EPTIf you, Person A, upload the picture then person C will not be able to see it at all. If Person B uploads a picture with Person A tagged, person C will see that your face is tagged but not actually see person A's name nor can they click to see person A's page. If person A comments on something visible to person C, the comment will be readable but the name and profile picture of person A will be blank.
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 281
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
If you, Person A, upload the picture then person C will not be able to see it at all. If Person B uploads a picture with Person A tagged, person C will see that your face is tagged but not actually see person A's name nor can they click to see person A's page. If person A comments on something visible to person C, the comment will be readable but the name and profile picture of person A will be blank. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24053 Posts
Anyone ever try one of the beds where it doesn't just heat but cools too? | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On June 11 2015 03:48 Fecalfeast wrote: Half the people who added me in high school had me blocked by the time I was 20. Unless the rules have changed in 5 years I feel like I'm an expert. If you, Person A, upload the picture then person C will not be able to see it at all. If Person B uploads a picture with Person A tagged, person C will see that your face is tagged but not actually see person A's name nor can they click to soo person A's page. If person A comments on something visible to person C, the comment will be readable but the name and profile picture of person A will be blank. What did you do to achieve such a feat? | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
Maybe it has something to do with fecal feasts? | ||
|
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
| ||
|
helpman176
128 Posts
Should private websites be allowed to restrict the freedom of speech? Are sites like reddit or Facebook with hundreds of millions of users still considered private? | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
| ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
On June 11 2015 13:11 helpman176 wrote: What are your thoughts on the ban of the subreddit r/fatpeoplehate? Should private websites be allowed to restrict the freedom of speech? Are sites like reddit or Facebook with hundreds of millions of users still considered private? Of course they're allowed to moderate content as they please. WoW is still owned and controlled by Blizzard despite the giant userbase at its peak. It's akin to yelling whatever you want in a public place. You can do it, but the cops might come. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11905 Posts
On June 11 2015 13:47 Dark_Chill wrote: Of course they're allowed to moderate content as they please. WoW is still owned and controlled by Blizzard despite the giant userbase at its peak. It's akin to yelling whatever you want in a public place. You can do it, but the cops might come. Not a good comparison. It is more like yelling whatever you want at a bar (since you are doing it on a publicly available, but privately owned site). You can do it, but you can also get thrown out if you annoy the owner/barkeeper/other patrons. | ||
|
helpman176
128 Posts
They are the only places on the Internet where any type of discussion is happening. So you either discuss it on reddit or Facebook or you don't discuss anything at all. Due to their huge influence, lobbyists and politicians are pulling the strings behind the scenes. Would you still make the same argument that private sites can do whatever they want? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11905 Posts
| ||
|
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
On June 11 2015 14:14 helpman176 wrote: Let's assume that 20 years down the road, reddit and Facebook are the only two remaining gateways to the Internet. They are the only places on the Internet where any type of discussion is happening. So you either discuss it on reddit or Facebook or you don't discuss anything at all. Due to their huge influence, lobbyists and politicians are pulling the strings behind the scenes. Would you still make the same argument that private sites can do whatever they want? But that's an incredibly huge assumption with effectively zero chance of actually happening. Reddit and Facebook will never be the "only" gateways to the internet. Even in that absurd situation, they would still be privately-owned sites where you are using a service that they provide, so you have to abide by their rules. And no, it's not like the government-provided necessary services like power, water, etc. If the monopoly developed to that point and Reddit/Facebook clamped down then that would be evil, but they are not denying you an essential service. If you want to discuss something, you can meet in person, send letters, call people, etc. That would be a major inconvenience and something that I would definitely oppose, but as long as Reddit is privately owned it has the right to control its content as it sees fit, no matter how popular it is. It's not a free speech issue at all. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. If you make an ass of yourself in a private establishment, you will be asked to leave. | ||
|
helpman176
128 Posts
Just to remind you of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." | ||
