think Facebook could find a happy medium. Move the profiles to pages, or charge a premium to use an alias, or something. Just digging in and saying "no" seems shortsighted on Facebook's part.
Why should Facebook care for a specific population?
A couple of reasons. 1. They are customers to make money off of. If Facebook wants their profiles/pages to data mine then they should consider those user's needs. 2. If Facebook's policies open certain Facebook users up to criminal activities Facebook has a moral imperative to minimize the threat of those activities affecting their customers. Because this isn't just an LGBTQ issue, there others outside of that community who would like to obfuscate their identities. If there is a desire for this option it seems that Facebook should work on a solution to the issue.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: However, Drag Queens and other LGBTQ community members who are concerned about their private lives being threatened due to the public personas they adopt for business or lifestyle purposes should be able to shield themselves from threats of violence and the loss of professional and personal connections.
And they can. By not sharing with the public any personal information that they don't want the public to have.
If people want to set up a profile for a stage character, then they can do so as a fan page.
To your first point, sure. They can also close their Facebook pages and go elsewhere, but then no body wins. Facebook loses customers and those people lose a medium for connecting with others, and advertising their businesses.
To your second point, I agree, and stated that in a previous post. I haven't read anything in the various news articles about this story regarding that option, however. Are the people protesting Facebook's policies not interested in having fan pages? Because that seems like the easiest solution to this issue.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: if elements of our culture were not still hostile to the LGBTQ community then I'd agree with you 100%, but the sad fact is people are still fired from jobs, assaulted, or even murdered for belonging to that community. So isn't it irresponsible for Facebook to force those people to reveal themselves?
I must have missed the part in the Facebook terms and conditions that requires you to state publicly that you are gay.
I have no dog in this fight, but it seems odd to me that your solution to this problem is to have people misrepresent a fundamental aspect of themselves in order to avoid an online alias. It seems like a poor solution for Facebook too. If their advertisers want to know who is gay, or transgendered, or a cross dresser, and their users hide that information because Facebook won't allow them use of an alias to protect their real identities from their online/sub-culture identities, what good does that do Facebook? They will have skewed demographics to offer their advertisers all in the name of transparency? Again, it seems short sighted on Facebook's part.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: If Facebook's policies open certain Facebook users up to criminal activities Facebook has a moral imperative to minimize the threat of those activities affecting their customers.
Sorry, but I just had to laugh at your comment. "Moral imperative"
And in regards to the "worth": said community is really unprofitable for data-mining purposes.
And in regards to the "worth": said community is really unprofitable for data-mining purposes.
Citation please. The LGBTQ is not worth data mining? That community often has a lot of disposable income that advertisers desire. Unless I am misunderstanding your statement.
And in regards to the "worth": said community is really unprofitable for data-mining purposes.
Citation please. The LGBTQ is not worth data mining? That community often has a lot of disposable income that advertisers desire. Unless I am misunderstanding your statement.
Realname Lgbtoq might have lots of disposable income that advertisers desire.
Fakename Worthlessdata is useless for data mining.
Your data is Facebook's profit. If you falsify your data then you are useless to them.
Useless data, combined with the legal challenges Facebook can face by letting people create fake accounts to harass/stalk/etc other people, could be a legitimate reason to demand that you use your real data when interacting with a website that relies on that data to make money so that they can continue to provide you with a free service.
I have no dog in this fight, but it seems odd to me that your solution to this problem is to have people misrepresent a fundamental aspect of themselves in order to avoid an online alias
Yes, the solution to the problem of people not wanting everyone to know they are gay is for those people to not tell everyone that they are gay.
I don't know, that just seems pretty darn obvious to me.
Is hiding it behind an alias really any different to 'hiding' it by not telling anyone?
To be honest, I'm a little puzzled as to why someone's sexual orientation is even worth mentioning on Facebook, unless they're using it as a dating site. In which case, there are other sites that do a much better job of that.
So are names the only data that Facebook mines? Because I thought they also tracked your likes, what products you discussed, what product pages you visited, ect. ect. And if all of that behavior is curtailed by users who are fearful of exposing their real selves on Facebook, then Facebook ain't mining gak off those "hidden" users.
Why does Facebook need a real name? Why can't a verified e-mail address, or a secured, hidden from public view, personal address, or any other identifying information that Facebook deems necessary to confirm identify, be used?
I have an extremely common first name and a fairly common last name. I am sure there a dozens of people with my name on Facebook, and yet those people can be sorted through other identifying means and targeted for advertising.
I have no dog in this fight, but it seems odd to me that your solution to this problem is to have people misrepresent a fundamental aspect of themselves in order to avoid an online alias
Yes, the solution to the problem of people not wanting everyone to know they are gay is for those people to not tell everyone that they are gay.
I don't know, that just seems pretty darn obvious to me.
Is hiding it behind an alias really any different to 'hiding' it by not telling anyone?
To be honest, I'm a little puzzled as to why someone's sexual orientation is even worth mentioning on Facebook, unless they're using it as a dating site. In which case, there are other sites that do a much better job of that.
I think you missed my point. Facebook sells information. You're suggesting that people hide information that Facebook can and does sell (we will use LGBTQ community related interests for the sake of argument here) which makes no sense from a financial stand point for Facebook. You don't think Facebook has advertisers specifically targeting the LGBTQ community? Of course they do, so Facebook has an interest in knowing about that aspect of its user's lives. If those same users don't feel safe divulging that information then Facebook is shooting itself in the foot by not encouraging its users to share as much of themselves as possible for Facebook to exploit.
I personally feel with the high rate of suicide of young people in the LGBT community, reducing safe areas for them to speak to others and rant on situations that those others can relate to and offer advice on is a bad thing no matter how facebook is twisting it.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: So are names the only data that Facebook mines? Because I thought they also tracked your likes, what products you discussed, what product pages you visited, ect. ect. And if all of that behavior is curtailed by users who are fearful of exposing their real selves on Facebook, then Facebook ain't mining gak off those "hidden" users.
Why does Facebook need a real name? Why can't a verified e-mail address, or a secured, hidden from public view, personal address, or any other identifying information that Facebook deems necessary be confirm identify, be used?
The holy grail is UNIQUE likes, and UNIQUE clicks, not aggregate. I could have 100 "verifiable" email addresses in a couple hours, and even more if I broke a captcha and automated it. Actually, I wouldn't even need to do that, I could just take my own mailserver and spin up as many as I wanted with a bash script, though they might get suspicious about a small time mailserver registering thousands of accounts at fb in a couple hours. Might be able to circumvent that with a bunch of DNS aliases, but that would be pretty transparent and expensive for what I'd get out of it. Email addresses are good for tracking email addresses, not people.
I could also verify (nevermind how you even do that?) at least 3 personal addresses between three different states, if I really HAD to. If I could sweet talk some coworkers into it, probably some out of country.
I have an extremely common first name and a fairly common last name. I am sure there a dozens of people with my name on Facebook, and yet those people can be sorted through other identifying means and targeted for advertising.
There sure are. For a last name that's not "Smith", my name is stunningly recurring as well. At least 8 or so of them in the US that I'm aware of. I'm not entirely sure how they separate them, though a hash of your friend's list, posting habits, and overlapping likes would probably do that job, not to mention that most people fill out what school they went to, personal information as mandatory security questions, and that kind of stuff. Real names would also help make all the rest of that more accurate, because I couldn't have "Brad", the "programmer that shares stuff with grandma", and "daedalus" the "trans-furry guy with that creepy fetish about getting eaten"*. You wouldn't be able to hide that stuff, so all your interests would be consolidated to you and they would know that the guy who is interested in the latest book on Java would also be interested in chairs that simulate getting eaten.**
* This is not a thing that I am, nor is it a profile that exists anywhere I am aware of.
** It might have been a joke, but I think this was something mentioned on SA a long time ago. Yup. "Vore" fetish, apparently, it is called. And it is a thing, apparently.
