|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Feb 5, 2020 14:59:53 GMT
Also, I really like how you liked your own op, here. I am guilty of doing that occasionally. If you know your post is awesome, why not I say Everything that Vincent Donofrio does is, by definition, awesome.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 5, 2020 17:55:21 GMT
I could use some advice with a problem that reared its ugly head amongst my group of friends.
As it turns out we have different opinions on politics. Duh, right? I've learned that when conversations of politics get too heated its time to shut it down and change the subject. But one conversation between us all got past that point. Differences of opinion were aired, and apparently feathers were ruffled.
Now, here's where it gets fugly. One member of the group (Lets call them #1) decided to post some part of the conversation on Facebook (I don't know what they posted exactly as I did not see the post itself). What #1 posted made another member of our group (Lets call them #2) look bad to people that weren't even present at the initial conversation, and #2 took great offense to it.
#2 decided to group text us to give the complaint. #1 did apologize, and took down the Facebook post, but with a caveat. #1 apologized for airing out our business on Facebook, but stands by their assertion that #2 did say some offensive things.
As of right now I don't know where all this stands, as it just happened.
p.s. Hand over my heart, I am not either #1 or #2. They are both friends of mine and one anothers.
My questions: A) What do you think should happen from here on out in the group? Obviously we shouldn't talk politics or post on Facebook. B) Should I insert myself with some advice or friendly word in the hopes of salvaging the group friendship?
Thoughts? Yes, when it gets down to groups, it is almost inevitable that there will be tension from time to time. Do you think that friend #1 intention was to make friend #2 look bad? There are a few people out there who will find ways to offend and come off smelling like a rose. Have there been tension between #1 and #2 in the past? Is #1 a sneaky type person? Is he the passive-aggressive type? Because this type of person can drive you crazy with barely an effort. Is #2 given to taking things personally? And a conditional apology isn't worth much. I don't talk about politics myself, so to say don't talk about politics with your friends is a moot point for me, anyway. However. a lot of people are very compelled by politics, so I don't know if you can just say don't talk about politics. Every person is different. But you could offer that to your group just as a token of good will if nothing else. If #1 & #2 really care about the friendship, hopefully they can move past their own egos.
|
|
|
Post by dianachristensen on Feb 5, 2020 17:57:55 GMT
Also, I really like how you liked your own op, here. You saw that, huh? LOL! I like yo style. How you? Feeling any better about your friends' conflict? It's hard to know what to think when stuff like that goes down around you. It's you proximate, but it's not really yours.
|
|
Gubbio
Sophomore
@gubbio
Posts: 254
Likes: 217
|
Post by Gubbio on Feb 5, 2020 18:04:11 GMT
I'll never understand why people INSIST on putting all their personal business on facebook. Are they looking for attention? Does it make them feel important? I don't do facebook..... I think it's for nosy people and idiots.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 5, 2020 18:49:52 GMT
I'll never understand why people INSIST on putting all their personal business on facebook. Are they looking for attention? Does it make them feel important? I don't do facebook..... I think it's for nosy people and idiots. I don't do Facebook either.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 5, 2020 18:57:30 GMT
I like your post the only part I don’t agree is the “political opinion is not confidential and private”. Not only it Is, it’s considered “sensitive personal data” in most countries outside of the US but even in the US (on a state level the federal law is still in the making but it’s coming) it’s personal data this data requiring. Careful handling. So unless the person making a statement on their political beliefs made it in a clearly public setting (such as online with no access restriction) it should not be disclosed without their consent. Also not a fan of “group speech is public”. It’s only public if it has unrestricted access to it and is labeled or at least intended as public, which is not always. But I understand different people may have different personal preference on what they themselves see as private vs public. Sorry, but I think you're being ridiculously paranoid. We do not live in Russia where the KGB is always watching. Well maybe we do with drones and all, but conversation between friends can be discussed on Facebook. Like I said, it's creepy to post on Facebook that so-in-so is sleeping with so-in-so. But c'mon, we live in a free society and we can discuss politics and we can I say I disagree with this or that person's politics. You and the OP are both being too paranoid. My boyfriend's in the next room. Do I need to get your permission to walk in there and tell him "Nora was just saying ..."