I'm really sorry Al Gore is associated with this. I feel as if it is going to skew the response. I really wish we could have the conversation completely divorced from the politics, which aren't relevant.
The more I think about it, the more it doesn't sit right with me either. Here's the thing: if I'm reading your stuff on a social network I'm doing so because it's you -- it's a real person. Even if the only thing you do is retweet things people tell you to, you are still the one doing it. If I'm annoyed, I'm annoyed at you. I might email or message you and complain; because I know there's a real person I can speak with.
This is exactly like giving people a script and having them call up friends and read it to them, like one of those telephone marketers. Would you volunteer to be a telephone marketer to all your friends for a cause? And even if you would, would you then automate the process so that whatever their feedback is, it wouldn't matter?
I have friends that post things I find annoying. I know I post things other folks find annoying. But that's the way it's supposed to be -- having a friend is having some weird assortment of styles, opinions, and foibles that you enjoy.
This isn't illegal, immoral, or any of that. It's just sad. I wonder if the people doing this have thought it through -- would they be happy with dozens of organizations all doing this continuously? Could social systems even function in such an environment?
"Would you volunteer to be a telephone marketer to all your friends for a cause?"
No, but I wear my EFF shirt all the time.[1] It's a continuum, and what is socially acceptable is highly dependent on your social class, and also your particular social circle.
[1] The old one, I probably wouldn't wear the ones they currently make.
> No, but I wear my EFF shirt all the time. (The old one, I probably wouldn't wear the ones they currently make.) It's a continuum, and what is socially acceptable is highly dependent on your social class, and also your particular social circle.
I'd say this is different however. You can always choose which EFF shirt you wear and whether to wear it or not. With this, you give up access and any means to choose what is said.
Think of it like wearing an EFF shirt where there is an e-ink display that changes the message at any time and you can only take the shirt off after the message has been said and the damage is done.
It's a short hop to this from the last FB privacy issue where peoples' images were going to be hooked up to ads for things they had Like'd. I don't think it's quite as good of a selling method for Gore's people to say "Put your face on whatever we want to say (for a good cause, and also the children)," but the appeal to FB and advertisers/charities is the same.
At the end of the day, Gore is renting a mailing list. That's it's a list of mailing sources is just moving the agreement one-step up the chain of association. I agree: sad.
And, putting on my evil marketer hat, the goal here isn't to spread a message; it's to grow the size of the list. To use the network effect built into these social sites to its maximum potential. If this time if you have 400K or so participants, your leverage those in the right fashion? Next time you should easily be in the millions. The mailing list potential alone could be incredible. You could just harvest email addresses and network connections, then wait six months and send out a mailer that kind of starts off like "Joe Smith referred us to you because he knows you're concerned about X....." And then, if you were really evil, you'd pick up interests from all the friend links and incorporate that info as well.
I want to be clear. I'm not saying these guys are doing any of that. I'm saying that once you agree to be a zombie like this, the effects can be very far-reaching indeed.
Completely agreed. With a list of people that agree to spread your message in such a way you could do quite a lot.
However, despite the general apathy about privacy, I think this is something that could very quickly backfire and cause a lot of issues. I'm looking over CAN-SPAM law right now and there are a few long-shot ways this may qualify as unsolicited promotion (though I haven't really dug into the the law far enough to gauge).
The short term ramifications are major media/public push-back. The long term ones are legality, libel and fraud.
This differs slightly from volunteering to call up all your friends. This is more akin to authorizing Al Gore's robo callers to use your phone number so your friends pick up the phone when they see caller ID.
They need to rethink this. Obama saw a 40k drop in twitter followers last month after posting 100 tweets in 6 hours. People like being connected and involved, but not played.
It's worth noting, though, that Obama currently has 9,944,903 followers on Twitter. 40,000 lost followers would represent a change of less than half a percentage point.
You are correct, but it's worth noting that having 9.9M followers didn't make news last month. Losing 40k followers in a single day did. Stasis doesn't make news in politics and causes. Movement does. If Al Gore ends up irritating a large number of social network users, it could backfire and be counter-productive to his goals.
I can understand wanting to spread a message, but this is a bit much. When you give up access to your account you give up the ability to agree or disagree. You are basically saying "I am a mouthpiece for your views, regardless of whether I agree with what you might say".
This doesn't go for Al Gore either; it goes for any kind of political movement. Innovative, but rather disturbing too.
"When you give up access to your account you give up the ability to agree or disagree."
Presumably, you're not going to "donate" your accounts unless you're already a strong supporter of the cause, so I'm sure whether or not you agree is not an issue at that point. If there does happen to be a message you disagree with, nothing's stopping you from deleting it and revoking the app's permission.
Express your individuality by being one of the millions with the same looking account on someone else's networking site while they deeply mine your online activities.
What happened to people making their own blogs and slowly learning how to make their own websites?
