I guess the joke would be "Innovating in the lack thereof." Jokes aside, To which I can only say... kind of. Sidestepping of course facebook's examination of all of this 'private' data, all of the...
I guess the joke would be "Innovating in the lack thereof."
Jokes aside,
"But going back to the very first thing that we did, making it so Harvard students could communicate in a way that they had some confidence that their content and information would be shared with only people within that community, there was no way that people had to communicate stuff at that scale but not have it either be just completely public or just as small as it had been before."
To which I can only say... kind of. Sidestepping of course facebook's examination of all of this 'private' data, all of the same could have been done with existing technologies, even if it hadn't been on the same scale.
Taking a page from the Steve Jobs asshole playbook I see, "This is the first time ever that privacy has ever existed. We're glad to have innovated in the field!" Newspeak is Zuckspeak :'(
Taking a page from the Steve Jobs asshole playbook I see, "This is the first time ever that privacy has ever existed. We're glad to have innovated in the field!"
Ironic comment since Apple is probably one of the most-privacy respecting consumer electronics companies today. I'm not sure why you decided to put words in someone's mouth, but it's well known...
Ironic comment since Apple is probably one of the most-privacy respecting consumer electronics companies today. I'm not sure why you decided to put words in someone's mouth, but it's well known Apple's general idealism is to not be first, but to be the best.
I meant it as a reference to the Reality Distortion Field that Jobs had; I should have been more clear, my bad. Zuckerberg thinks he has his own distortion field, is all I meant.
I meant it as a reference to the Reality Distortion Field that Jobs had; I should have been more clear, my bad. Zuckerberg thinks he has his own distortion field, is all I meant.
In that the lack of privacy has lead to concerns and an increase in tools available to the average person to take control of their privacy in spite of Facebook, sure.
In that the lack of privacy has lead to concerns and an increase in tools available to the average person to take control of their privacy in spite of Facebook, sure.
Somewhat offtopic, but this is a type of article that I don't like. This was an almost-two-hour conversation that contains a lot of information and statements, and articles like this pull out a...
Somewhat offtopic, but this is a type of article that I don't like. This was an almost-two-hour conversation that contains a lot of information and statements, and articles like this pull out a few sentences that they can make sound sensational and turn that into an article. There are probably hundreds of articles like this one being put out about the conversation, some about different sentences, but many focused on the same ones that they know will get people's attention.
I feel like we should try to focus more on the original source when it's possible, but I don't know how exactly we can do that. I don't know if it's right to just entirely remove articles like this one, maybe adding a feature for just having them as "additional analysis links" inside a topic that links to the source?
Just my rambling 2 cents: I often struggle with posting an article which contains a halfway decent set of excerpts and a link to the source (A), vs the original source (B). In favor of (A) I think...
Just my rambling 2 cents: I often struggle with posting an article which contains a halfway decent set of excerpts and a link to the source (A), vs the original source (B).
In favor of (A) I think that generally gives folks with less time the option to see the summary and the source link.
In favor of (B) it seems that summaries are kinda antithetical to the goal of Tildes. This is what I feel like I should be posting here.
My dream, pie in the sky feature would be to automatically have the list of related articles in this topic somehow available when the user posts a link topic. In version 2 it would magically find the source.
My original thought was that if I posted a Guardian article, on the topic page would be a expandable button “Related Links” and on click it would show a list of related links just like the “Full Coverage” link on Google News. AFAIK, getting those article groupings right is really hard.
But that doesn’t really address your point of the source. Maybe the source could be discovered by making a graph of related articles, and the links inside the articles. Then the “source link” would likely be the most common link, right? Totally flawless logic, I am sure :). Well that could be a link below the topic titled “Source.”
The reason that I am even thinking about how you might automate this is that it would allow the “source-first” philosophy to be scalable.
But realistically, maybe just adding some text about posting the authorative source on the /new_topic page would be a good start?
Edit: phrasing, and you wouldn’t need to “make a graph” or whatever I said, you just need to count the unique links from the article texts. Highest number may be the source.
I guess the joke would be "Innovating in the lack thereof."
Jokes aside,
To which I can only say... kind of. Sidestepping of course facebook's examination of all of this 'private' data, all of the same could have been done with existing technologies, even if it hadn't been on the same scale.
"Innovator in skirting privacy" perhaps.
Taking a page from the Steve Jobs asshole playbook I see, "This is the first time ever that privacy has ever existed. We're glad to have innovated in the field!"
Newspeak is Zuckspeak :'(
Ironic comment since Apple is probably one of the most-privacy respecting consumer electronics companies today. I'm not sure why you decided to put words in someone's mouth, but it's well known Apple's general idealism is to not be first, but to be the best.
I meant it as a reference to the Reality Distortion Field that Jobs had; I should have been more clear, my bad. Zuckerberg thinks he has his own distortion field, is all I meant.
In that the lack of privacy has lead to concerns and an increase in tools available to the average person to take control of their privacy in spite of Facebook, sure.
Somewhat offtopic, but this is a type of article that I don't like. This was an almost-two-hour conversation that contains a lot of information and statements, and articles like this pull out a few sentences that they can make sound sensational and turn that into an article. There are probably hundreds of articles like this one being put out about the conversation, some about different sentences, but many focused on the same ones that they know will get people's attention.
I feel like we should try to focus more on the original source when it's possible, but I don't know how exactly we can do that. I don't know if it's right to just entirely remove articles like this one, maybe adding a feature for just having them as "additional analysis links" inside a topic that links to the source?
Just my rambling 2 cents: I often struggle with posting an article which contains a halfway decent set of excerpts and a link to the source (A), vs the original source (B).
In favor of (A) I think that generally gives folks with less time the option to see the summary and the source link.
In favor of (B) it seems that summaries are kinda antithetical to the goal of Tildes. This is what I feel like I should be posting here.
My dream, pie in the sky feature would be to automatically have the list of related articles in this topic somehow available when the user posts a link topic. In version 2 it would magically find the source.
My original thought was that if I posted a Guardian article, on the topic page would be a expandable button “Related Links” and on click it would show a list of related links just like the “Full Coverage” link on Google News. AFAIK, getting those article groupings right is really hard.
But that doesn’t really address your point of the source. Maybe the source could be discovered by making a graph of related articles, and the links inside the articles. Then the “source link” would likely be the most common link, right? Totally flawless logic, I am sure :). Well that could be a link below the topic titled “Source.”
The reason that I am even thinking about how you might automate this is that it would allow the “source-first” philosophy to be scalable.
But realistically, maybe just adding some text about posting the authorative source on the /new_topic page would be a good start?
Edit: phrasing, and you wouldn’t need to “make a graph” or whatever I said, you just need to count the unique links from the article texts. Highest number may be the source.
How can he say this with a straight face. He is obviously laughing inside.