So, daedalus, if I am understanding your post (how computers work makes my brain go limp) names help as an identifier, but they aren't the end-all-be-all of identification on Facebook since Facebook uses other means for identifying people with identical names. Do I have that right?
Again, it seems Facebook could find a way to make everyone happy here. Do they have to? Of course not, but if not doing so leaves money on the table then they are being short sighted.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: So, daedalus, if I am understanding your post (how computers work makes my brain go limp) names help as an identifier, but they aren't the end-all-be-all of identification on Facebook since Facebook uses other means for identifying people with identical names. Do I have that right?
Well, yeah. I mean, I wouldn't call myself a data mining expert, but I dated a marketing major for a year or so back in college.
Seriously though, I see two goals at work here: establishing how many unique clicks happen, and building correlations on what someone might like based upon one thing that they are interested it and common things other people who also are interested in that thing like too. Clicks are proof that your advertising works, and money in the pocket, and provably unique clicks would be worth that much more. And also how much more a value add is it that you can say that people who bought product x also enjoyed product y, and then splash that all over the home page for people to see? Amazon does it all the time.
To achieve those goals, every bit of de-anonymizing data that can be gathered about you helps narrow it down. No one piece of the pie is essential, but names go a long way toward that.
Again, it seems Facebook could find a way to make everyone happy here. Do they have to? Of course not, but if not doing so leaves money on the table then they are being short sighted.
It's a cost-benefit analysis. If they can still keep enough people on the site who don't care about the policy, then they don't care about the ones they alienate. There's no comparable alternative to facebook at the moment, so I could see them going through with it anyway. If there starts to be a mass exodus, they renege on it as loudly as possible and then everyone hails them for seeing the light of day, and come back since everyone on earth is using it.*
*I don't use it, but that's neither here nor there.
I do use my actual name for the one I use to connect with my family, but I have another one under a psuedonym that I use for other things, mostly liking anime pages and talking with friends I meet on the internet.
The only reason a lot of people even feel comfortable using facebook is because they can use a pseudonym. There is a certain amount of utility a facebook account provides, especially for logging into sites that allow it, without actually making everything you do apparent to your friends.
d-usa wrote: Why should Facebook open themselves to liability because people want to be out of the closet without actually being out of the closet?
Is there liability if one of Facebook's users is the victim of a hate crime due to content posted on their profile? I.e. Drag queen "Ronda Roundhips" is exposed to actually be Frank Deman, and poor Frank gets beaten to death by someone who visited his page. Is Facebook liable? Genuine question. You brought up legal challenges from people using fake accounts to harass others have those legal challenges actually happened or were they hypotheticals to make a point?
daedalus wrote: From what I could tell from the sexual identity thread, it seems that being able to talk about it is necessary, to some people.
And if they need to that anonymously, there are forums all over the place where they can do so.
If you don't want your friends or family to know about your sexual orientation, a website set up specifically for people to network with friends and family seems like an odd place to be making an issue of all of this.
It seems a little like complaining about not being able to go to a family Christmas gathering masquerading as someone else.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Is there liability if one of Facebook's users is the victim of a hate crime due to content posted on their profile?
No, because facebook didn't choose to publish that information in a public location. The only way facebook could even possibly be liable for that kind of thing would be if they had promised to keep the information private and then failed to do so, and even then I can't see how they could be liable for more than breaking a contract. Murdering someone over information you find on facebook is so far outside of normal behavior that I can't see any reasonable way you could argue that facebook contributed to it.
Of course that wouldn't stop someone from suing facebook, and there's a non-trivial chance they'd get money in an out-of-court settlement because facebook doesn't want the expense of a trial. But that's a sign of a broken legal system, not legitimate liability.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: If you don't want your friends or family to know about your sexual orientation, a website set up specifically for people to network with friends and family seems like an odd place to be making an issue of all of this.
It's an issue when you want some of your friends and/or family to know, but not others. So I might have Peregrine the boring straight guy with a wife and 2.5 kids, which I use to network with my family and co-workers at my boring office job. And I might also have Peregrine2, where I keep all my gay BDSM activities and network with other people in that community and the friends I trust with my secrets. But I don't want those two groups to overlap, so I make one page with my real name and a separate one under a pseudonym that won't be found if someone in the first group of people goes looking for my name to send me a friend request.
Now, that doesn't mean that I have a right to use my pseudonym and second account, but as a customer I want that service to be available and I might stop using facebook if they remove it.
Peregrine wrote: It's an issue when you want some of your friends and/or family to know, but not others.
And that is Facebook's problem and responsibility because...? I know you say you would leave but other posts are positing it as some right or entitlement for Facebook to allow it, and I'm just not seeing it as either of those things.
Peregrine wrote: It's an issue when you want some of your friends and/or family to know, but not others.
And that is Facebook's problem and responsibility because...?
And Facebook already lets you group your friends and family into different categories. So you are able to post content that you only want certain people to see by utilizing the privacy settings available to every single Facebook user, and you don't even have to change your name to do so.
d-usa wrote: Why should Facebook open themselves to liability because people want to be out of the closet without actually being out of the closet?
Is there liability if one of Facebook's users is the victim of a hate crime due to content posted on their profile? I.e. Drag queen "Ronda Roundhips" is exposed to actually be Frank Deman, and poor Frank gets beaten to death by someone who visited his page. Is Facebook liable? Genuine question.
The only somebody would know that Frank Deman is Ronda Roundhips would be if Frankd decided to share that news on Ronda Roundhips page.
You brought up legal challenges from people using fake accounts to harass others have those legal challenges actually happened or were they hypotheticals to make a point?
Ahtman wrote: And that is Facebook's problem and responsibility because...?
I didn't say it is. I was explaining why some of facebook's customers would consider it an important feature. Facebook obviously has the right to ignore their desires, but they shouldn't be surprised when they have a lot of unhappy former customers to deal with.
Maybe there is something I am missing in this discussion, but I'm seeing somewhat of a disparity here. Facebook has implemented a policy that seems to disproportionately affect the LGBT community, in effect cutting people off from various support groups, advice pages, etc. to help and support those coming out, undergoing gender reassignment, etc. and we have posters here saying;
- "It's a private business, not some kind of mandatory government thing."
- as just a "potentially stupid business decision"
- that it's "It's their playground, it's their rules"
- that Facebook "isn't an essential service"
Yet when a baker refuses to bake a cake for this very same demographic because of genuinely held religious beliefs the cries of homophobia and discrimination start. It seems strange that the outrage over a cake far exceeds that of denying someone access to an emotional support network.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Maybe there is something I am missing in this discussion, but I'm seeing somewhat of a disparity here. Facebook has implemented a policy that seems to disproportionately affect the LGBT community, in effect cutting people off from various support groups, advice pages, etc. to help and support those coming out, undergoing gender reassignment, etc. and we have posters here saying;
- "It's a private business, not some kind of mandatory government thing."
- as just a "potentially stupid business decision"
- that it's "It's their playground, it's their rules"
- that Facebook "isn't an essential service"
Yet when a baker refuses to bake a cake for this very same demographic because of genuinely held religious beliefs the cries of homophobia and discrimination start. It seems strange that the outrage over a cake far exceeds that of denying someone access to an emotional support network.
Probably because the cake thing was a result of bigotry, not a rational business decision. Also, I seem to remember that a lot of people felt the cake thing was also a non-issue.
So acting in accordance with deeply held religious beliefs is bigotry, making a decision that disproportionately affects a minority (a criteria that others would use to show sexism, racism, etc.) is a rational business decision. Yet in both cases minorities are trampled over.
The cake thing was a non-issue and was bloated up beyond imagination. Not to mention that bakery <-> Facebook is a major difference.
Secondly, the former was specifically targetted at a special group. Facebook did not purposefully target any group, they introduced the change to increase profit.
And I still don't get the problem with people who feel having to change their Facebook profile - why don't they have a fanpage again? And why do they assume that using Facebook is their given right instead of a privilege?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So acting in accordance with deeply held religious beliefs is bigotry, making a decision that disproportionately affects a minority (a criteria that others would use to show sexism, racism, etc.) is a rational business decision. Yet in both cases minorities are trampled over.
