Facebook blackout day

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on Facebook blackout day

Recently Facebook started enforcing its real names policy, in a particularly cack handed fashion. Facebook has for an awfully long time had an “authenticate name policy. It’s a slightly confused policy as it states:
“The name you use should be your authentic identity; as your friends call you in real life and as our acceptable identification forms would show.”
But the types of ID they accept are basically state ID of your current legal name which often is the name “your friends call you in real life”. Add to this a very healthy dose of American cultural assumptions to what is now a global service and well it was a recipe for drama. If Facebook paid a bit more attention they’d have seen that Google had already tried the real name thing and had had to back down, but nope Facebook missed that one. Alternatively Facebook did see what happened to Google and decided that they could cope with the loss of a percentage of users in return for the increase in data quality they could provide to their customers. Regardless of the reasons the unannounced and heavy-handed enforcement of the policy , was promptly abused by people reporting the names of people they didn’t like, and Facebook compounded the problem by blocking accounts first and asking later – only they didn’t even always bother to ask.
Continue reading →

0

Finding the real Puritans

By | | , ,
Comments Off on Finding the real Puritans

(This article first appeared on Drinkuary.)

A few days back, a friend of mine linked me to an article on “Christian anger over booze filled advent calendars. Now, the person in question isn’t normally in the habit of reading the Daily Mail, so not quite sure how it caught their attention, but they thought it would be nice for me to have “some real Puritans to get [my] teeth into”. So with such a challenge I of course had to take a look at the article. In a completely unsurprising turn of events, the article is almost completely manufactured puff piece. Mr. Schofield talked about buying some boozy advent calendars, The Mail then lists many people you can buy such things from, and then phones up some Christian groups to get their response. These groups are what my friend obviously considered to be “real Puritans”. Sadly for anyone expecting them to be either angry or puritanical – their response could universally be summed up as;
“Advent is a time of preparation for Christmas not feasting and these calendars are a bit silly and a distraction from the religious meaning of the season. ”
No calls for the calendars to be banned. No demands for them to be subject to punitive tax. No demands for legislation to make sure people don’t have too many advent calendars. No demands that Mr. Schofield recant his heresy and wear sackcloth and ashes. Not even dire warnings of hellfire and damnation for those that partake of boozy frivolity. Really just
“Boozey advent calendars are missing the point and not really in the spirit of Advent.”
On the other hand; the likes of Alcohol Concern, Cancer research and the other usual suspects, do demand higher taxes to punish everyone on the grounds of a few problem drinkers. Do demand that alcohol be restricted via additional legislation. Do call for alcohol to be available in ever weaker amounts and from increasingly restricted outlets. Do demand that they be given ever more or our money to chastise us for daring to enjoy a drink and do try to sell us indulgences if we want to enjoy a drink with friends.

So, when it comes to identifying who the real Puritans are I’m quite comfortable that I know who we need to get our teeth into.

0

Greenpeace vandalism follow up

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on Greenpeace vandalism follow up

Join Greenpeace vandalise the world Since Greenpeaces wanton vandalism of the Nazca lines the increasing coverage and anger has forced even apologists like the Guardian have back tracked. Greenpeace have apologised sort of, they aren’t sorry that they’ve damaged the Nazca lines but that they’ve caused “offence” and “came across as careless and crass.”. So whilst the Peruvian Government is intending to press charges and wants the names of all of the Greenpeace activists involved, Greenpeace have said that they’re “cooperating with the Peruvian authorities and seeking to clarify what took place.”. Obviously not cooperating to the extent of handing over any names, and I’m not quite sure how you “explain what really happened” when you’ve filmed yourself:

  • Illegally entering a world heritage site
  • Trampling over the site in normal shoes, rather than the required special protective shoes
  • Damaging the area around one of the most iconic lines whilst laying out cloth letters
  • Leaving the area with the surface far from pristine, with marks left my the footprints of 20 vandals, their rucksacks and the letters laid out on the ground

Continue reading →

0