4 ms·

And I suppose you would have had us write down the Bill of Rights after we lose our freedom of speech and freedom of the press? I mean, the government might no

by Qz 16y ago

And I suppose you would have had us write down the Bill of Rights after we lose our freedom of speech and freedom of the press? I mean, the government might not want to limit that right? Your argument is BS. (the point isn't about the extreme of freedom of speech, but your idea that we should only worry about things that have actually happened is total garbage)

natrius 16y ago
Your analogy is just wrong. You were trying to argue that a change Facebook actually made could have hurt people, but your scenario only could have happened if Facebook made the change without making it clear what was going on. If the only aspects of your argument that were hypothetical were Bob's actions, that would be something worth discussing. However, you're making it seem like what Facebook actually did could have hurt Bob, when you have no idea if that's actually the case.
- Qz 16y ago
  That wasn't my argument at all. I was responding to this claim: "I think there's perhaps a distinction here between things like personal profile information (one might not one's psycho ex to see their phone number or even wall posts, while not minding sharing them with friends) and things like fan page liking." My point is that fan page liking is personal profile information. Everything you put on facebook is personal profile information. The Bob example was merely to show that 'becoming a fan' of something can reveal profile information about the person. The fact that Bob could potentially be 'hurt' in the scenario was just to make Bob sympathetic (as opposed to the all too typical scenario where people post severely racist or homophobic content without realizing how public it might be).
  - natrius 16y ago
    Ok, thanks for clarifying. I agree with your point, though I don't think it makes what Facebook did wrong in any way.

4 ms·

And I suppose you would have had us write down the Bill of Rights after we lose our freedom of speech and freedom of the press? I mean, the government might no

by Qz 16y ago

natrius 16y ago
Your analogy is just wrong. You were trying to argue that a change Facebook actually made could have hurt people, but your scenario only could have happened if Facebook made the change without making it clear what was going on. If the only aspects of your argument that were hypothetical were Bob's actions, that would be something worth discussing. However, you're making it seem like what Facebook actually did could have hurt Bob, when you have no idea if that's actually the case.
- Qz 16y ago
  That wasn't my argument at all. I was responding to this claim: "I think there's perhaps a distinction here between things like personal profile information (one might not one's psycho ex to see their phone number or even wall posts, while not minding sharing them with friends) and things like fan page liking." My point is that fan page liking is personal profile information. Everything you put on facebook is personal profile information. The Bob example was merely to show that 'becoming a fan' of something can reveal profile information about the person. The fact that Bob could potentially be 'hurt' in the scenario was just to make Bob sympathetic (as opposed to the all too typical scenario where people post severely racist or homophobic content without realizing how public it might be).
  - natrius 16y ago
    Ok, thanks for clarifying. I agree with your point, though I don't think it makes what Facebook did wrong in any way.