
Is Al Gore asking permission to spam from your social networking account? - acangiano
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/09/05/al-gore-spam-social-networking-account/
======
kposehn
...what?

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.

~~~
bendmorris
"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.

------
nhebb
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.

~~~
cdh
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.

~~~
nhebb
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.

------
patio11
This sounds like "Import your email contacts" 2.0. I feel the urge to mention
that that just didn't work well, it built entire businesses.

------
ddw
This isn't new by the way: <http://donateyouraccount.com>

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.

------
ck2
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.

------
DanielBMarkham
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?

~~~
Alex3917
"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.

~~~
kposehn
> 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.

------
dramaticus3
to save energy !

------
gaius
Well since An Inconvenient Truth was debunked, no-one believes Al Gore himself
anymore.

~~~
Adam503
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.

~~~
gaius
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!

~~~
kposehn
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.

~~~
Adam503
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!