Hypothetical: Facebook makes all addresses public: Aside from the obvious bad idea this would be, this also has the result of allowing anyone to know who lives in the poor part of town. Poor people complain about this.
Did Facebook:
A) Make all addresses public, or
B) refuse to provide service to people.
I don't see the appeal of facebook at all...and I don't understand how information and photos you don't want to people to view publicly always get leaked. I have no problem not posting any photos online whatsoever. How do most photos get leaked? Do peoples computers get hacked?
The internet is a very open place, information security is extremely important, and I think everyone should be able to monitor their own privacy/security however they want on the internet.
Also, I really hate Zuckerberg...I hate him for his success, I hate him for his opinion on privacy, I hate his hair, I hate his whiteness. Well, I don't really hate his opinion on privacy...I guess you can just say his association with facebook pisses me off.
Platuan4th wrote: Computers, phones, tablet, basically anything that can connect to the internet and also holds pictures.
Well, what about the ones who get fired from their jobs because their company or superiors find an obscene picture on facebook? Pretty sure that question has been asked hundreds of millions of times already, but why do people post pictures of themselves like the one James Franco did?
Platuan4th wrote: Computers, phones, tablet, basically anything that can connect to the internet and also holds pictures.
Well, what about the ones who get fired from their jobs because their company or superiors find an obscene picture on facebook?
You mean that get fired because they choose to put that on their publicly accessible Facebook? A site that lets you limit who sees what?
Yes, it sucks, but it's common knowledge that bosses and companies look up employees and potential employees on Facebook and people should really post to public sites like that with that knowledge in mind.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So acting in accordance with deeply held religious beliefs is bigotry, making a decision that disproportionately affects a minority (a criteria that others would use to show sexism, racism, etc.) is a rational business decision. Yet in both cases minorities are trampled over.
Hypothetical: Facebook makes all addresses public: Aside from the obvious bad idea this would be, this also has the result of allowing anyone to know who lives in the poor part of town. Poor people complain about this.
Did Facebook:
A) Make all addresses public, or
B) refuse to provide service to people.
If Facebook actively post information how is that refusing to provide a service?
In your scenario are poor people a minority? Are poor people now legally a protected class? How are the poor disproportionately affected compared to other economic groups?
Of course the conclusion that is invited by Crazy_Carnifex's post is that a business can decide not to serve gays/women/Blacks/Latinos/people in wheelchairs as long as it is a rational business decision. Given that free market thinking of this caliber is usually scorned when it comes to minority rights this seems like a very strange position to take.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So acting in accordance with deeply held religious beliefs is bigotry, making a decision that disproportionately affects a minority (a criteria that others would use to show sexism, racism, etc.) is a rational business decision. Yet in both cases minorities are trampled over.
Hypothetical: Facebook makes all addresses public: Aside from the obvious bad idea this would be, this also has the result of allowing anyone to know who lives in the poor part of town. Poor people complain about this.
Did Facebook:
A) Make all addresses public, or
B) refuse to provide service to people.
If Facebook actively post information how is that refusing to provide a service? In your scenario are poor people a minority? Are poor people now legally a protected class? How are the poor disproportionately affected compared to other economic groups?
Of course the conclusion that is invited by Crazy_Carnifex's post is that a business can decide not to serve gays/women/Blacks/Latinos/people in wheelchairs as long as it is a rational business decision. Given that free market thinking of this caliber is usually scorned when it comes to minority rights this seems like a very strange position to take.
My hypothetical suggestion was bad, admittedly, but you proved my point that your trying to draw a similarity between this and the baker incident are at least as flawed.
You're right in that "Poor" is not a protected status, as far as I can tell, but it really doesn't matter at the end of the day, because for the purposes of providing a service (at least at a cursory glance, I'm no lawyer) neither actually is sexuality in some states it seems beyond conditions of employment, and even then it's not universal. Even if it were, facebook is NOT refusing anyone service based upon what they enjoy fething, they're refusing service based upon people not providing their real names. That appears to be inconveniencing people in that particular community, but it would inconvenience me too, and I'm none of the above. Contrawise, you can still find openly gay people on facebook who use their real name. There is zero discrimination happening
Your baker argument in this case makes about as much sense as me trying to claim that a site that (for whatever reason) has a yellow text on blue color scheme is discrimination against color blind people. Providing you the same service they're providing everyone else under the same conditions you place upon everyone else isn't discrimination; it's the opposite. If it sucks and is a bad thing, don't use it. I don't and manage to survive.
daedalus wrote: My hypothetical suggestion was bad, admittedly, but you proved my point that your trying to draw a similarity between this and the baker incident are at least as flawed.
You're right in that "Poor" is not a protected status, as far as I can tell, but it really doesn't matter at the end of the day, because for the purposes of providing a service (at least at a cursory glance, I'm no lawyer) neither actually is sexuality in some states it seems beyond conditions of employment, and even then it's not universal. Even if it were, facebook is NOT refusing anyone service based upon what they enjoy fething, they're refusing service based upon people not providing their real names. That appears to be inconveniencing people in that particular community, but it would inconvenience me too, and I'm none of the above. Contrawise, you can still find openly gay people on facebook who use their real name. There is zero discrimination happening
Your baker argument in this case makes about as much sense as me trying to claim that a site that (for whatever reason) has a yellow text on blue color scheme is discrimination against color blind people. Providing you the same service they're providing everyone else under the same conditions you place upon everyone else isn't discrimination; it's the opposite.
It wasn't just bad, it was a completely false equivalence. To add to it when did colorblind people become a protected class?
Who said that FB were refusing service based on sexual preference? I didn't, or I would be obliged if you would point out where exactly I made such a claim so that I may make my position clearer for others on the forum.
So the LGBT community are not disproportionately affected? Did you read the OP? Or any other article that contradicts your claim?
We hear time and time again that measures which disproportionately affect minorities are discrimination, regardless of the reasons behind it. When people try to explain that the decision is based in something other than malice and that it is simply the results of economics, etc. we're told that isn't good enough.
daedalus wrote: If it sucks and is a bad thing, don't use it. I don't and manage to survive.
I remember this argument during the cake thread. The same people saying that people have the right to determine service didn't apply when it came to serving minorities have turned their own arguments on their head.
It wasn't just bad, it was a completely false equivalence.
Similar to claiming a baker who directly refuses service to gay people is on par with a service requiring your real name and people being unhappy with it, yes, yes they both are.
To add to it when did colorblind people become a protected class?
It's not. Again, neither necessarily is your sexual preference in all cases. I thought we were refusing people service based upon their real names here, not on their sexuality.
Who said that FB were refusing service based on sexual preference? I didn't, or I would be obliged if you would point out where exactly I made such a claim so that I may make my position clearer for others on the forum.
So, just so I know we are on the same page, you agree then that:
Yet when a baker refuses to bake a cake for this very same demographic because of genuinely held religious beliefs the cries of homophobia and discrimination start. It seems strange that the outrage over a cake far exceeds that of denying someone access to an emotional support network.
is a baseless argument, because no one is being denied access to anything, except under condition that they provide the same information that one is expected to when applying for basically any other service on earth that doesn't accept cash and doesn't keep records?
So the LGBT community are not disproportionately affected? Did you read the OP?
The OP to this thread, right? The one where he's talking generically about anyone who might depend upon a false moniker and doesn't mention anything about sexual status?
This is important to you evidently, so I want to make sure we're on the same page again. You mean this OP:
djphranq wrote: Any thoughts on the whole situation with Facebooks recent increase in enforcing their 'real name' policy?
I'll try to find an article to post... or maybe just cut past text from one... so far stuff I'm finding isn't too family friendly...
Personally I am angry with Facebook. Some people need the pseudonyms. They've genuinely built whole lives/livelihoods out of them. Some people need the pseudonyms to LITERALLY survive. I'm not just talking about making money to live but I'm talking about avoiding harm to live.