Pingbacks, trackbacks and openid are all flawed but I'll take them anyday over Facebook and Twitter.
Nobody debunked "An Inconvenient Truth.
What part of "ALL Nobel Prize winning scientists agree global warming is threat to humanity." do you not understand?
There is no more controversy about global warming in the scientific community than there is about evolution. Both concepts are considered settled.
There lots of discussion in the corporate owned media because oil companies buy a whole lot of television time falsely claiming the science on global warming isn't settled.
Nobody? How about the UK government? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7037671.stm Incidentally, outside of their own field, every scientist is a layperson. Their opinion counts no more than yours or mine.
oil companies buy a whole lot of television time falsely claiming the science on global warming isn't settled
And scientists are not swayed at all by the eternal quest for funding, I suppose? Al Gore doesn't own a carbon offsetting firm? Or live in a 12-bedroom mansion with a heated swimming pool?
Climate change is real, sure, anyone who pays attention to the weather can see that. But beware those who are exploiting it for their own political careers. Oh and "global warming" is NOT settled - that is why we now say "climate change" instead. Especially here in the UK where summer has been cold and wet!
I do agree, the debate has not been settled at all.
There continues to be vigorous and divisive debate over the conclusions and we obviously do not have (1) sufficient data to draw meaningful conclusions and (2) do not know enough about the actual physical mechanisms of the planet's climate to make meaningful projections.
I firmly believe we should all be responsible citizens of this planet; being mindful of the environment is the right thing to do. However, the debate over climate change - and the policymaking as a result - are obviously quite politicized.
The current movements for and against climate change are more about protecting fiefdoms, building empires, exploiting subsidies and crushing opponents than it is about being a mindful steward of the planet.
The primary guy the oil companies use to claim the science on global warming isn't settled is a geologist who has taken money to testify as a expert in courtrooms for both cases related to global warming and a court case about Intelligent Design/evolution. He doesn't believe in evolution either. Surprise!
"...Mr Justice Burton said he had NO COMPLAINT about Gore's CENTRAL THESIS that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans."
Again... What part of "ALL Nobel Prize winning scientists agree global warming is threat to humanity." do you not understand?
EVERY single Nobel Prize winning scientist has TURNED DOWN the big money the oil companies would have paid any/every them to lie and re-state the oil companies global warming talking points.
Every single one of them has agreed and stuck with the evidence showing global warming is a serious threat to mankind.
In that case, all those fancy scientists have agreed on a term that no-one else uses anymore because it does not accurately describe what is really happening, which we call "climate change". So much for Nobel Prizes eh?
It is exactly as I say: outside their specialist field, every scientist is just a layperson like you or I. Perhaps you ought to check out what a real expert, Dr John Theon, has to say: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/
Looks like you didn't check your talking points, once again.
"So who is John S Theon?
John Theon was not Hansen's supervisor.
The usual denialists (e.g. The Register) are excited because some guy they never heard of before has joined Inhofe's merry band, writing:
"I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those
who disagree that global warming is man made."
M. J. Murphy has some information about Theon. It seems that Inhofe's claim that Theon was Hansen's supervisor is
completely untrue:
Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the
Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009.
"I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to
justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate
his results. I did not have the authority to give him his
annual performance evaluation...
Read the last bit closely. Being "in effect" Hansen's
supervisor is here contrasted with being "in reality"
Hansen's supervisor--being the guy who gives Hansen his
annual performance appraisal, in other words--which,
frankly, does linguistic violence to the term.
Gavin Schmidt writes:
Dr. Theon appears to have RETIRED from NASA in 1994,
some 15 YEARS AGO. Until yesterday I had never heard of him
(despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years).
His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to
date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not
Hansen's 'boss' (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator).
His "some scientists" quote is simply a smear - which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the 'debate', but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations.
I listen to political podcasts that use this service. They give the option of signing up for once a day, week or month so that your timeline isn't overwhelmed. It's sort of like a forced retweet where they can get their most important message out.
Al Gore hijacking your timeline for an entire day would be a bit too much.
26 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 76.8 ms ] threadThe more I think about it, the more it doesn't sit right with me either. Here's the thing: if I'm reading your stuff on a social network I'm doing so because it's you -- it's a real person. Even if the only thing you do is retweet things people tell you to, you are still the one doing it. If I'm annoyed, I'm annoyed at you. I might email or message you and complain; because I know there's a real person I can speak with.
This is exactly like giving people a script and having them call up friends and read it to them, like one of those telephone marketers. Would you volunteer to be a telephone marketer to all your friends for a cause? And even if you would, would you then automate the process so that whatever their feedback is, it wouldn't matter?
I have friends that post things I find annoying. I know I post things other folks find annoying. But that's the way it's supposed to be -- having a friend is having some weird assortment of styles, opinions, and foibles that you enjoy.
