You can't stop the signal (Dissenter)

[FoxtArt]

This is absolutely brilliant, and ingenious.

By collecting all of your internet activity under a single profile, you'll lose all remaining anonymity insofar as big brother is concerned, and it'll be that much easier to implement the upcoming social credit score. Not only that, but enforcement agencies would have a single point of contact to dig through a decade of communications to pull conversations out of context to demonstrate your guilt in any circumstance, and for any allegation!

I love progress.

[Great-Kazoo]

This is absolutely brilliant, and ingenious.

By collecting all of your internet activity under a single profile, you'll lose all remaining anonymity insofar as big brother is concerned, and it'll be that much easier to implement the upcoming social credit score. Not only that, but enforcement agencies would have a single point of contact to dig through a decade of communications to pull conversations out of context to demonstrate your guilt in any circumstance, and for any allegation!

I love progress.

Sounds like the gun owner who doesn't want a CCW because the .government would know they own guns. Even though they have a Hunter Saftey card and have done multiple 4473's

You're online. EVERYONE has your info.

[FoxtArt]

Sounds like the gun owner who doesn't want a CCW because the .government would know they own guns. Even though they have a Hunter Saftey card and have done multiple 4473's

You're online. EVERYONE has your info.

This entirely fails the cost-benefit analysis. It's not about "having" or "not having" your info. It's about archiving everything you ever say, which is pointless in that context, in any venue.

First, let me explain something. On dissenter or any related service, it's not creating comment options on websites for you. Any activity you undertake is entirely on the dissenter service and website, nobody else can see it. Basically, it's no different than a forum post here complaining about a CNN news article, coupled only with a browser extension (that nobody else will be downloading) that connects to the topic on this website in a frame to make them seem, in any way, connected. It is literally no different than bitching about a news article confined within a topic on this site.

Now lets talk about the value. If you think this opens up comments on websites that have them blocked, the question needs asked: What value do you think comments provide?

1) Are you spending time trying to argue with people on the internet, to get them to agree that you're right?
2) Are you trying to show your dissatisfaction with the content to the website owners?
3) Are you trying to "cause some hell" for the website operators so that they have to spend time to manage dissent?
4) Are you just wanting to live in a back-patting bubble of people that agree with you?

The problem with this 3rd party app is that it obliterates #2 and #3: Website owners aren't ever going to see your comments, or care. They exist on an entirely different website.

Because you're using the app, you're using to comment about venues where your opinion is not only valued, it's unavailable. So, the only people using the a and reading your opinion, are going to be in general agreement with you. So, you'd largely be doing it for #4.

So, why should anyone think this is any kind of "invention" at all, when it's just loading a separate website in a frame, and nobody gives two shits about the given opinions, nor would the opposing side/operators ever encounter them? It's as effective as trying to take down CNN solely by complaining on this website.

It's without value, save for those who like to hear themselves type and want back-patting inside their respective bubble.

Yet, it does have some risk of being abused by your opposition. It would be terribly easy to mine it for data, and of a value far greater than what many other things can offer.

The reality is America will eventually have a kind of "social credit", and we're not far away. Slowly on the road there. I haven't seen any episodes, just be aware that's been rolling out in the PRC for some time now. While our government does filter at least 90% of online communications now - largely through algorithm, it takes a lot of work to link together someones online history and that is usually done with physical access to their devices (browser history), working in reverse just like firearm traces. The problem with useless online activity and speech is that it is archived and transcribed with a retention period that far exceeds your memory. Imagine if everything you said in high school was transcribed and available to the gov't, your ex-spouse or lover, an angry customer who is suing you, an investigator, etc. Can you guarantee that there wasn't anything you said when you were 14-18 that won't bite you in the ass now? Already, the NSA will occasionally provide covert notes to law enforcement agencies suggesting they do traffic stops on certain people, based on data they have mined.

So why make any mine-able data sources creating a comprehensive, clear picture of your opinions, political associations, beliefs, etc. What do YOU get for selling YOU as a product?