|
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
On June 11 2015 14:56 helpman176 wrote: There is a big difference between a monopoly having the power to charge higher prices and a monopoly having the power to restrict basic human rights. Just to remind you of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I'm well aware of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's worth noting that it governs states, not private entities, although states are obligated from preventing private citizens from violating others' rights, this much is true. The fact of the matter is that your entire proposed scenario is impossible to begin with. Maybe Reddit dominating the entire internet and saying yes or no to communication would eventually constitute a human rights violation, but as it stands it is still a private service and is not the only means of imparting ideas "regardless of frontiers." Someone who creates a private service to host content has the right to decide not to host something. It's all moot anyhow because Reddit is always just going to be one avenue for discussion. If they don't let you discuss hatred for fat people, then that hate can be taken somewhere else. Same goes for any other idea. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On June 11 2015 14:56 helpman176 wrote: There is a big difference between a monopoly having the power to charge higher prices and a monopoly having the power to restrict basic human rights. Just to remind you of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." You're aware that the UDHR is in practice a text that every nation violates in some way, right? d: Besides, no freedom is unlimited, as the article 29 puts it. Why is your freedom of action limited (ie you cannot murder someone)? Because of consequences : if freedom of action was unlimited, society would cease to be what it was meant to be in the first place, a trade of freedom for security. Why shouldn't freedom of speech be limited? Because words have no consequences? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 11 2015 13:11 helpman176 wrote: What are your thoughts on the ban of the subreddit r/fatpeoplehate? Should private websites be allowed to restrict the freedom of speech? Are sites like reddit or Facebook with hundreds of millions of users still considered private? Depends on what you mean by "Freedom of Speech" | ||
|
JoeCool
Germany2520 Posts
Has anyone any recommendations for some good books/dvds about cardmagic? I bought "Mark Wilsons Complete Course In Magic", "The Royal Road to Card Magic", "Bill Malone's On The Loose 1-4" and Paul Wilsons "Royal Road To Card Magic". | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On June 11 2015 13:11 helpman176 wrote: What are your thoughts on the ban of the subreddit r/fatpeoplehate? Should private websites be allowed to restrict the freedom of speech? Are sites like reddit or Facebook with hundreds of millions of users still considered private? Yeah, ofc it should be legal for private sites to choose what they have on their own site, wtf.... You want a situation where if you make a website, you are obliged to publish and display any retarded opinion anyone may want to submit to it? >_> My website is my home, and I am free to choose how I keep it, and I am free to ask people to leave. Also don't use the phrase "freedom of speech" if you are not actually talking about what people usually mean when they talk about freedom of speech: ![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png) The other example, where facebook and reddit are the only available sites, is a completely different problem... If there are only two sites, and both are heavily regulted, and people want to discuss things that cannot be discussed on those sites, then there should be a huge market to start a new site where you can discuss those things. If that third site is shut down my governement, THEN you have a violation of freedom of speech, which is bad. The problem here is an implied suppression other more liberal sites from the government, not the choices of those two conservative sites. | ||
|
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
On June 11 2015 17:34 Cascade wrote: Yeah, ofc it should be legal for private sites to choose what they have on their own site, wtf.... You want a situation where if you make a website, you are obliged to publish and display any retarded opinion anyone may want to submit to it? >_> My website is my home, and I am free to choose how I keep it, and I am free to ask people to leave. Also don't use the phrase "freedom of speech" if you are not actually talking about what people usually mean when they talk about freedom of speech: The other example, where facebook and reddit are the only available sites, is a completely different problem... If there are only two sites, and both are heavily regulted, and people want to discuss things that cannot be discussed on those sites, then there should be a huge market to start a new site where you can discuss those things. If that third site is shut down my governement, THEN you have a violation of freedom of speech, which is bad. The problem here is an implied suppression other more liberal sites from the government, not the choices of those two conservative sites. You phrased it much better than I did, even including the XKCD that I debated posting but didn't. Thanks. | ||
| ||