? I think the OP and his friends are twisting themselves up over something which is being unnecessarily dramatized. The OP should talk to his friends about it. I can't believe all the idiots on this thread who are making too big a deal about privacy and silence!!! it has nothing to do with paranoia but everything to do with how various privacy laws define personal and especially sensitive personal data and limit what you can do with it. So I am just adding to your statement that political opinion is public/not considered personal information, that that’s simply not true. Now the limitation of the processing (handling) such data are different in different states and while they don’t limit your right to free speech, they do require some safeguards to be implemented if certain triggers are met and in general require a greater level of sensitivity applied to it. It’s also different when I post my political opinion here where it can be seen publicly with no restriction to access - that is saying “i don’t care who sees it”. But that’s not the case in a talk between few friends. But even when I do post it publicly it doesn’t mean that that they hold no protections whatsoever. For example if you were to collect names and political beliefs of various people and creating a database (wheather you might later want to monetize it or not, or do something else with) that’s not a legal thing to do in many countries without the persons Expressed consent. The US is somewhat behind but quickly catching up and some US states already ARE caught up on this regulations with europe.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 5, 2020 19:07:43 GMT
Sorry, but I think you're being ridiculously paranoid. We do not live in Russia where the KGB is always watching. Well maybe we do with drones and all, but conversation between friends can be discussed on Facebook. Like I said, it's creepy to post on Facebook that so-in-so is sleeping with so-in-so. But c'mon, we live in a free society and we can discuss politics and we can I say I disagree with this or that person's politics. You and the OP are both being too paranoid. My boyfriend's in the next room. Do I need to get your permission to walk in there and tell him "Nora was just saying ..."? I think the OP and his friends are twisting themselves up over something which is being unnecessarily dramatized. The OP should talk to his friends about it. I can't believe all the idiots on this thread who are making too big a deal about privacy and silence!!! it has nothing to do with paranoia but everything to do with how various privacy laws define personal and especially sensitive personal data and limit what you can do with it. So I am just adding to your statement that political opinion is public/not considered personal information, that that’s simply not true. Now the limitation of the processing (handling) such data are different in different states and while they don’t limit your right to free speech, they do require some safeguards to be implemented if certain triggers are met and in general require a greater level of sensitivity applied to it. It’s also different when I post my political opinion here where it can be seen publicly with no restriction to access - that is saying “i don’t care who sees it”. But that’s not the case in a talk between few friends. But even when I do post it publicly it doesn’t mean that that they hold no protections whatsoever. For example if you were to collect names and political beliefs of various people and creating a database (wheather you might later want to monetize it or not, or do something else with) that’s not a legal thing to do in many countries without the persons Expressed consent. The US is somewhat behind but quickly catching up and some US states already ARE caught up on this regulations with europe. Hi Nora -- Like Gubbio and Movieliker, I don't do Facebook, either. I belong to an online West Highland Terrier group and that's as controversial as I get. I am so bad at processing political material that what you and Gameboy have said I can barely interpret, but I have no doubt that when you post stuff on FB, you are putting yourself out there. Weird, random stuff does happen, like out of nowhere some totally unfamiliar entity was recommending Cloris Leachman movies to me! Lol. Now, I know, this is as benign as it gets, but how did they know I am a big Cloris Leachman fan? It's just weird and if you care to go there, kind of disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Feb 5, 2020 19:42:45 GMT
Weird, random stuff does happen, like out of nowhere some totally unfamiliar entity was recommending Cloris Leachman movies to me! Lol. Now, I know, this is as benign as it gets, but how did they know I am a big Cloris Leachman fan? It's just weird and if you care to go there, kind of disturbing. Are you certain you never mentioned or liked or linked in some way to Cloris Leachman? If not, then yeah that is weird and kinda spooky.
I barely ever use facebook. Sometimes I post articles to my timeline that fact check Trumps claims, but thats about it. That's my personal extent really, and that's why I missed the post in question.
