Expert: "Quit Google & Facebook" If They Colluded With PRISM

[hubb]

If you didn't read the entirety of the terms and conditions when you joined facebook you have no right to moan about any of this shit imo.

This is a common but very uninformed opinion. First off, you can't expect the amount of people that are pulled in and become a part of facebook just from the buzz and the popularity, to be able to discern the same thing as you say you are able to. The next point is why do you think affirmation screens and the like are so long and difficult to understand?
The obvious answer is: because it works and actually traps people, so for you to say that anyone should understand that or it's just their own fault is completely egocentric and unfair.
Assuming everyone is the same as you is always wrong.

[ezza]

seems all like a big over reaction

i mean the worst thats gonna happen is they're gonna work out all the things you like, and then get paid to advertise things you're likely to buy or do

which already happens on a massive scale tbf

i was going through alex jones interviews for giggles yesterday and i cant remember which one it is, but he has this comedian on and the guy sais something along the lines of "people want to believe this shit, they want to think somethings happening to them, cus in reality they live a boring life and then die"

and i think that sums up alot of this kinda stuff

people want to get upset and feel like (in this example) google and facebook are gonna set them up for murder cus in reality nothing of significance is ever gonna happen to them

[mIrReN]

you can say it different hubb;
read every single one of your terms and conditions you ever come across, I dare you

don't forget to memorise it

[titchbit]

people want to get upset and feel like (in this example) google and facebook are gonna set them up for murder cus in reality nothing of significance is ever gonna happen to them

societal narcissism.

[Mason]

If you didn't read the entirety of the terms and conditions when you joined facebook you have no right to moan about any of this shit imo.

This is a common but very uninformed opinion. First off, you can't expect the amount of people that are pulled in and become a part of facebook just from the buzz and the popularity, to be able to discern the same thing as you say you are able to. The next point is why do you think affirmation screens and the like are so long and difficult to understand?
The obvious answer is: because it works and actually traps people, so for you to say that anyone should understand that or it's just their own fault is completely egocentric and unfair.
Assuming everyone is the same as you is always wrong.

I'm not saying i read the terms and conditions (fuck that) i just think that if you ticked a box which said you agree with whatever the t&c's say, regardless if you read it or not, then you can't complain when they do something which they say they will in their terms and conditions.

I agree with agent, a lot of these 'conspiracy theories' boil down to people trying to find something that makes them feel important and less insignificant in this world. They want to believe that there is something exciting going on when in reality it is very boring: either Facebook and Google are gathering this information to sell to advertisers in order to tailor adverts to us or they are giving it to the government who are going to blackmail, extort and murder us (lol) with it. These conspiracy theorists feel special and better than everyone else because they think they see the 'truth'.

Rarely do i see a conspiracy theorist post an article or talk about a conspiracy in a way that seems they are trying to genuinely help people, instead they are usually quite hostile and it feels to me that they think they are battling against the authority figure in question when in reality these authority figures couldn't give a shit what people like me and you think.

all imo of course.

[Genevieve]

^ this isn't a case of 'if you don't like it, don't use it'. It's the American government passing legislation that VOIDS private contracts between individuals and companies, including privacy agreements. I was never against Facebook selling my information for advertising. I'll take that and tbh I'm not at all afraid of that. It's also not about having a 'right' to the internet, but contract rights.

If government said they would read everyone's snailmail, would you say that people shouldn't send each other letters?

If the government tapped and recorded every phone conversation, would you tell people to stop using the phone?

In effect, they're saying here that contracts between customers and businesses don't matter and that they have a right to everything people share with each other over that medium.

This isn't just a government service you can stop using. This is government taking active control over the means of communication.

[hubb]

I don't disagree with the notion that conspiracy theonuts feel special and whatnot by establishing certain planes that have very little to do with actual reality.

But in reality, we are all still giving away authority and rights to large operations that work together without saying they do. And in this case it's two huge economies that could rival nations working together with a shady american government. In marxist (shut up hippie) theory the economy takes its own form and behave a certain way and we know that info=money, so in my humble and hugely clouded estimation, there's bound to come a situation where it's misused that could've been wadded off if people had just taken an interest in other peoples rights.

