First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply net neutrality day 2017
Banned
316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/17
I didn't comment on your post. You are being a bit self absorbed
Posted 7/12/17

MossRantz wrote:

I didn't comment on your post. You are being a bit self absorbed


I am. Because I'm a corporate p-zombie and I am important. /s
Banned
316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/17 , edited 7/12/17
This topic is very badly written, but this is the gist of things

https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/
1145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / IDK
Offline
Posted 7/12/17

ninjitsuko wrote:


Bobuliss wrote:

Wow, that's crazy. I would never in a million years give that much access to an employer. And yes, I have a job. If I had to, I would just create a dummy account and never use it. Or just tell them you don't use Facebook


If I applied for a regular development role (software engineer, for example), I wouldn't really have to go through giving such access or information. But since I've been focused primarily on upper management (Director) or executive (Chief Technology Officer) roles, these all come with the stipulation that you have to give them this information. It's usually like:

"We're prepared to pay you <x amount> for the next <y amount of years> at a stipend of <z amount per month>. This offer is conditional. You must first complete all of the paperwork in the docket, including the Internet Identity Dossier. This will include social media accounts, internet forums, image boards, Internet blogs, and any domains or websites you currently are the sole owner of." (this is nearly a quote from the docket that I got from my current company)

So yeah, they know the domains I own - they know my Reddit, Crunchyroll, Slashdot, Facebook, Twitter, and StackOverflow usernames/accounts. The first time I was prompted to give this information, I refused to turn it over. The offer was rescinded altogether and was informed that the information is required. As someone in the tech industry, I can easily get away with saying that I don't have a Facebook, Twitter, or normal social media accounts - but I sure as hell can't get away with saying that I don't have usernames online that I post under. It's an instant red flag.


I read all of your posts on this forum and I still think this is excessive. Info for a Crunchyroll account? Wow.
55066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 7/12/17

PandaSamaBoi wrote:


ninjitsuko wrote:


Bobuliss wrote:

Wow, that's crazy. I would never in a million years give that much access to an employer. And yes, I have a job. If I had to, I would just create a dummy account and never use it. Or just tell them you don't use Facebook


If I applied for a regular development role (software engineer, for example), I wouldn't really have to go through giving such access or information. But since I've been focused primarily on upper management (Director) or executive (Chief Technology Officer) roles, these all come with the stipulation that you have to give them this information. It's usually like:

"We're prepared to pay you <x amount> for the next <y amount of years> at a stipend of <z amount per month>. This offer is conditional. You must first complete all of the paperwork in the docket, including the Internet Identity Dossier. This will include social media accounts, internet forums, image boards, Internet blogs, and any domains or websites you currently are the sole owner of." (this is nearly a quote from the docket that I got from my current company)

So yeah, they know the domains I own - they know my Reddit, Crunchyroll, Slashdot, Facebook, Twitter, and StackOverflow usernames/accounts. The first time I was prompted to give this information, I refused to turn it over. The offer was rescinded altogether and was informed that the information is required. As someone in the tech industry, I can easily get away with saying that I don't have a Facebook, Twitter, or normal social media accounts - but I sure as hell can't get away with saying that I don't have usernames online that I post under. It's an instant red flag.


I read all of your posts on this forum and I still think this is excessive. Info for a Crunchyroll account? Wow.


It does sound excessive. I have a friend who is a high level bank executive and I tend believe that he doesn't turn over all of his personal online information. I have had quite a few conversations with him about the practices involved in being in that kind of management.

Posted 7/12/17 , edited 7/12/17

PandaSamaBoi wrote:
I read all of your posts on this forum and I still think this is excessive. Info for a Crunchyroll account? Wow.


It can be excessive and I voluntarily added my Crunchyroll username/account to the list when information was requested. It's more so about transparency. Some of my colleagues have only given their social media account - where they rarely post. It's not a requirement to give them everything. It's just that you can't give them nothing. I don't post anything on CR or Reddit that I wouldn't tell the CEO to his face or have mentioned in the office, or any other site I frequent. It's not a concern for me.


crazsli wrote:
It does sound excessive. I have a friend who is a high level bank executive and I tend believe that he doesn't turn over all of his personal online information. I have had quite a few conversations with him about the practices involved in being in that kind of management.


Request for access/knowledge pertaining to your "internet personality" is pretty common for most executives in the IT realm (to my knowledge). It's becoming more common in lower-tier jobs as well, as companies are becoming more aware that they can leverage social media and Internet "profile" data to assess risks in hiring an individual. Even if someone doesn't give up their social media information - HR will investigate if they can get information from social media accounts (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram..) without alerting the applicant.

This is why the current generation coming into the workforce have been warned to keep their social network accounts private. HR can and will dig into your life as much as they can without you giving them information. Not all companies are like this, just that it's becoming more and more common at both executive and entry-level positions. Risk assessment of an applicant has always been an important aspect of hiring someone; now, with social media, you can double check to see just exactly how much they lied or omitted during the interview or preliminary phase of the hiring process.
524 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Perth, Scotland
Offline
Posted 7/12/17
Here's a solution...providing Unlimited access to your customers...that's how ISPs roll in the UK
Humms 
11941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 7/12/17
From the things I've said. Nobody would hire me. I don't care, take your money, I don't need you

You know what? Censor me. So be it, go ahead

There will be a war instead. I hope they are ready for one. If you censor us to the point of effecting our experience, I will not be your drone, I will not get on my knees for you because of money and power.