There is an argument that social media is free, whatever rules Facebook wants to enforce, its their right. I don't think it really is free though when you consider that they collect data from you; 'currency' isn't always dollars and cents.
Really, my eloquence with words is soooo lacking... I'll try to find a article/piece on it... maybe they can explain things better than I can (haha actually 'definitely' not 'maybe'). I did have an article the other day to share but when I looked for it today... POOF... gone...
That's the one, right? Yes. I did read it.
Or any other article that contradicts your claim?
Do you have one? One that actually shows this is an issue? Are... are there statistics showing this is a significant number of that population? I don't mind being educated if you want to show me one.
We hear time and time again that measures which disproportionately affect minorities are discrimination, regardless of the reasons behind it. When people try to explain that the decision is based in something other than malice and that it is simply the results of economics, etc. we're told that isn't good enough.
Well, with the baker, it's direct refusal of service, and I agree that it's a total dick move. Here it seems like it's a very indirect thing, if even something that exists beyond a handful of people screaming a little too loudly about it. Mind you, I really don't agree with the policy. I basically hate everything about facebook. That's why I'm not a part of that world.
daedalus wrote: If it sucks and is a bad thing, don't use it. I don't and manage to survive.
I remember this argument during the cake thread. The same people saying that people have the right to determine service didn't apply when it came to serving minorities have turned their own arguments on their head.
It's that awkward situation of someone being compelled to provide a service, versus someone else being refused the ability to partake of the same service. There's few easy answers for people outside of those making sophistic arguments on internet forums. (This is a dig at all of us)
Dreadclaw69 wrote: When people try to explain that the decision is based in something other than malice and that it is simply the results of economics, etc. we're told that isn't good enough.
You're told that because those supposed "economic reasons" are almost always nothing more than a flimsy excuse to avoid admitting their real motives. This isn't true in the this case, especially given facebook's previous record of openly embracing the protected class in question.
I remember this argument during the cake thread. The same people saying that people have the right to determine service didn't apply when it came to serving minorities have turned their own arguments on their head.
That's not at all the same argument as the cake thread. You have a right to decide which services you provide, you don't have a right to decide who to provide those services to. The bakery decided to offer a service, just not to customers they didn't approve of. Facebook isn't refusing service to a minority, they're refusing service to everyone.
Pretending that providing the same service to everyone is the same as not providing the same service to everyone might win the "silliest argument made on Dakka" prize this weekend.
d-usa wrote: Pretending that providing the same service to everyone is the same as not providing the same service to everyone might win the "silliest argument made on Dakka" prize this weekend.
I dunno... saying to the effect "that people think Facebook is some sort of right or entitlement, it's silly and should abide by Facebook's rules." Is pretty danged silly as some folks have legit reasons for anonymnity.
Listen, I know you guys have some sort of rage-boner for trying to catch all of us liberals in conflicting posts, so here is the deal:
If you can explain to me how the fething hell "the baker should bake a cake for the gay people because he should provide the same service for everyone" and "everybody should follow the same rules becaue Facebook is providing the same service for everyone" is inconsistent or how "the baker shouldn't have special rules to single out gay people" and "facebook shouldn't have special rules for gay people" is inconsistent then I give you an internet cookie.
There are plenty of good arguments that can be made for and against the real name policy. But going "herp derp liberals herp derp" to prove some non-existing point is, in fact, the stupidest argument of Dakka this weekend.
Listen, I know you guys have some sort of rage-boner for trying to catch all of us liberals in conflicting posts, so here is the deal:
If you can explain to me how the fething hell "the baker should bake a cake for the gay people because he should provide the same service for everyone" and "everybody should follow the same rules becaue Facebook is providing the same service for everyone" is inconsistent or how "the baker shouldn't have special rules to single out gay people" and "facebook shouldn't have special rules for gay people" is inconsistent then I give you an internet cookie.
There are plenty of good arguments that can be made for and against the real name policy. But going "herp derp liberals herp derp" to prove some non-existing point is, in fact, the stupidest argument of Dakka this weekend.
Nah... nothing to do with liberals really.
It's the rationalization hamster I'm calling out.
Here... I'll break it down for you.
Baker refuses service to gay couple. Couple is adversely affected for something they cannot change.
Reason? Baker's religion.
FB forces users to disclose their name. LGBT folks who wishes anonymity is adversely affected for something they cannot change.
Reason? FB's rules, so that they can maximize their profits.
The disconnect is that both FB and the Baker's decision adversely affects those folks.
FB offers something for free, but has rules that adversely effects the LGBT community, but that's okay because it's FB's house.
A specific baker refuses to do Wedding Cakes for gay couple because of Baker's religion, but they deserve to be sued?
d-usa wrote: Listen, I know you guys have some sort of rage-boner for trying to catch all of us liberals in conflicting posts, so here is the deal:
If you can explain to me how the fething hell "the baker should bake a cake for the gay people because he should provide the same service for everyone" and "everybody should follow the same rules becaue Facebook is providing the same service for everyone" is inconsistent or how "the baker shouldn't have special rules to single out gay people" and "facebook shouldn't have special rules for gay people" is inconsistent then I give you an internet cookie.
There are plenty of good arguments that can be made for and against the real name policy. But going "herp derp liberals herp derp" to prove some non-existing point is, in fact, the stupidest argument of Dakka this weekend.
Who said anything about liberals, other than you? I asked how people can reconcile holding two conflicting positions simultaneously.We hear time and time again that a policy or decision that disproportionately affects a minority or protected class is sexist/racist/homophobic, that these protected classes should be protected, and that the business in question should not be able to simply claim protection from being a private business/that there is no right to a cake/their playground their rules/not an essential service.
The service being provided by both the baker and FB are provided to the general public at large. The baker has a policy which allows him to refuse service to anyone at his discretion (which was strenuously objected to). FB has a policy that allows them to refuse service to anyone they suspect of using a pseudo name. Both policies apply to the population as a whole, yet both policies affect the LGBT community to a greater extent. One was deemed suitable for outrage. The other justified.
We either accept that businesses can make decisions about who they provide services to without being legally compelled to do so where they are not an essential service, or that certain classes must be given special legal safeguards when it comes to the decisions made from these businesses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: Similar to claiming a baker who directly refuses service to gay people is on par with a service requiring your real name and people being unhappy with it, yes, yes they both are.
Both have refused service, and have a policy that disproportionately affects the LGBT community. Nope, sorry mine was pretty apt.
daedalus wrote: It's not. Again, neither necessarily is your sexual preference in all cases. I thought we were refusing people service based upon their real names here, not on their sexuality.
And the LGBT community, especially those in the drag community, are affected to a much greater extent than others. Sexuality is very much an issue in this case.
daedalus wrote: is a baseless argument, because no one is being denied access to anything, except under condition that they provide the same information that one is expected to when applying for basically any other service on earth that doesn't accept cash and doesn't keep records?
So they aren't being denied access to anything, except that they are. I'll let you work out the inherent contradiction in your own words
daedalus wrote: Do you have one? One that actually shows this is an issue? Are... are there statistics showing this is a significant number of that population? I don't mind being educated if you want to show me one.
daedalus wrote: Well, with the baker, it's direct refusal of service, and I agree that it's a total dick move. Here it seems like it's a very indirect thing, if even something that exists beyond a handful of people screaming a little too loudly about it. Mind you, I really don't agree with the policy. I basically hate everything about facebook. That's why I'm not a part of that world.
Direct or indirect this policy has a very real impact upon people's lives. Furthermore FB are aware of the issue and have met with LGBT groups and given them 2 weeks to decide if they want to change their names or not. So at this point the argument can clearly be made that this is a direct refusal of service as FB are aware of the consequences of their policy.
daedalus wrote: It's that awkward situation of someone being compelled to provide a service, versus someone else being refused the ability to partake of the same service. There's few easy answers for people outside of those making sophistic arguments on internet forums. (This is a dig at all of us)
So, in either event access to a service is being restricted. But someone people who complained about it in the other thread have attempted to justify it here.
daedalus wrote: Similar to claiming a baker who directly refuses service to gay people is on par with a service requiring your real name and people being unhappy with it, yes, yes they both are.