Facebook... it started off with such good intentions.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 5, 2020 20:10:19 GMT
Weird, random stuff does happen, like out of nowhere some totally unfamiliar entity was recommending Cloris Leachman movies to me! Lol. Now, I know, this is as benign as it gets, but how did they know I am a big Cloris Leachman fan? It's just weird and if you care to go there, kind of disturbing. Are you certain you never mentioned or liked or linked in some way to Cloris Leachman? If not, then yeah that is weird and kinda spooky.
I barely ever use facebook. Sometimes I post articles to my timeline that fact check Trumps claims, but thats about it. That's my personal extent really, and that's why I missed the post in question.
Facebook... it started off with such good intentions.
I think Facebook is doing well. It's just not the worldwide behemoth some invisioned. Many people love it. But it's not for everybody. Everything has limits. Even Facebook. I post a lot on anonymous message boards. I'm a social person who text and emails a lot. And I talk face to face and voice to voice a lot. I just don't like using Facebook. It's not for everybody.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 5, 2020 20:51:47 GMT
it has nothing to do with paranoia but everything to do with how various privacy laws define personal and especially sensitive personal data and limit what you can do with it. So I am just adding to your statement that political opinion is public/not considered personal information, that that’s simply not true. Now the limitation of the processing (handling) such data are different in different states and while they don’t limit your right to free speech, they do require some safeguards to be implemented if certain triggers are met and in general require a greater level of sensitivity applied to it. It’s also different when I post my political opinion here where it can be seen publicly with no restriction to access - that is saying “i don’t care who sees it”. But that’s not the case in a talk between few friends. But even when I do post it publicly it doesn’t mean that that they hold no protections whatsoever. For example if you were to collect names and political beliefs of various people and creating a database (wheather you might later want to monetize it or not, or do something else with) that’s not a legal thing to do in many countries without the persons Expressed consent. The US is somewhat behind but quickly catching up and some US states already ARE caught up on this regulations with europe. Hi Nora -- Like Gubbio and Movieliker, I don't do Facebook, either. I belong to an online West Highland Terrier group and that's as controversial as I get. I am so bad at processing political material that what you and Gameboy have said I can barely interpret, but I have no doubt that when you post stuff on FB, you are putting yourself out there. Weird, random stuff does happen, like out of nowhere some totally unfamiliar entity was recommending Cloris Leachman movies to me! Lol. Now, I know, this is as benign as it gets, but how did they know I am a big Cloris Leachman fan? It's just weird and if you care to go there, kind of disturbing. your online behavior is tracked as you move online and various companies analyze it and build your profile. there is around 70 thousand data entries on a typical user profile of age of 18 yo and older. seventy THOUSAND data points. on all of us who go on line. who dont disable ALL cookies ALL beacons and only use duck duck go go etc. which almost none does. so.. it a no brainer for an online provider to know what you (user of that account or that device or that io) like without you ever specifically mentioning it there. predictive analytics works wonders plus you may have clicked on a plug in somewhere that informed other parties (companies or servers or groups or individuals). its a very complex enviroment that nobody fully understands. it may be very benign yes but it also might not be IF and WHEN someone decides to abuse it. it may be as sinole abuse as imolementing bias against certain users or as bad as outright discrimination. some of it may alreay be happening to you (all of us) and you wouldnt most likely know. its only when someone does something Really bad with it that it will garner more attention.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 5, 2020 20:56:55 GMT
Hi Nora -- Like Gubbio and Movieliker, I don't do Facebook, either. I belong to an online West Highland Terrier group and that's as controversial as I get. I am so bad at processing political material that what you and Gameboy have said I can barely interpret, but I have no doubt that when you post stuff on FB, you are putting yourself out there. Weird, random stuff does happen, like out of nowhere some totally unfamiliar entity was recommending Cloris Leachman movies to me! Lol. Now, I know, this is as benign as it gets, but how did they know I am a big Cloris Leachman fan? It's just weird and if you care to go there, kind of disturbing. your online behavior is tracked as you move online and various companies analyze it and build your profile. there is around 70 thousand data entries on a typical user profile of age