Go ahead. That just means no 6.95 for them. I highly doubt they even give a fuck about me. No surprise, I'm just a pawn to them

Living in a world censored is the last straw. People will fight back regardless of what they say. You can't take away our right to express our ideas. I will not give in to lying about the world around me, there is no reason to lie about what we see and hear, what we think and believe.

This is getting to be one build up to the next. I can't wait for the result. Then we will see who is really true to themselves.
1049 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7/12/17 , edited 7/12/17

fluffytailz3000 wrote:

Here's a solution...providing Unlimited access to your customers...that's how ISPs roll in the UK ;)


That's literally how ISPs were designed to work in the US as the internet developed throughout the 90s.

Unfortunately the ISPs have gotten substantially greedy as they've monopolized various regions of the US, and now they want even more money and more control of the internet to make it resemble packaged cable TV models.

We could've avoided all this, but we had the misfortune of electing this president and the greedy short-sighted people he placed in power.

So it goes.

People here in the US won't realize what they've lost until their ISPs start charging for data packages like mobile phones. And start compartmentalizing the internet into a Netflix package, or a youtube package, or a twitch package and so on. They'll even have power to block websites and you won't even know they're blocking it.

They are crazy enough to destroy the free internet to make a buck in this quarter, and the next quarter, and the one after that.
1196 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / F / Haymarket, VA
Offline
Posted 7/12/17
The internet should always be free. So, I say let's row, row fight the power! Sorry, I just had to make a Gurren Lagann reference.
28381 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
50
Offline
Posted 7/12/17 , edited 7/12/17
I have my doubts about net neutrality. The net wouldn't be free so much as it would be controlled by the government to some extent. Even if the government doesn't abuse its power over the net, that still leads to potential issues. Of course, companies controlling the net can arguably be a bigger issue, but I personally distrust the government more.

Here's a neutral blog post on the subject I find interesting (guy is neither for nor against).

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/654-FC-Net-Neutrality.html
Banned
316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/17

encrypted12345 wrote:

I have my doubts about net neutrality. The net wouldn't be free so much as it would be controlled by the government to some extent. Even if the government doesn't abuse its power over the net, that still leads to potential issues. Of course, companies controlling the net can arguably be a bigger issue, but I personally distrust the government more.

Here's a neutral blog post on the subject I find interesting (guy is neither for nor against).

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/654-FC-Net-Neutrality.html


I don't know. It doesn't make much sense to me that if the concern is worry about people abusing the internet to remove the oversight that prevents that measure and put it in the mercy of money hungry Comcast and Verizon.

It seems like the worst anti-government argument in a long time.


Banned
21667 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/12/17

ninjitsuko wrote:

3. Doxxing is something that can be done without ownership of a site - Even now, all three of my employers have done background checks on me. I've given them this username and common sites that I go to (this was part of the hiring process). HR regularly scans my posts to make sure that I don't mention my company name or my real name (which can easily be linked to the company I work for). The company I work for has zero financial ties to Crunchyroll, Ellation, The Churnin Group, or AT&T - they choose to look at my posts and regularly ask if I'm posting on more sites (they also have my Reddit account and two other usernames).


I would like to say FUCK YOUR COMPANY. I hope they go out of business for such invasions of privacy.
Posted 7/13/17

Rujikin wrote:
I would like to say FUCK YOUR COMPANY. I hope they go out of business for such invasions of privacy.


They won't. If they went out of business for such "invasions of privacy", then a fair number of other medium-sized to large-sized IT companies would also go out of business. Before the current job, I didn't get two other jobs due to not giving up such information. It's just normal policies nowadays for more and more companies. As the Internet grows, such policies will too.


Humms wrote:

From the things I've said. Nobody would hire me. I don't care, take your money, I don't need you

You know what? Censor me. So be it, go ahead


I don't really think it's censorship. I'm not told that I'm not allowed to say what I think. It's more about making sure there aren't any direct connections with the business from my personal information. To be fair, the COO is more like Rujikin with conservativeness, baiting, trolling, and so forth online - he's still got a job (I'm the polar opposite in most situations). The hiring process only makes sure that you're not constantly posting online about how bad "your job at Microsoft/Facebook/Oracle <or any other jobs you've had>" are and to make sure you're not a heavy drug user (like posting on forums that center around illegal drugs, etc).

---

On Topic: (Net Neutrality)

fluffytailz3000: Many ISPs in the United States offer "unlimited data" (some cap you at 1TB unless you ask them to remove that cap, a little shady - but it's not terrible). Unlimited download/upload isn't exactly the issue when it comes to net neutrality. It's that companies will try to monetize your overall browsing habits (at least, this is the "worst case scenario"). This means they could say something like "If you're streaming on Crunchyroll and it's indirectly owned by our competitor, we'll throttle your speeds so that you have to wait 45 minutes in order to watch a 28 minute video on their site unless you give us an additional $7.99 a month for our "streaming package". Or they just throttle your connection regardless because they don't like what sites you're going on, or they can block specific sites for the same reason.

My issue is that protesting by "unsubscribing to Crunchyroll for a day" wouldn't really be much of a protest. There are a significant amount of other online and offline protests going on that are against net neutrality. There are a plethora of online forms and petitions that can be signed and e-mailed to your representative's public inbox to state that you're against the FCC from removing the restrictions not allowing them to do such things to the Internet.
1884 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Shanghai China
Offline
Posted 7/13/17
Can someone confirm this but is it true that is we loose that isps can charge us a fee for connecting to services like Netflix xbox live and psn.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.