Case in point: Look at pol's getting into serious heat over stuff from the 1970's and 1980's. This is just beginning. Many employers want to look over your facebook. How many of your jobs would be at risk if they could, at a single source, view all your political commentary and opinions expressed for the last decade? What about ten years from now when god-knows-what else is as objectionable as the N word? Using the "wrong" pronoun is suddenly de-jure offensive (and we're talking about "Zhe" not "he"/"she".) Even if you mind your manners, you're words can still bite you in the ass with changing times. You could be cast as a sex offender or an abuser a decade from now via no other vehicle than changing social mores and vocabulary.

Here's the rule for basic intelligence:
If you don't obtain any value out of writing online, don't say it. If something you write can be twisted around in any future context, don't bother posting it.

I don't think I've ever commented on any news article online, on their website at least. It's one of the most frivolous exercises of time a person could take. However, if I was looking at potentially employing you, I'd love to see your dissenter account. If I was investigating you, I may try to subpoena it. An ex-whatever, I'd love to spy on it, and bring it up in child allocation or similar battles. In every case, it wouldn't mean anything if you didn't have one. Our data is online, we are known. However, lets not participate to subjugating our opinions and beliefs to a computer algorithm. Sure, it doesn't matter right now. But if it ever does, there's not an undo button.

[brutal]

This entirely fails the cost-benefit analysis. It's not about "having" or "not having" your info. It's about archiving everything you ever say, which is pointless in that context, in any venue.

First, let me explain something. On dissenter or any related service, it's not creating comment options on websites for you. Any activity you undertake is entirely on the dissenter service and website, nobody else can see it. Basically, it's no different than a forum post here complaining about a CNN news article, coupled only with a browser extension (that nobody else will be downloading) that connects to the topic on this website in a frame to make them seem, in any way, connected. It is literally no different than bitching about a news article confined within a topic on this site.

Now lets talk about the value. If you think this opens up comments on websites that have them blocked, the question needs asked: What value do you think comments provide?

1) Are you spending time trying to argue with people on the internet, to get them to agree that you're right?
2) Are you trying to show your dissatisfaction with the content to the website owners?
3) Are you trying to "cause some hell" for the website operators so that they have to spend time to manage dissent?
4) Are you just wanting to live in a back-patting bubble of people that agree with you?

The problem with this 3rd party app is that it obliterates #2 and #3: Website owners aren't ever going to see your comments, or care. They exist on an entirely different website.

Because you're using the app, you're using to comment about venues where your opinion is not only valued, it's unavailable. So, the only people using the a and reading your opinion, are going to be in general agreement with you. So, you'd largely be doing it for #4.

So, why should anyone think this is any kind of "invention" at all, when it's just loading a separate website in a frame, and nobody gives two shits about the given opinions, nor would the opposing side/operators ever encounter them? It's as effective as trying to take down CNN solely by complaining on this website.

It's without value, save for those who like to hear themselves type and want back-patting inside their respective bubble.

Yet, it does have some risk of being abused by your opposition. It would be terribly easy to mine it for data, and of a value far greater than what many other things can offer.

The reality is America will eventually have a kind of "social credit", and we're not far away. Slowly on the road there. I haven't seen any episodes, just be aware that's been rolling out in the PRC for some time now. While our government does filter at least 90% of online communications now - largely through algorithm, it takes a lot of work to link together someones online history and that is usually done with physical access to their devices (browser history), working in reverse just like firearm traces. The problem with useless online activity and speech is that it is archived and transcribed with a retention period that far exceeds your memory. Imagine if everything you said in high school was transcribed and available to the gov't, your ex-spouse or lover, an angry customer who is suing you, an investigator, etc. Can you guarantee that there wasn't anything you said when you were 14-18 that won't bite you in the ass now? Already, the NSA will occasionally provide covert notes to law enforcement agencies suggesting they do traffic stops on certain people, based on data they have mined.

So why make any mine-able data sources creating a comprehensive, clear picture of your opinions, political associations, beliefs, etc. What do YOU get for selling YOU as a product?

