Of course, my opinion of these friends of mine drops, but what do they care about that? :)
These are often pretty smart people but they seem to mainly use FB for cat memes , pictures of food and the sort of "nerd humour" you might find on reddit.
FB does not do very well for other purposes.
Just remember that you don't have to actually use Facebook. You merely need Facebook.
In other words, Facebook is your social network; it represents your circle of power. The more points you have on the circle, the more directions you can pivot in life.
For example, often times the people who are the least capable can still be an advantage to you; they will be loyal to you, and they will help you when you have no other options.
But, on the other hand -- you don't have to spend your time on Facebook. In other words, it's best to keep our identities as small as possible, so therefore it's a benefit to avoid making Facebook a part of our identity.
I have friends from way back that can't relate to what I'm doing and will probably never "help" me in any way. However, when I go back home, I greatly enjoy spending time with them and for me that enough.
No, not at at all. I just have no friends from my early days. (Ruthlessly bullied throughout school. Midwest children had no tolerance for programming geeks circa 2000.)
One of the primary ways people can find "you specifically" is through Facebook, and the other way is through LinkedIn. That's all I meant by "you need Facebook".
Recruiters, for example. I've gotten way more random LinkedIn offers that have led to jobs than I ever would've guessed. (~7 offers, 2 jobs. But of course the "offers" are just "offers to interview"; still, that's something.)
Also, it is good for open-mindedness when not all people we hang out with come from the same group.
Within the contexts where I met and got to know these people, they are great. In angry political comments, or wallspam trying to get something or other banned, they are not. Facebook forced me to acknowledge that I like a bit of formality and artifice in my relationships with most people. I think that most people are more attractive with their clothes on.
That's pretty damn quick to judge. You have more experience with tech -- get over yourself. I'm sure they know things that you don't.
JUST EFF THE EFF OFF.
Do any children still have cancer? I'm scrolling as fast as can!
This has solved all my problems with annoying updates
The claims by Snopes are equally false: whatever Facebook terms a user may have accepted whenever, they are trumped by the law. You can't give up your civil rights with single click.
Of course you can. Contracts can and do override a right enshrined in law. I can sign an agreement that gags me from talking about something, in which case I've given up my right to free speech (if you're in a country where such a right exists).
You seem to be referring to the EU's Data Protection and privacy policies - there are explicit exemptions under the EU/US Safe Habor (which applies here) that allow contractual opt-out from certain rights. I am not saying this is the case with Facebook: merely that it is naive to assume just because a right is enshrined in law doesn't mean you cannot give it up through a contract.
While they are not worthless, they are not nearly as binding or enforceable as your normal commercial contract. Standards vary and the jurisprudence is not clear, but indeed you "can't give up your civil rights with single click."
I am from the US, and that is certainly not the case here. Contracts of adhesion are relatively weak here.
Example from the first category: "Unless a different intention appears from the terms of the contract, stipulations as to time of payment are not of the essence of a contract of sale" - s.10(1) SOGA1979.
Example from the second category: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term ... exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence." - s.2(1) UCTA1979
A common pattern is to allow you to contract out of a provision in general, but not when you're dealing with a consumer, e.g. "In a case where the buyer deals as consumer ... subsections (1) to (3) above [which lay out default rules for the passing of risk, but can usually be overridden in the contract] must be ignored and the goods remain at the seller’s risk until they are delivered to the consumer" - SOGA1979 s.20(4). See also: the UTCCR1999, which applies only to consumer contracts and can't be contracted out of.
All examples from UK law. IANYAL.
But even then, if you sign a NDA (of which US federal employees often do) then you are not giving up your rights to free speech. You are promising to withhold information about a certain topic if someone not authorized to know such information asks. You can certainly exercise your right to free speech and tell that person what you know, but then you may face consequences for doing so.
I know what you meant, but the above statement is almost always true. An example of an abridgment of free speech would be: You say you hate the King, then you're put in jail. It's not free speech if there are consequences: the 1st amendment does not mean, "the government must refrain from cutting your tongues out," nor does it mean "you cannot willingly sign an agreement to withhold information with a private party", but it does mean "the government doesn't get to punish you for saying things it dislikes."
I would rather say that you can say whatever you wish, but you may face consequences based on what you said and the topic covered. I'm just trying to get across that too many people use "free speech", in US terms, incorrectly.