Both have refused service, and have a policy that disproportionately affects the LGBT community. Nope, sorry mine was pretty apt.
So then is any revision of terms and conditions denying service to someone? You're also still not getting the difference in magnitude here. I'll try again: The baker refused service because the people were gay. There were literally no conditions under which that they could receive service from that baker. Facebook has provided a simple, well known, and straightforward means of anyone getting service.
Here's an interesting question: If they could have required that from the beginning, do you think anyone would be making the claims they are now?
daedalus wrote: It's not. Again, neither necessarily is your sexual preference in all cases. I thought we were refusing people service based upon their real names here, not on their sexuality.
And the LGBT community, especially those in the drag community, are affected to a much greater extent than others. Sexuality is very much an issue in this case.
bs. Bull gak. Tell that to people being imprisioned/hanged/shot for speaking out against their government in "third world" countries who now have to use their real names or be silent. #FirstWorldProblems, bro.
daedalus wrote: is a baseless argument, because no one is being denied access to anything, except under condition that they provide the same information that one is expected to when applying for basically any other service on earth that doesn't accept cash and doesn't keep records?
So they aren't being denied access to anything, except that they are. I'll let you work out the inherent contradiction in your own words
"That pizza place DENIED me service because I wanted a large cheese pizza, and I wouldn't give them the money they charge everyone else for it because they raised the price two weeks ago. Those denying denyish deniers! DENY!"
There are terms and conditions for each. I can choose not to pay the increased price of the pizza, or I can choose to buy the pizza. Can I claim that the pizza place DENIED me pizza because I wanted to give them 12 bucks instead of 14? Well, I mean, I could probably organize an angry twitter mob over it nowadays. Doesn't make it any less completely silly.
(links)
Yeah... I'll look at those when I'm not at work. and get back to you here.
daedalus wrote: Well, with the baker, it's direct refusal of service, and I agree that it's a total dick move. Here it seems like it's a very indirect thing, if even something that exists beyond a handful of people screaming a little too loudly about it. Mind you, I really don't agree with the policy. I basically hate everything about facebook. That's why I'm not a part of that world.
Direct or indirect this policy has a very real impact upon people's lives. Furthermore FB are aware of the issue and have met with LGBT groups and given them 2 weeks to decide if they want to change their names or not. So at this point the argument can clearly be made that this is a direct refusal of service as FB are aware of the consequences of their policy.
Well, with the hoopla started over it, I'd imagine they would have to have their heads in the sand not to know about it. Did they meet with them BEFORE coming up with the policy? If not, then it sound to me like they tried to do damage control after the fact and are going through with it anyway. Still different from the baker in that he made his decision after knowing the impact it would have. Regardless, the fb thing still impacts other groups of people in ways I would argue are profoundly worse, unless we're equating people finding out you're secretly gay online to armed thugs marching into your house and killing you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So, I read all of your links. Apparently one person is leading the charge in all of them. This one Michael Williams or Sister Roma or whatever you want to call him.
My personal favorite:
"There is cyber-bullying going on," with at least one person "disproportionately" targeting drag queens, transgender people, and others.
My goodness. "At least one person". Stop the presses! Abandon real names, because at least one person is an donkey-cave!
And I was so distracted by the story of Chris Crocker's second hardcore bareback film debuting at Lucas Entertainment, I admit I forgot to read the fifth article, though I'm sure it was rife with journalistic integrity and completely explains just how many people are affected by this and why it's really a big deal and not a small handful of people exercise their right to scream and pout as loudly as they possibly can.
daedalus wrote: So then is any revision of terms and conditions denying service to someone? You're also still not getting the difference in magnitude here. I'll try again: The baker refused service because the people were gay. There were literally no conditions under which that they could receive service from that baker. Facebook has provided a simple, well known, and straightforward means of anyone getting service.
When does a revision of the T&C deny someone service? That should be obvious here; when those revisions prevent access to that service.
daedalus wrote: bs. Bull gak. Tell that to people being imprisioned/hanged/shot for speaking out against their government in "third world" countries who now have to use their real names or be silent. #FirstWorldProblems, bro.
So your argument is to resort to fallacy of relative privation?
daedalus wrote: "That pizza place DENIED me service because I wanted a large cheese pizza, and I wouldn't give them the money they charge everyone else for it because they raised the price two weeks ago. Those denying denyish deniers! DENY!"
There are terms and conditions for each. I can choose not to pay the increased price of the pizza, or I can choose to buy the pizza. Can I claim that the pizza place DENIED me pizza because I wanted to give them 12 bucks instead of 14? Well, I mean, I could probably organize an angry twitter mob over it nowadays. Doesn't make it any less completely silly.
More false equivalence
daedalus wrote: Well, with the hoopla started over it, I'd imagine they would have to have their heads in the sand not to know about it. Did they meet with them BEFORE coming up with the policy? If not, then it sound to me like they tried to do damage control after the fact and are going through with it anyway. Still different from the baker in that he made his decision after knowing the impact it would have. Regardless, the fb thing still impacts other groups of people in ways I would argue are profoundly worse, unless we're equating people finding out you're secretly gay online to armed thugs marching into your house and killing you.
By damage control I take it you mean giving them two weeks to change their name or be put back in the position they are currently in?
Did the baker meet with the people refused access to his service before he put that policy in place? If not why are you making such a distinction?
What group? How are they affected worse?
daedalus wrote: My goodness. "At least one person". Stop the presses! Abandon real names, because at least one person is an donkey-cave!
And I was so distracted by the story of Chris Crocker's second hardcore bareback film debuting at Lucas Entertainment, I admit I forgot to read the fifth article, though I'm sure it was rife with journalistic integrity and completely explains just how many people are affected by this and why it's really a big deal and not a small handful of people exercise their right to scream and pout as loudly as they possibly can.
So just like the baker then.
If you had read the articles it was more than just one person, they just happened to quote the most vocal. But that wouldn't suit you because that changes the narrative.
https://www.change.org/p/facebook-allow-performers-to-use-their-stage-names-on-their-facebook-accounts So out of 3,988 signatures required at the time of writing there are now 31,012 signatories. Somewhat more than your claim that it is just one person.
daedalus wrote: So then is any revision of terms and conditions denying service to someone? You're also still not getting the difference in magnitude here. I'll try again: The baker refused service because the people were gay. There were literally no conditions under which that they could receive service from that baker. Facebook has provided a simple, well known, and straightforward means of anyone getting service.
When does a revision of the T&C deny someone service? That should be obvious here; when those revisions prevent access to that service.
ALL terms and conditions deny service to people who do not abide by the terms and conditions, regardless of revisions. You had to agree to an initial set of T&C before you could use it to begin with. Those DENIERS!
daedalus wrote: bs. Bull gak. Tell that to people being imprisioned/hanged/shot for speaking out against their government in "third world" countries who now have to use their real names or be silent. #FirstWorldProblems, bro.
So your argument is to resort to fallacy of relative privation?
No, my argument is that your argument that the sexual identity population being the ones MOST AFFECTED is outright wrong, unless you're going to seriously tell me that people finding out you're gay is worse than you and your family getting killed. Nothing to do with relative privation, just pointing out how you're wrong. The way this is going, I could see that as a possibility though, so you can feel free to say that if you would like. It IS your right.
daedalus wrote: "That pizza place DENIED me service because I wanted a large cheese pizza, and I wouldn't give them the money they charge everyone else for it because they raised the price two weeks ago. Those denying denyish deniers! DENY!"
There are terms and conditions for each. I can choose not to pay the increased price of the pizza, or I can choose to buy the pizza. Can I claim that the pizza place DENIED me pizza because I wanted to give them 12 bucks instead of 14? Well, I mean, I could probably organize an angry twitter mob over it nowadays. Doesn't make it any less completely silly.