Case in point: Look at pol's getting into serious heat over stuff from the 1970's and 1980's. This is just beginning. Many employers want to look over your facebook. How many of your jobs would be at risk if they could, at a single source, view all your political commentary and opinions expressed for the last decade? What about ten years from now when god-knows-what else is as objectionable as the N word? Using the "wrong" pronoun is suddenly de-jure offensive (and we're talking about "Zhe" not "he"/"she".) Even if you mind your manners, you're words can still bite you in the ass with changing times. You could be cast as a sex offender or an abuser a decade from now via no other vehicle than changing social mores and vocabulary.

Here's the rule for basic intelligence:
If you don't obtain any value out of writing online, don't say it. If something you write can be twisted around in any future context, don't bother posting it.

I don't think I've ever commented on any news article online, on their website at least. It's one of the most frivolous exercises of time a person could take. However, if I was looking at potentially employing you, I'd love to see your dissenter account. If I was investigating you, I may try to subpoena it. An ex-whatever, I'd love to spy on it, and bring it up in child allocation or similar battles. In every case, it wouldn't mean anything if you didn't have one. Our data is online, we are known. However, lets not participate to subjugating our opinions and beliefs to a computer algorithm. Sure, it doesn't matter right now. But if it ever does, there's not an undo button.

You're assuming the product doesn't become ubiquitous enough that all the site operators monitor?

[FoxtArt]

You're assuming the product doesn't become ubiquitous enough that all the site operators monitor?

Not too likely. It seems like it's targeted toward providing comments on news.

This is where it gets hilarious. The reason why our news quality has dropped so much in the last two decades is because the monitization has changed from a subscription based (quality/content matters, bias loses customers) to one that is entirely click based (traffic matters, satisfaction is irrelevant, outrage is the most profitable).

So, if a place like CNN posts a HIGHLY controversial news article, and 50,000 conservative pundits are all over it, commenting on dissenter left and right, it's incredibly advantageous for the news organization to publish even more of those stories. #1) They don't have to deal with the fallout, it's nicely segregated on another website #2) It's driving them all sorts of revenue and traffic they wouldn't have by publishing unbiased, or non-confrontational news.

Quite literally, the conservative outrage drives the profit margin on the liberal news. Dissenter will only aid that further. If conservatives wanted to be most effective, they would run browser extensions to clear links to any far-left news organization, or more importantly, do so on owned conservative websites to help cut page-rank on search engines. Not that I think that is a viable, or even wise, suggestion. It is quite hilarious though that by trying to be outraged, conservatives make the liberal editors, pundits, and journalists quite a bit of coin, and all they need to do for it is write a deceptive headline.

[OtterbatHellcat]

Progress...the razor blade of life.

The past doesn't seem sharp now, but it did seem that way at the time when you were there, doesn't it?

Time and Progress.... retarded.

[Gman]

Change is inevitable. Progress is optional.

[OtterbatHellcat]

I agree that change is inevitable and sometimes it's good. Progress on the other hand, is subjective and rather forced down ones throat it seems at times. I don't like being forced to do anything, if I wasn't already doing something because I wanted to, then I'm being forced to do it.

There is a plethora of progress that I'm happy to salute with one finger.

[cstone]

Anyone else watch the Black Mirror episode with Bryce Howard? I think it was titled Nosedive. An excellent glimpse into the future of social credit. I can’t wait until the Occupy types start protesting people with Social media status privilege.

[Gman]

Anyone else watch the Black Mirror episode with Bryce Howard? I think it was titled Nosedive. An excellent glimpse into the future of social credit. I can’t wait until the Occupy types start protesting people with Social media status privilege.

Best representation I've seen yet was in the first season of the goofy Sci-Fi series The Orville on Fox. The episode was titled Majority Rule.

It's pretty frightening when you understand how social pressure can be used to influence business, government, and even personal decisions.



SPOILER ALERT: Can't really link up the show itself, but here's a review;