of 18 yo and older. seventy THOUSAND data points. on all of us who go on line. who dont disable ALL cookies ALL beacons and only use duck duck go go etc. which almost none does. so.. it a no brainer for an online provider to know what you (user of that account or that device or that io) like without you ever specifically mentioning it there. predictive analytics works wonders plus you may have clicked on a plug in somewhere that informed other parties (companies or servers or groups or individuals). its a very complex enviroment that nobody fully understands. it may be very benign yes but it also might not be IF and WHEN someone decides to abuse it. it may be as sinole abuse as imolementing bias against certain users or as bad as outright discrimination. some of it may alreay be happening to you (all of us) and you wouldnt most likely know. its only when someone does something Really bad with it that it will garner more attention. I agree. But that has nothing to do with free speech.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 5, 2020 20:59:32 GMT
it has nothing to do with paranoia but everything to do with how various privacy laws define personal and especially sensitive personal data and limit what you can do with it. So I am just adding to your statement that political opinion is public/not considered personal information, that that’s simply not true. Now the limitation of the processing (handling) such data are different in different states and while they don’t limit your right to free speech, they do require some safeguards to be implemented if certain triggers are met and in general require a greater level of sensitivity applied to it. It’s also different when I post my political opinion here where it can be seen publicly with no restriction to access - that is saying “i don’t care who sees it”. But that’s not the case in a talk between few friends. But even when I do post it publicly it doesn’t mean that that they hold no protections whatsoever. For example if you were to collect names and political beliefs of various people and creating a database (wheather you might later want to monetize it or not, or do something else with) that’s not a legal thing to do in many countries without the persons Expressed consent. The US is somewhat behind but quickly catching up and some US states already ARE caught up on this regulations with europe. Sorry, laws don't affect my speech. The government has no control over my speech. The U.S. is behind and catching up? Lol. The U.S. is way ahead of Europe and the rest of the world when it comes to free speech. It's enshrined in our Bill of Rights. You can be thrown in jail in Canada for saying you hate homosexuals. I'm queer, and I don't necessarily like when homophobes hate me. But I really don't give a rat's ass if you hate me and every other fag. That's your right and fuck you. I think it's sad that an American is looking to Europe for a guide to freedom when the U.S. is the only country which guarantees complete freedom of speech in our Constitution. We have no hate speech laws. I'm queer and I love that. Sorry, our Bill of Rights prevents what you want. You cannot tell another person not to repeat something heard in a group. If you talk politics in a restaurant are you gonna hunt the waitress down who tells her husband that night "Oh, I overheard some customer say something interesting tonight ..."? Like I said, personal propriety tells you not reveal your friend's personal issues about love, sex family, income, that type of thing. But politics is not personal. And whether or not Maria wore a red dress last night is not private information. And pollsters gather political opinions all the time. What are you on about? Stop trying to put ridiculous restrictions on speech. you are mixing several legal concepts. freedom of speech is a diff legal concept than protecting use of personal information. one does not exclude other (like i mentioned already ). 1. Freedom of speech - allows you to speak freely without being prosecuted by the government. 2. Protection of privacy - governs your ability to use someone elses data (information) for various purposes. sharing it, selling it, or just storing it, all of this is regulated. heavily. and in This area Europe is Much more advanced than the US (hell even parts of Latam are). but US is catching up. Delaware, Illinois, Massachusets, California are some examples. I was talking about protecting personal information and was mentioning that your claim that political opinion is not considered personal information. It is. Which doesnt mean you cannot voice your own. You can. It doesnt mean you cannot share something with your friend. You can. It means the law prescribes certain rules and limitations when you are deciding what else you might want to do with the information. as far as what you say about polsters - that is actually a good example of the result of such regulation in practice: people who spond to the pols give their consent. they know they are doing it so thats a great example of how it works in practice. and like i said - if you have the persons consen you CAN use the data for the thing they consented to. does this distinction help? Maybe we are on the same page now?