More false equivalence
Well, it IS somehow appropriate seeing as you started it with the baker.
daedalus wrote: Well, with the hoopla started over it, I'd imagine they would have to have their heads in the sand not to know about it. Did they meet with them BEFORE coming up with the policy? If not, then it sound to me like they tried to do damage control after the fact and are going through with it anyway. Still different from the baker in that he made his decision after knowing the impact it would have. Regardless, the fb thing still impacts other groups of people in ways I would argue are profoundly worse, unless we're equating people finding out you're secretly gay online to armed thugs marching into your house and killing you.
By damage control I take it you mean giving them two weeks to change their name or be put back in the position they are currently in?
Did the baker meet with the people refused access to his service before he put that policy in place? If not why are you making such a distinction?
What group? How are they affected worse?
Meeting with them was the attempt at damage control. The two weeks sounds like the two sides failed to come to a reasonable agreement. Did they meet with them before or after the creation of the policy? Metting with them before shows that they knew this was going to
The baker likely had his policy in place from the beginning. It seems like ideology seldom changes much once it is constructed in a person.
I was again referring to the group of people who are getting killed in third world countries by oppressive governments.
daedalus wrote: My goodness. "At least one person". Stop the presses! Abandon real names, because at least one person is an donkey-cave!
And I was so distracted by the story of Chris Crocker's second hardcore bareback film debuting at Lucas Entertainment, I admit I forgot to read the fifth article, though I'm sure it was rife with journalistic integrity and completely explains just how many people are affected by this and why it's really a big deal and not a small handful of people exercise their right to scream and pout as loudly as they possibly can.
So just like the baker then.
If you had read the articles it was more than just one person, they just happened to quote the most vocal. But that wouldn't suit you because that changes the narrative.
https://www.change.org/p/facebook-allow-performers-to-use-their-stage-names-on-their-facebook-accounts So out of 3,988 signatures required at the time of writing there are now 31,012 signatories. Somewhat more than your claim that it is just one person.
I should have been more specific, the one person I was chuckling about is the one being the cyberbully. The presence of a single edge case isn't cause for panic.
Petitions are serious business. I just want to point out that a person who signs a petition isn't necessarily affected by it, or may be using the petition for ulterior means. SJWing IS trendy nowadays. Hell, I'd probably sign it just to give a means to keep my name off facebook, if I used facebook to begin with. Then again, maybe not, as I don't agree with "performers" being the only people who should be able to use a pseudonym on facebook.
Further, it still has fewer supporters than]the US building a freaking death star.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Something just dawned on me. I think I understand the issue now. I think you're trying to say that the actions a person takes and their motives aren't why you judge someone, but for the results those actions cause. You see no difference between the baker and facebook because they both negatively impact a group of people based upon their gender, full stop. Is that correct?
daedalus wrote: ALL terms and conditions deny service to people who do not abide by the terms and conditions, regardless of revisions. You had to agree to an initial set of T&C before you could use it to begin with. Those DENIERS!
Agreeing to the initial T&C is irrelevant if the revisions later result in denial of service.
In the case of the baker the terms and conditions, like every other business, were that the management had the right to refuse service. That is nothing new. There was no revision to the T&C of that business. Yet here you are still trying to excuse one business.
daedalus wrote: No, my argument is that your argument that the sexual identity population being the ones MOST AFFECTED is outright wrong, unless you're going to seriously tell me that people finding out you're gay is worse than you and your family getting killed. Nothing to do with relative privation, just pointing out how you're wrong. The way this is going, I could see that as a possibility though, so you can feel free to say that if you would like. It IS your right.
Your argument it textbook relative privation.
But for the sake of argument who is at risk of being killed, and having their family killed after this move by FB? Specifics please. Otherwise this is just a diversion to avoid the truth
daedalus wrote: Well, it IS somehow appropriate seeing as you started it with the baker.
It's about as close as coal is to diamonds, in that the only similarity is that both pizzas and cakes go in ovens. The baker and FB examples concern management policies that disproportionately affect a minority seemingly on the basis of their sexual identity. Refusing to pay the extra after a rise in the cost of pizza is in no way comparable. Again, a textbook logical fallacy on your part.
daedalus wrote: Meeting with them was the attempt at damage control. The two weeks sounds like the two sides failed to come to a reasonable agreement. Did they meet with them before or after the creation of the policy? Metting with them before shows that they knew this was going to
But FB didn't meet with them before to discuss their policy. Neither did the baker
daedalus wrote: The baker likely had his policy in place from the beginning. It seems like ideology seldom changes much once it is constructed in a person.
So, just like FB, both have policies they may apply and that the person using the service must agree to. Guess which business had more tolerance shown for their decision.
daedalus wrote: I was again referring to the group of people who are getting killed in third world countries by oppressive governments.
So because people in 3rd World countries are being killed people have no right to complain about anything else? You're really quite fond of resorting to relative privation aren't you. One person's suffering does not invalidate the suffering to others.
daedalus wrote: I should have been more specific, the one person I was chuckling about is the one being the cyberbully. The presence of a single edge case isn't cause for panic.
Petitions are serious business. I just want to point out that a person who signs a petition isn't necessarily affected by it, or may be using the petition for ulterior means. SJWing IS trendy nowadays. Hell, I'd probably sign it just to give a means to keep my name off facebook, if I used facebook to begin with. Then again, maybe not, as I don't agree with "performers" being the only people who should be able to use a pseudonym on facebook.
Further, it still has fewer supporters than]the US building a freaking death star.
If you are comparing an obvious joke petition with a serious petition I'm going to have to refer you back to your good friend false equivalence.
daedalus wrote: Something just dawned on me. I think I understand the issue now. I think you're trying to say that the actions a person takes and their motives aren't why you judge someone, but for the results those actions cause. You see no difference between the baker and facebook because they both negatively impact a group of people based upon their gender, full stop. Is that correct?
My issue is the cognitive dissonance that some people seem afflicted by when they can vilify a business for applying the terms and conditions that apply to his business that affect the LGBT community, then justify another business for doing the exact same thing while using the same excuses they refuted before.
Then There is cognitive dissonance thinking that people have cognitive dissonance simply because they can see the difference between policies that target people and policies that don't.
In the case of the baker the terms and conditions, like every other business, were that the management had the right to refuse service. That is nothing new. There was no revision to the T&C of that business.
So the baker and facebook ARE dissimilar.
Your argument it textbook relative privation.
But for the sake of argument who is at risk of being killed, and having their family killed after this move by FB? Specifics please. Otherwise this is just a diversion to avoid the truth
I'm going to help you out here:
The fallacy of relative privation, or appeal to worse problems, is an informal fallacy which attempts to suggest that the opponent's argument should be ignored because there are more important problems in the world, despite the fact that these issues are often completely unrelated to the subject under discussion.
I can see where you would get confused. It IS similar. People forced to use their real name in danger from oppressive regimes are not unrelated to the subject under discussion. The OP, as I pointed out after you insisted I read it, actually never mentions any one who is a crossdresser, gay, or any other specific group by name. Also, I never suggested that we ignored any problems because of people having it worse. You established the groups MOST affected. I called bull gak on that.
As far as the specific groups I'm referring to? I'm referring to the next Egypt or Arab Springs. Uprisings have been getting organized on social media for years now.
It's about as close as coal is to diamonds, in that the only similarity is that both pizzas and cakes go in ovens. The baker and FB examples concern management policies that disproportionately affect a minority seemingly on the basis of their sexual identity. Refusing to pay the extra after a rise in the cost of pizza is in no way comparable. Again, a textbook logical fallacy on your part.
I can hand you a study showing that gay men make less than straight men on average. I know of one, and I bet I could actually hand you several if I went looking. Would that show that gay men are more negatively impacted that straight men by the increase of the cost of pizza?
daedalus wrote: Meeting with them was the attempt at damage control. The two weeks sounds like the two sides failed to come to a reasonable agreement. Did they meet with them before or after the creation of the policy? Metting with them before shows that they knew this was going to
But FB didn't meet with them before to discuss their policy. Neither did the baker
Okay, so there's reasonable odds FB didn't know their policy WOULD affect any group disproportionately. I wager a guess the baker did. Different.
daedalus wrote: The baker likely had his policy in place from the beginning. It seems like ideology seldom changes much once it is constructed in a person.