[hubb]

or they are giving it to the government who are going to blackmail, extort and murder us (lol) with it.

I think they mean just have a look or spy. There's been so many spying scandals in for example England destroying peoples lives, murdock etc and also so many cases of more open media not being able to breakthrough and bring about evidence properly, bbc scandal etc. That kind of shows that all of society is changing drastically and that info will be obtained differently now- not only from general peoples perspective but maybe also from a companys perspective, with all the necessary pressure to come along with it ?
'The right to uncover' is a political buzz term etc.

[wormcode]

...
people want to get upset and feel like (in this example) google and facebook are gonna set them up for murder cus in reality nothing of significance is ever gonna happen to them

Your whole post does raise good points but that in specific is not true. People are prosecuted and harassed by authorities all the time for what they put on social networking. A lot of people are being arrested right now in the UK for making comments on facebook and twitter. The US has prosecuted and harassed people who organise protests, or speak out against them. This is still happening to a lot of people trying to organise Occupy protests and related stuff, and it will happen more and more as the US has twitter in the national archives and I'm sure that's not the only one. Even if the things like protests aren't illegal, if someone involved has an arrest record for something random in the past, or says something specific that can be taken out of context or challenged legally, they could easily be harassed on those grounds. It makes it all the more easier.

Yes, the argument holds true that if they don't want their 'crimes' to be found out, they should not post them on something like twitter, but the point is even emails or regular IMs and the like are at risk now as well. One by one people will try to gain access to more and more private data under guises such as 'protecting your freedoms'.

You said: i mean the worst thats gonna happen is they're gonna work out all the things you like

Even if people aren't concerned because they 'don't have anything to hide', they one day might. What's legal today could easily be illegal 5+ years from now, and with government having access to untold archives of private data, the possibility of future prosecution and harassment exists.

[DRTY]

I'm not entirely against arresting people for social network behaviours. If someone came up to me in the street and said I'm gonna kill your mother and rape you or whatever, I'd want them banged up. People of the internet often forget the internet is actually real life.

Also, I don't think you can change the law then retro arrest people?

[cloquet]

Also, I don't think you can change the law then retro arrest people?

They quickly changed the laws here to avoid paying back thousands in illegally held benefits after the Poundland case. They can do whatever they want really.

[mIrReN]

I'm not entirely against arresting people for social network behaviours. If someone came up to me in the street and said I'm gonna kill your mother and rape you or whatever, I'd want them banged up. People of the internet often forget the internet is actually real life.

[NilsFG]

I don't think you can change the law then retro arrest people?

Well they can't. But on the other hand, they've already introduced 'secret' laws and have been anally violating the 4th amendment so by this point I think they don't really care about what you think is right or wrong.

Not saying it will happen, but after what has been happening the last few years I wouldn't say it's 100% impossible.
And all we're seeing now is pretty much the tip of the iceberg.

[lloydnoise]

why is everyone arguing about specific possibilities here? Is the slow creep of tyranny and the erosion of personal freedoms too vague for you guys?
FUCK

[Mason]

why is everyone arguing about specific possibilities here? Is the slow creep of tyranny and the erosion of personal freedoms too vague for you guys?
FUCK

Because the 'slow creep of tyranny' is subjective and seems to me like the talk of a paranoid person, whereas specific examples (although still unbelievable to me) are more understandable and objective.

[lloydnoise]

why is everyone arguing about specific possibilities here? Is the slow creep of tyranny and the erosion of personal freedoms too vague for you guys?
FUCK

Because the 'slow creep of tyranny' is subjective and seems to me like the talk of a paranoid person, whereas specific examples (although still unbelievable to me) are more understandable and objective.

then you are a mug with no perspective on history

[Mason]

ok

[Mason]

Rarely do i see a conspiracy theorist post an article or talk about a conspiracy in a way that seems they are trying to genuinely help people, instead they are usually quite hostile

Fuck off Mason you soppy tnuc

you are a mug

[ezza]

mason, open your fucking eyes

[Mason]

i actually work for the government bro, need to keep this shit covered up