3 ms·

Is this person spamming? Flamming? Being somehow inappropriate? Guys, there is absolutely no reason that this comment should be at -4 (other than the caps at

by blhack 17y ago

Is this person spamming? Flamming? Being somehow inappropriate? Guys, there is absolutely no reason that this comment should be at -4 (other than the caps at the end). Siculars is making a semi-valid point. Content publishes do want the internet to be static in the way that books are. They want you to go to facebook and see it exactly as they have laid it out and they want you to see it in this fashion because it is good for them. Please, let's not try and suppress comments just because we don't agree with them. That's inappropriate and, really, pretty juvenile. Sicular, you make a good point, but I probably would have left that adaptation of "First the came" off. In addition, I think that 100% flash websites are becoming less common (the only one I can think of right now is grooveshark, and I'm not entirely sure that that is all flash). To me, the 100% flash stuff was all about "what you see is what you get", so seeing it go away is good :). I think we might see a resurgence of this when the iPad starts gaining popularity. A lot of publishers are very intrigued by the idea of a static medium for their designers to work on. It should be interesting to watch.

conanite 17y ago
While siculars makes a reasonable comment about authoritarian creep, I would argue that the discussion hasn't reached the required length for Godwin's law to kick in, and the comment might have better been kept for a little later. It's also true, as maukdaddy elegantly puts it, that supressing fb-purity is quite a long way from genocide.
- blhack 17y ago
  The poem is about allowing incremental changes because they don't directly effect you; the poem itself has absolutely nothing to do with the Nazis or German intellectuals, or the genocide. The poem uses what was currently happening around its author to demonstrate his point. This is the essence of art.
  - siculars 17y ago
    Thank you, well said. To me, the poem is all about the slippery slope. What was the conversation like before, during and after the DMCA went into effect? Where is the outrage over the fact that nowadays you can't fast forward past certain parts of a dvd/bluray, no not the FBI warning, but the publishers advertising. Maybe International Paper Co. owns my thoughts because I write them down on their paper. Maybe BiC does because I use their pens. Maybe Ford should get some of my paycheck because their car gets me to work. Obviously none of this is true or real but maybe it's neither because those companies don't have that kind of mechanism of control. There are so many potential ways to control the future of information it's scary when you stop to think about it. Heck, Disney controls Mickey Mouse decades after the original creators death. What is scarier here (unlike my examples) is a lot of this content is not even created by FB. It's user generated content! All I'm sayin' is a few of these companies get together and fund a lobby or two, soon enough we've got all kinds of freedom curtailing laws and then it'll be... too late!

by blhack 17y ago

conanite 17y ago

While siculars makes a reasonable comment about authoritarian creep, I would argue that the discussion hasn't reached the required length for Godwin's law to kick in, and the comment might have better been kept for a little later. It's also true, as maukdaddy elegantly puts it, that supressing fb-purity is quite a long way from genocide.

blhack 17y ago
The poem is about allowing incremental changes because they don't directly effect you; the poem itself has absolutely nothing to do with the Nazis or German intellectuals, or the genocide. The poem uses what was currently happening around its author to demonstrate his point. This is the essence of art.
- siculars 17y ago
  Thank you, well said. To me, the poem is all about the slippery slope. What was the conversation like before, during and after the DMCA went into effect? Where is the outrage over the fact that nowadays you can't fast forward past certain parts of a dvd/bluray, no not the FBI warning, but the publishers advertising. Maybe International Paper Co. owns my thoughts because I write them down on their paper. Maybe BiC does because I use their pens. Maybe Ford should get some of my paycheck because their car gets me to work. Obviously none of this is true or real but maybe it's neither because those companies don't have that kind of mechanism of control. There are so many potential ways to control the future of information it's scary when you stop to think about it. Heck, Disney controls Mickey Mouse decades after the original creators death. What is scarier here (unlike my examples) is a lot of this content is not even created by FB. It's user generated content! All I'm sayin' is a few of these companies get together and fund a lobby or two, soon enough we've got all kinds of freedom curtailing laws and then it'll be... too late!