So, just like FB, both have policies they may apply and that the person using the service must agree to. Guess which business had more tolerance shown for their decision.
Just like all businesses. People didn't hate on the baker for having policies, they hated on the baker for policies SPECIFICALLY targeting gay people.
Can I get on facebook assuming I provide my real name and I am within the broad range of identifiers in the LGBT?
Can I get a cake from that baker assuming I provide my real name and I am within the broad range of identifiers in the LGBT?
It still seems pretty different to me.
So because people in 3rd World countries are being killed people have no right to complain about anything else? You're really quite fond of resorting to relative privation aren't you. One person's suffering does not invalidate the suffering to others.
See above.
If you are comparing an obvious joke petition with a serious petition I'm going to have to refer you back to your good friend false equivalence.
It mostly shows I'm just taking you about as seriously as I do internet petitions. My comment about how not everyone signing the petition is necessarily affected by this still stands.
daedalus wrote: Something just dawned on me. I think I understand the issue now. I think you're trying to say that the actions a person takes and their motives aren't why you judge someone, but for the results those actions cause. You see no difference between the baker and facebook because they both negatively impact a group of people based upon their gender, full stop. Is that correct?
My issue is the cognitive dissonance that some people seem afflicted by when they can vilify a business for applying the terms and conditions that apply to his business that affect the LGBT community, then justify another business for doing the exact same thing while using the same excuses they refuted before.
So then I DO understand what you're hung up on here.
The fallacy of relative privation, or appeal to worse problems, is an informal fallacy which attempts to suggest that the opponent's argument should be ignored because there are more important problems in the world, despite the fact that these issues are often completely unrelated to the subject under discussion.
I can see where you would get confused. It IS similar. People forced to use their real name in danger from oppressive regimes are not unrelated to the subject under discussion. The OP, as I pointed out after you insisted I read it, actually never mentions any one who is a crossdresser, gay, or any other specific group by name. Also, I never suggested that we ignored any problems because of people having it worse. You established the groups MOST affected. I called bull gak on that.
As far as the specific groups I'm referring to? I'm referring to the next Egypt or Arab Springs. Uprisings have been getting organized on social media for years now.
You are injecting topics into this discussion that are "completely unrelated to the subject under discussion" - Arab Spring, people in danger from oppressive regimes. As shown by your own link that is relative privation.
daedalus wrote: I can hand you a study showing that gay men make less than straight men on average. I know of one, and I bet I could actually hand you several if I went looking. Would that show that gay men are more negatively impacted that straight men by the increase of the cost of pizza?
Did the baker increase prices for the gay couple? Did FB charge a fee for using a pseudo name? No. The comparison is not apt.
daedalus wrote: Okay, so there's reasonable odds FB didn't know their policy WOULD affect any group disproportionately. I wager a guess the baker did. Different.
And yet after they met with groups concerned about the change in policy the only change in FB's position was that it gave them a timeframe to comply. At this juncture they knew the effect that their decision would have, and still pursued it. So very much similar to the baker.
daedalus wrote: Just like all businesses. People didn't hate on the baker for having policies, they hated on the baker for policies SPECIFICALLY targeting gay people.
Can I get on facebook assuming I provide my real name and I am within the broad range of identifiers in the LGBT?
Can I get a cake from that baker assuming I provide my real name and I am within the broad range of identifiers in the LGBT?
It still seems pretty different to me.
Can I get on FB by providing my real name?
Can I get a cake from a Christian baker by not telling him it is for a gay wedding?
Seems pretty similar to me
See above. Specifically your quote with substantiates my argument.
daedalus wrote: It mostly shows I'm just taking you about as seriously as I do internet petitions. My comment about how not everyone signing the petition is necessarily affected by this still stands.
So now after employing logical fallacies you're going to be willfully ignorant to evidence that contradicts your view.
daedalus wrote: So then I DO understand what you're hung up on here.
Given your comments so far I'm almost curious as to what your understanding is.
d-usa wrote: Then There is cognitive dissonance thinking that people have cognitive dissonance simply because they can see the difference between policies that target people and policies that don't.
No.
As previously mentioned other discussions (sexism/racism/homophobia) it was taken that any policy or decision that impacted a minority in a disproportionate manner was oppressive and de facto racist/sexist/etc. At no stage was intent factored in to those discussions. Do not attempt to move the goalposts.
You are injecting topics into this discussion that are "completely unrelated to the subject under discussion" - Arab Spring, people in danger from oppressive regimes. As shown by your own link that is relative privation.
Sigh.
You: "Group X is the most affected by this!"
Me: "But group Y uses this and they could get killed as a result of it's use. Your claim that group x is the most affected is probably wrong."
You: "Relative privation!"
Me: "Technically this isn't relative privation because you made the argument that X was the group most affected. You opened that door. I'm not dismissing their claim as a group affected. I'm dismissing your claim that they are the most affected."
You: "RELATIVE PRIVATION RELATIVE PRIVATION ZOMG!"
Did the baker increase prices for the gay couple? Did FB charge a fee for using a pseudo name? No. The comparison is not apt.
Okay, lets go through it step by step. The "value" of facebook to the user is in the personal information the user gives up. If you don't put any information in to it at all, it's not terribly useful, because you won't have an account.. On the other extreme, if you throw every last bit of personal information into it (for now we'll say that you don't put your real name out there) and update it every minute with what you're doing, your experience is much more feature-rich. Can you agree to that? There's a minimum amount of information you have to provide to get in to the front door. That's the "entry fee". It is a cost, because it is something that can translate into monetary value, even if you don't think of it that way.
Now lets consider personal information, "private" details, as a form of currency, albeit a unconventional one. The price to be a part of the facebook club was x number of details about yourself before. Now it is x+1.
I mean, isn't giving up more personal information a price of a sort, even if it's not a tangible one? I'd consider it one.
And yet after they met with groups concerned about the change in policy the only change in FB's position was that it gave them a timeframe to comply. At this juncture they knew the effect that their decision would have, and still pursued it. So very much similar to the baker.
Obviously they couldn't come to an amicable agreement on the policy. They tried. The baker didn't. I... don't really know what you're looking for at this point.
Can I get on FB by providing my real name?
Can I get a cake from a Christian baker by not telling him it is for a gay wedding?
Seems pretty similar to me
But personal information isn't the requirement to buy a cake from a Christian baker. It is a requirement for getting on facebook. You're also really saying that providing true information is the same as either withholding true informaiton or falsifying information? Really? Are you a politician?
So now after employing logical fallacies you're going to be willfully ignorant to evidence that contradicts your view.
I'm still waiting for that evidence. You can show me that every one of those petition signers is a member of the affected party any time you want. Otherwise it's about as useful as a GW price petition.
You: "Group X is the most affected by this!"
Me: "But group Y uses this and they could get killed as a result of it's use. Your claim that group x is the most affected is probably wrong."
You: "Relative privation!"
Me: "Technically this isn't relative privation because you made the argument that X was the group most affected. You opened that door. I'm not dismissing their claim as a group affected. I'm dismissing your claim that they are the most affected."
You: "RELATIVE PRIVATION RELATIVE PRIVATION ZOMG!"
You are still injecting an outside issue into this discussion. You might not like the fact that is relative privation, but that does not change the fact that it is relative privation.
Of course it is interesting that you demanded that I quantify to an extent how many people in the LGBT community may be affected by FB's policy, and in your efforts to invoke relative privation do not provide evidence that anyone involved in the Arab Spring is at risk as a result of this shift in policy. So now we can add double standards to the list of fallacies that you have attempted to employ.