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 5, 2020 21:00:27 GMT
your online behavior is tracked as you move online and various companies analyze it and build your profile. there is around 70 thousand data entries on a typical user profile of age of 18 yo and older. seventy THOUSAND data points. on all of us who go on line. who dont disable ALL cookies ALL beacons and only use duck duck go go etc. which almost none does. so.. it a no brainer for an online provider to know what you (user of that account or that device or that io) like without you ever specifically mentioning it there. predictive analytics works wonders plus you may have clicked on a plug in somewhere that informed other parties (companies or servers or groups or individuals). its a very complex enviroment that nobody fully understands. it may be very benign yes but it also might not be IF and WHEN someone decides to abuse it. it may be as sinole abuse as imolementing bias against certain users or as bad as outright discrimination. some of it may alreay be happening to you (all of us) and you wouldnt most likely know. its only when someone does something Really bad with it that it will garner more attention. I agree. But that has nothing to do with free speech. agree there, I was not adressing any of this as part of free speech conversation. Privacy protection is a different legal concept.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 5, 2020 21:30:03 GMT
Weird, random stuff does happen, like out of nowhere some totally unfamiliar entity was recommending Cloris Leachman movies to me! Lol. Now, I know, this is as benign as it gets, but how did they know I am a big Cloris Leachman fan? It's just weird and if you care to go there, kind of disturbing. Are you certain you never mentioned or liked or linked in some way to Cloris Leachman? If not, then yeah that is weird and kinda spooky.
I barely ever use facebook. Sometimes I post articles to my timeline that fact check Trumps claims, but thats about it. That's my personal extent really, and that's why I missed the post in question.
Facebook... it started off with such good intentions.
Really the only online site I am on is this one, and, yes, I have never made unclear my fondness for Cloris Leachman. I did post a comment on YouTube on the clip with the breathtaking Cloris' wonderful acceptance speech for her Oscar win for "The Last Picture Show", but does that sort of thing travel? Oh, and as an amateur master of the non-sequiter, I end with this. I implore you to watch the clip and share what you think of Cloris Leachman here. Like what impressions does she give. And who else thinks Cloris is more attractive than the wound up, super wooden Raquel Welch. I find Cloris to be absolutely radiant here. She actually glows. Oh, wow, too funny, I just now had the thought that the writers for this part were probably thinking "Let's let Gene present the nominee "Who is Harry Kellerman and Why is He Saying These Terrible Things About Me?" because Raquel won't be able to recall that many words in a row. She'll flub it." Lol! Poor Raquel. I never really liked her. There's a mean streak there.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 5, 2020 21:31:49 GMT
I agree. But that has nothing to do with free speech. agree there, I was not adressing any of this as part of free speech conversation. Privacy protection is a different legal concept. I never repeat anything with identifying the speaker. Either in person or online. There's no need. What was said is what's important. Not who said it.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 5, 2020 21:56:19 GMT
agree there, I was not adressing any of this as part of free speech conversation. Privacy protection is a different legal concept. I never repeat anything with identifying the speaker. Either in person or online. There's no need. What was said is what's important. Not who said it. sounds like a good practice. good to see.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 6, 2020 17:53:43 GMT
you are mixing several legal concepts. freedom of speech is a diff legal concept than protecting use of personal information. one does not exclude other (like i mentioned already ). 1. Freedom of speech - allows you to speak freely without being prosecuted by the government. 2. Protection of privacy - governs your ability to use someone elses data (information) for various purposes. sharing it, selling it, or just storing it, all of this is regulated. heavily. and in This area Europe is Much more advanced than the US (hell even parts of Latam are). but US is catching up. Delaware, Illinois, Massachusets, California are some examples. I was talking about protecting personal information and was mentioning that your claim that political opinion is not considered personal information. It is. Which doesnt mean you cannot voice your own. You can. It doesnt mean you cannot share something with your friend. You can. It means the law prescribes certain rules and limitations when you are deciding what else you might want to do with the information. as far as what you say about polsters - that is actually a good example of the result of such regulation in practice: people who spond to the pols give their consent. they