The government punishes people all the time for speech it "dislikes". Many people are in prison right now for that reason, usually because it involved people signing NDAs. Seems you have free speech in terms of unpopular speech aimed at the government as long as you didn't promise not to speak in the first place. Well, also as long as you don't say something the government doesn't want public; you know, national security and all that.
I would say that there are possible consequences to the concept that people label as "free speech", it's just that not all of them involve the government. Many people say things like "this forum mod deletes my posts, that violates my free speech" which in fact it does no such thing. You can criticize the government all you want but private entities can react to that as they please.
In other words, "free speech" is a very tricky thing.
See 16.1 in https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
Also, although the EU has strict data retention and data-export laws, you agreed to give up when you signed up for Facebook because Facebook keeps its data in the US.
Anyone outside the US and Canada is doing business with Facebook Ireland Limited. They are bound by Irish law.
Again, if local law (or a jury nulification) trumps this, FB are SOL.
In civil law if the jury completely disregarded the facts / the law to the point that the judge believes that no reasonable jury could have reached the decision they did, the judge would be likely to enter a judgement not withstanding verdict whereby he or she basically says "I know what the jury said but they're wrong".
I'm not sure how much faith I put in juries, but sometimes they do the right thing.
[EDIT] I probably would have been more accurate to say google+ sucks just as bad with their TOS.
So I did as it said, deleted the email and informed the sender. Got a reply back saying "oh, sorry it was intended for firstname.lastname@example.org".
So then I get another one a few days later, this time I deleted it and forwarded it to the intended recipient. Then I informed the sender again getting no response.
Now about once a week I get this stuff into my account (which is basically a throwaway I hardly log into).
I assume I'm not expected to somehow play secretary for these people.
Unfortunately due to the proliferation of these notices, if you don't include one then someone may have more legal leeway to do what they want with the email.
So its a sort of it's useless but if you don't put it in then it can hurt you a little more than if you don't, so let's just include it anyway.
So yes, I see how it can help kind of but not really. It doesn't really change anything, just makes a case tighter should you need to make one, lest the defendant imply he had your authorization to distribute the mails.
Let's say I'm a freelancer, and I enter into an NDA with company X. As part of the NDA, there is a definition of what exactly is the information that I need to keep confidential.
Now, my lawyers will push for a definition which is very specific and very explicit. How? They'll want Company X to mark every piece of confidential information with some kind of "confidential" mark. This way, I know explicitly about every piece of information that is supposed to be confidential.
Now, I'm guessing this is the same basic logic that big companies use when having this disclaimer. Anyone they've signed any kind of confidentiality agreement with might need to be explicitly told that this information is confidential.
> you cannot enter into a confidentiality agreement that way
In your example, the confidentiality agreement (NDA) exists prior to the email.
Maybe other companies show it to you on compose, I'm not sure.
Please people, 3-line signatures.
Does Exchange (or any other mail servers) have some sort of de-duplication process for intra-message text like this? The wasted space has to be enormous in aggregate, but maybe compared to headers, attachments, etc. it doesn't end up being that big of a deal, especially for a single organization.
Well worth reading for kicks, and reads more like a primer on how to make yourself a nuisance to local courts.
tl;dr You have to fill out some documents, notarize them, have state and federal judges sign them, and refuse any case you're involved in to be heard by magistrates in lower courts. In this way you'll be put on the "list" for diplomatic immunity although you are (presumably) not a diplomat. They even sell diplomatic corps car tags.
The legitimacy of the article is undermined by the fact that the author often spells "you" as "ya".
Oh, is that all?
In 1995, someone might have put this into a science fiction book. (I mean, it theoretically could have happened. To my knowledge it didn't.)
Then everyone who heard of the book would have laughed. At the author. Because the whole idea is not just idiotic, but a kind of aggressive arm-swinging feces-flinging idiocy that can't possibly exist in real life.
It never works, but people do make a (likely not comfortable) living selling others on the dream.
The law has a different interpretation.
The fact that lots of people have a different interpretation of what counts as unethical use might mean the law will change
But, you're right, in a perfect world, ethics and law would correspond. But, not in this world.
Some of my friends (and not the stupidest ones) posted this and really thought they were safe after that...
Copyright Meme Spreading on Facebook:
There is a rumor circulating that Facebook is making a change related to ownership of users' information or the content they post to the site. This is false. Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been.
This pretty much proves what many of us knew: the average person has absolutely no idea about copyright or TOS agreements, and what rights they have or are signing away.
Heh. Never had that before on snopes.com...
I forgot about that. :(