Oh, and I never said most. I said that the LGBT community was disproportionately affected. So I didn't open that door. You did.
daedalus wrote: Okay, lets go through it step by step. The "value" of facebook to the user is in the personal information the user gives up. If you don't put any information in to it at all, it's not terribly useful, because you won't have an account.. On the other extreme, if you throw every last bit of personal information into it (for now we'll say that you don't put your real name out there) and update it every minute with what you're doing, your experience is much more feature-rich. Can you agree to that? There's a minimum amount of information you have to provide to get in to the front door. That's the "entry fee". It is a cost, because it is something that can translate into monetary value, even if you don't think of it that way.
Now lets consider personal information, "private" details, as a form of currency, albeit a unconventional one. The price to be a part of the facebook club was x number of details about yourself before. Now it is x+1.
I mean, isn't giving up more personal information a price of a sort, even if it's not a tangible one? I'd consider it one.
Until FB charges a premium for their service, or the baker charges a premium for gay wedding cakes then the comparison is a false one.
daedalus wrote: Obviously they couldn't come to an amicable agreement on the policy. They tried. The baker didn't. I... don't really know what you're looking for at this point.
You were so sure you had it figured out a moment ago.
daedalus wrote: But personal information isn't the requirement to buy a cake from a Christian baker. It is a requirement for getting on facebook. You're also really saying that providing true information is the same as either withholding true informaiton or falsifying information? Really? Are you a politician?
Non sequitur
Strawman
Should we start tallying up all the fallacies you've used so far?
daedalus wrote: I'm still waiting for that evidence. You can show me that every one of those petition signers is a member of the affected party any time you want. Otherwise it's about as useful as a GW price petition.
So you've gone from wanting evidence that more than one person was affected to demanding proof that over 31,000 were affected? So now you are again shifting the goalposts and demanding impossible perfection.
At any rate, I just realized I'm in an internet argument, and this thing has gone on to pedantic sniping rather than talking about what was your original argument: Similarities between this and the baker thing.
I think we exhausted that and if you still think they're the same, then I guess that's your prerogative and we can all just be inconsistent hypocrites in your mind, and that's totally awesome.
Totally my fault and you're totally right and awesome and win the internet.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: By "exhausted" do you mean you were running out of logical fallacies to use?
Those words don't mean what you think they that they mean.
You mean;
- appeal to relative privation
- false equivalence
- strawmen
- shifting the goalposts
- demanding impossible perfection
- non sequitur
- double standards
Are not logical fallacies?
How many of those did you use to take the argument that "gays shouldn't be targeted" and pretend it means "gays shouldn't be affected" and then pretend that we are all hypocrites because of your weird logic?
d-usa wrote: How many of those did you use to take the argument that "gays shouldn't be targeted" and pretend it means "gays shouldn't be affected" and then pretend that we are all hypocrites because of your weird logic?
That would be my argument... if you mis-read what was posted and attempted to strawman what I said.
d-usa wrote: If your service is putting messages on cakes that you sell and you refuse to put that message on the cake you sell then it's not free speech, it's discrimination.
d-usa wrote: If he refused to serve the cake with the message, even though he makes lots of cakes with lots of messages, then he refused to serve he customer.
Decorating the cake is part of the service, but people still somehow try to separate the two.
Like FB refusing to allow LGBT to use pseudo names. Putting a name of your choosing on the account is all part of the service, so clearly they too refused service and must be equally worthy of derision. Right?
My stance is pretty consistent, as my arguments in the cake thread and this thread make pretty clear:
The cake guy cannot TARGET certain populations. He either puts decorations and messages for EVERYONE or he does it for NOBODY. If he doesn't do decorations then it doesn't matter if gays get their feelings hurt because nobody gets decorations.
Facebook cannot TARGET certain populations. They either allow fake accounts for EVERYONE or for NOBODY. It nobody gets fake names then it doesn't matter if gays get their feelings hurt because nobody gets fake names.
You are too intelligent to pretend not to get the difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post: From the thread that you quoted me from to pretend that my message is different:
d-usa wrote: When your job is to put messages requested by customers on an edible product and you refuse to put some messages on some cakes then you discriminated because you don't offer your service equally.
d-usa wrote: When your job is to put messages requested by customers on an edible product and you refuse to put some messages on some cakes then you discriminated because you don't offer your service equally.
If that were true, then why is it acceptable to have ladies night at the pub?
d-usa wrote: My stance is pretty consistent, as my arguments in the cake thread and this thread make pretty clear:
The cake guy cannot TARGET certain populations. He either puts decorations and messages for EVERYONE or he does it for NOBODY. If he doesn't do decorations then it doesn't matter if gays get their feelings hurt because nobody gets decorations.
Facebook cannot TARGET certain populations. They either allow fake accounts for EVERYONE or for NOBODY. It nobody gets fake names then it doesn't matter if gays get their feelings hurt because nobody gets fake names.
You are too intelligent to pretend not to get the difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post: From the thread that you quoted me from to pretend that my message is different:
d-usa wrote: When your job is to put messages requested by customers on an edible product and you refuse to put some messages on some cakes then you discriminated because you don't offer your service equally.
And yet when people bring up voter registration etc. that applies equally we get told that it is racist because minorities are disproportionately affected. Here we have a similar disproportionate effect and people who usually decry it are justifying it.
So when discussing alleged discrimination do we look at intent, equal affect, targeting? Because it looks like it depends very much on what way the wind is blowing
And yet when people bring up voter registration etc. that applies equally we get told that it is racist because minorities are disproportionately affected. Here we have a similar disproportionate effect and people who usually decry it are justifying it
You do realize that there are slight, very minor, some people would even call them minuscule, differences between a private company providing a service and the government making sure that people can freely a equitably exercise their rights?
PhantomViper wrote: You do realize that there are slight, very minor, some people would even call them minuscule, differences between a private company providing a service and the government making sure that people can freely a equitably exercise their rights?
PhantomViper wrote: You do realize that there are slight, very minor, some people would even call them minuscule, differences between a private company providing a service and the government making sure that people can freely a equitably exercise their rights?
Thank you for missing the point
Look at your posts in this thread and the replies that you got, I'm not the one that is missing the point.
d-usa wrote: When it is obvious that certain policies and laws are enacted to target certain populations then I will bitch about it.
Again. The key it targeting. Are you just arguing for the same of arguing or do you actually believe what you are typing?
So equality before the law (applies to all equally) is targeting and discriminatory when there is actually no evidence that there is any disproportionate effect
A company applying their policy (their own law) where one community is disproportionately affected, has been told such, the evidence supports such, has met with the individuals concerned, proceeded with their policy regardless is not discriminatory
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote: Look at your posts in this thread and the replies that you got, I'm not the one that is missing the point.
Strange you chose to only comment on the voting comparison, and nothing else.
d-usa wrote: When it is obvious that certain policies and laws are enacted to target certain populations then I will bitch about it.
Again. The key it targeting. Are you just arguing for the same of arguing or do you actually believe what you are typing?
So equality before the law (applies to all equally) is targeting and discriminatory when there is actually no evidence that there is any disproportionate effect
A company applying their policy (their own law) where one community is disproportionately affected, has been told such, the evidence supports such, has met with the individuals concerned, proceeded with their policy regardless is not discriminatory
You can pretend there is no evidence, more power to you. To argue the point, again,would be a whole other thread.
At this point it is painfully obvious, to everyone, that you couldn't care less about the actual topic and that your only goal is to catch others in some sort of perceived contradiction and you won't stop until you think you have done so.
So go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your pretend victory, I'm out.
d-usa wrote: You can pretend there is no evidence, more power to you. To argue the point, again,would be a whole other thread.
At this point it is painfully obvious, to everyone, that you couldn't care less about the actual topic and that your only goal is to catch others in some sort of perceived contradiction and you won't stop until you think you have done so.
So go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your pretend victory, I'm out.
We have gone over it several times in the past. The result - no evidence of voter disenfranchisement, no evidence of a plot to prevent people from voting. In fact last time links were provided that showed minority turn out increased.
The topic was trying to determine what Dakka considers to be discrimination as the definition seems to vary depending on whether it is a sympathetic case or not. As far as the contradictions, accusations were cited and quoted.