know they are doing it so thats a great example of how it works in practice. and like i said - if you have the persons consen you CAN use the data for the thing they consented to. does this distinction help? Maybe we are on the same page now? We differ because you are confusing laws which regulate business and government and access to private information. That's a whole different subject. The OP is talking about conversations between friends, and one friend posting that on Facebook, or in other words, telling everybody what somebody said. No laws govern that in the U.S. It's private speech. People can say whatever they want. I'm saying it's devious and backstabbing to reveal personal information about love and sex and the income of a friend blah blah blah. But I'm saying if that person is saying Trump is an idiot or Sanders is a commie, that's political speech and he is free to post that on Facebook. i am not confusing it on contrary i am pointing out how those two concepts exist separately while not excluding each other. again, all of it was just to point out that when you say “political opinion is not considered private” (personal) data, that is an incorrect statement. however, that on its own does not limit your rights under freedom of speech. it only means there are certain limitations to what you can do with political opinions as information related to individuals.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 6, 2020 19:29:43 GMT
i am not confusing it on contrary i am pointing out how those two concepts exist separately while not excluding each other. again, all of it was just to point out that when you say “political opinion is not considered private” (personal) data, that is an incorrect statement. however, that on its own does not limit your rights under freedom of speech. it only means there are certain limitations to what you can do with political opinions as information related to individuals. Well, you'll probably agree then that no law was broken when #1 posted a comment on #2's political views on Facebook? Do you not? And I don't see an ethical problem that #1 posted #2's comment on Facebook because it was not personal, it was political. It's much ado about nothing. well you see I was so ready to agree with you but then you say “was not personal it was political”. political opinion is a subcategory of personal ifnromation. thats what all my posts were trying to get at. thats all. so we can say “assuming both are americans (and US privacy law being underdeveloped at this time) its fairly safe to say no law was (probably) broken, ethically the conduct is questionable but it depends on the set expectations between 1 and 2, and while political opinion is considered personal information, it is possible that sharing it may be within someones legal rights, depending on their nationality and the nationality of the other person and the nature of the information sharing”. for one person one off it would most likely be ok. but political opinion is still a sensitive personal information
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Feb 7, 2020 7:53:08 GMT
I agree with Moviebuffbrad.
|
|
|
Post by ellynmacg on Feb 8, 2020 5:10:26 GMT
Are you certain you never mentioned or liked or linked in some way to Cloris Leachman? If not, then yeah that is weird and kinda spooky.
I barely ever use facebook. Sometimes I post articles to my timeline that fact check Trumps claims, but thats about it. That's my personal extent really, and that's why I missed the post in question.
Facebook... it started off with such good intentions.
Really the only online site I am on is this one, and, yes, I have never made unclear my fondness for Cloris Leachman. I did post a comment on YouTube on the clip with the breathtaking Cloris' wonderful acceptance speech for her Oscar win for "The Last Picture Show", but does that sort of thing travel? Oh, and as an amateur master of the non-sequiter, I end with this. I implore you to watch the clip and share what you think of Cloris Leachman here. Like what impressions does she give. And who else thinks Cloris is more attractive than the wound up, super wooden Raquel Welch. I find Cloris to be absolutely radiant here. She actually glows. Oh, wow, too funny, I just now had the thought that the writers for this part were probably thinking "Let's let Gene present the nominee "Who is Harry Kellerman and Why is He Saying These Terrible Things About Me?" because Raquel won't be able to recall that many words in a row. She'll flub it." Lol! Poor Raquel. I never really liked her. There's a mean streak there. I don't know about you, DP, but as a straight woman I think what makes Cloris far more attractive than Raquel is one quality: intelligence. While RW may not be as dumb as she looks, she seems woefully behind CL in sheer intellect. And I feel the same way about male attractiveness. If a guy doesn't project smarts, he's highly unlikely to appeal to me (not that the average IQ-challenged glamor-boy would care whether or not he appeals to a woman old enough to be his mother ). Yeah, that is a little creepy about their knowing you're a big admirer of CL. Unless...by any chance, is Ms. Leachman also a fan of Westies? Maybe that's the connection.
|
|