This isn't illegal, immoral, or any of that. It's just sad. I wonder if the people doing this have thought it through -- would they be happy with dozens of organizations all doing this continuously? Could social systems even function in such an environment?
No, but I wear my EFF shirt all the time.[1] It's a continuum, and what is socially acceptable is highly dependent on your social class, and also your particular social circle.
[1] The old one, I probably wouldn't wear the ones they currently make.
I'd say this is different however. You can always choose which EFF shirt you wear and whether to wear it or not. With this, you give up access and any means to choose what is said.
Think of it like wearing an EFF shirt where there is an e-ink display that changes the message at any time and you can only take the shirt off after the message has been said and the damage is done.
At the end of the day, Gore is renting a mailing list. That's it's a list of mailing sources is just moving the agreement one-step up the chain of association. I agree: sad.
I want to be clear. I'm not saying these guys are doing any of that. I'm saying that once you agree to be a zombie like this, the effects can be very far-reaching indeed.
However, despite the general apathy about privacy, I think this is something that could very quickly backfire and cause a lot of issues. I'm looking over CAN-SPAM law right now and there are a few long-shot ways this may qualify as unsolicited promotion (though I haven't really dug into the the law far enough to gauge).
The short term ramifications are major media/public push-back. The long term ones are legality, libel and fraud.
I can understand wanting to spread a message, but this is a bit much. When you give up access to your account you give up the ability to agree or disagree. You are basically saying "I am a mouthpiece for your views, regardless of whether I agree with what you might say".
This doesn't go for Al Gore either; it goes for any kind of political movement. Innovative, but rather disturbing too.
Presumably, you're not going to "donate" your accounts unless you're already a strong supporter of the cause, so I'm sure whether or not you agree is not an issue at that point. If there does happen to be a message you disagree with, nothing's stopping you from deleting it and revoking the app's permission.
What happened to people making their own blogs and slowly learning how to make their own websites?
Pingbacks, trackbacks and openid are all flawed but I'll take them anyday over Facebook and Twitter.
There is no more controversy about global warming in the scientific community than there is about evolution. Both concepts are considered settled.
There lots of discussion in the corporate owned media because oil companies buy a whole lot of television time falsely claiming the science on global warming isn't settled.
oil companies buy a whole lot of television time falsely claiming the science on global warming isn't settled
And scientists are not swayed at all by the eternal quest for funding, I suppose? Al Gore doesn't own a carbon offsetting firm? Or live in a 12-bedroom mansion with a heated swimming pool?
Climate change is real, sure, anyone who pays attention to the weather can see that. But beware those who are exploiting it for their own political careers. Oh and "global warming" is NOT settled - that is why we now say "climate change" instead. Especially here in the UK where summer has been cold and wet!
There continues to be vigorous and divisive debate over the conclusions and we obviously do not have (1) sufficient data to draw meaningful conclusions and (2) do not know enough about the actual physical mechanisms of the planet's climate to make meaningful projections.
I firmly believe we should all be responsible citizens of this planet; being mindful of the environment is the right thing to do. However, the debate over climate change - and the policymaking as a result - are obviously quite politicized.
The current movements for and against climate change are more about protecting fiefdoms, building empires, exploiting subsidies and crushing opponents than it is about being a mindful steward of the planet.
"...Mr Justice Burton said he had NO COMPLAINT about Gore's CENTRAL THESIS that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans."
Again... What part of "ALL Nobel Prize winning scientists agree global warming is threat to humanity." do you not understand?
EVERY single Nobel Prize winning scientist has TURNED DOWN the big money the oil companies would have paid any/every them to lie and re-state the oil companies global warming talking points.
Every single one of them has agreed and stuck with the evidence showing global warming is a serious threat to mankind.
It is exactly as I say: outside their specialist field, every scientist is just a layperson like you or I. Perhaps you ought to check out what a real expert, Dr John Theon, has to say: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/
"So who is John S Theon?
John Theon was not Hansen's supervisor.
The usual denialists (e.g. The Register) are excited because some guy they never heard of before has joined Inhofe's merry band, writing:
who disagree that global warming is man made."M. J. Murphy has some information about Theon. It seems that Inhofe's claim that Theon was Hansen's supervisor is completely untrue:
Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. "I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation... supervisor is here contrasted with being "in reality" Hansen's supervisor--being the guy who gives Hansen his annual performance appraisal, in other words--which, frankly, does linguistic violence to the term.Gavin Schmidt writes:
some 15 YEARS AGO. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen's 'boss' (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His "some scientists" quote is simply a smear - which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the 'debate', but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations.http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/so_who_is_john_s_the...
Got anyone that isn't so old one suspects they'll say anything to keep from having to go back to the nursing home alone.
I listen to political podcasts that use this service. They give the option of signing up for once a day, week or month so that your timeline isn't overwhelmed. It's sort of like a forced retweet where they can get their most important message out.
Al Gore hijacking your timeline for an entire day would be a bit too much.