On shitting on Google.

[Doktor Howl]

There is some risk in using a cat's paw like that.   Getting caught means never being publically trusted again.

Wouldn't stop me, and there are in fact less responsible people than myself on Facebook.

In addition, the very fact that there are people willing to do this to you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, even assuming he accepts that you really weren't known for raping thalidomide victims.

[NotPublished]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20009159-265.html 

Imagine a Google social networking site... ha!


You know what? Its soo very easy to sabotage someone... This is sad. Identities can be attacked just out of maliciousness ...

[Captain Utopia]

There is some risk in using a cat's paw like that.   Getting caught means never being publically trusted again.

Wouldn't stop me, and there are in fact less responsible people than myself on Facebook.

In addition, the very fact that there are people willing to do this to you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, even assuming he accepts that you really weren't known for raping thalidomide victims.

But if having someone false shit on you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, then why would an employer want to deal with someone who was publicly known for spreading those lies?  Wouldn't it stop you if you knew it'd mean you'd be out of a job and find it difficult to get another?

[Jasper]

That presumes a great deal of internet security, to an extent that is currently not feasible.

[Doktor Howl]

There is some risk in using a cat's paw like that.   Getting caught means never being publically trusted again.

Wouldn't stop me, and there are in fact less responsible people than myself on Facebook.

In addition, the very fact that there are people willing to do this to you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, even assuming he accepts that you really weren't known for raping thalidomide victims.

But if having someone false shit on you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, then why would an employer want to deal with someone who was publicly known for spreading those lies?  Wouldn't it stop you if you knew it'd mean you'd be out of a job and find it difficult to get another?

Good luck catching me.  And it would have no effect whatsoever on hordes of basement dwellers.

[Cain]

The media use "anonymous sources" all the fucking time for hit jobs the White House or certain Senators want on people, and it never seems to negatively impact the reverence with which such smears are treated, at least within official Beltway linked circles.

[Jasper]

They have the benefit of preexisting cred though.  "The NYT said it, so it's probably not a barefaced lie".

And at least with the news, it's nothing personal.  They're just selling news.  Any asshole with a blog can talk shit about Total brand cereal, but if the network says Total is made of dogs, people will start to wonder.

[Cain]

Um....this is the same NYT which has been wrong about nearly everyfuckingthing in the last decade, right?

And "news" may be impersonal, but journalists and "anonymous sources" often aren't.  People are targeted for specific reasons, usually opposition to a particular bill or policy...and the angle of attack is deeply personal in many cases, whether it involves rumours about infidelity or "immoral" personal behaviour etc etc

[Captain Utopia]

That presumes a great deal of internet security, to an extent that is currently not feasible.

Have you ever used online banking?  If we can do one, why not the other?

[Doktor Howl]

That presumes a great deal of internet security, to an extent that is currently not feasible.

Have you ever used online banking?  If we can do one, why not the other?

Ah, so your argument is to put more security and controls on regular internet behavior?

[Jasper]

Um....this is the same NYT which has been wrong about nearly everyfuckingthing in the last decade, right?

And "news" may be impersonal, but journalists and "anonymous sources" often aren't.  People are targeted for specific reasons, usually opposition to a particular bill or policy...and the angle of attack is deeply personal in many cases, whether it involves rumours about infidelity or "immoral" personal behaviour etc etc

Mainstream news, regardless of it's real accuracy, still comes off to most people as "probably true".  That's the important difference.

That presumes a great deal of internet security, to an extent that is currently not feasible.

Have you ever used online banking?  If we can do one, why not the other?

Online banking was never iimmaculate.

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6652

Those particular flaws may have been fixed, but it just goes to show that not even banks can afford perfect online security.  It just doesn't exist.

[Captain Utopia]

There is some risk in using a cat's paw like that.   Getting caught means never being publically trusted again.

Wouldn't stop me, and there are in fact less responsible people than myself on Facebook.

In addition, the very fact that there are people willing to do this to you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, even assuming he accepts that you really weren't known for raping thalidomide victims.

But if having someone false shit on you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, then why would an employer want to deal with someone who was publicly known for spreading those lies?  Wouldn't it stop you if you knew it'd mean you'd be out of a job and find it difficult to get another?

Good luck catching me.  And it would have no effect whatsoever on hordes of basement dwellers.

In that case I agree with Sigmatic - anonymous slander would just be filtered.  Perhaps not initially, but certainly after the Nigerian scammers started routinely blackmailing people - a small fee and we don't invent shit.  In fact any group of non-anonymous individuals who were known for such activity could be also blacklisted quite easily, and their slander filtered too.

[Doktor Howl]

There is some risk in using a cat's paw like that.   Getting caught means never being publically trusted again.

Wouldn't stop me, and there are in fact less responsible people than myself on Facebook.

In addition, the very fact that there are people willing to do this to you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, even assuming he accepts that you really weren't known for raping thalidomide victims.

But if having someone false shit on you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, then why would an employer want to deal with someone who was publicly known for spreading those lies?  Wouldn't it stop you if you knew it'd mean you'd be out of a job and find it difficult to get another?

Good luck catching me.  And it would have no effect whatsoever on hordes of basement dwellers.

In that case I agree with Sigmatic - anonymous slander would just be filtered.  Perhaps not initially, but certainly after the Nigerian scammers started routinely blackmailing people - a small fee and we don't invent shit.  In fact any group of non-anonymous individuals who were known for such activity could be also blacklisted quite easily, and their slander filtered too.

I see.  So if I don't like someone, I simply question what they've said, and if it's not 100% +/- 0% factual, I get them thrown off the internet?

WOOOOOO!

[Captain Utopia]

Online banking was never iimmaculate.

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6652

Those particular flaws may have been fixed, but it just goes to show that not even banks can afford perfect online security.  It just doesn't exist.

I agree, but the fact is that online banking works for the vast majority of people -- it need not be 100% completely secure for it to be a valuable resource.  If an individual hack is detected, then that vote will be switched.  If a widespread hack has actually made a difference and changed the outcome of a vote then that will be repealed.

But there's very little motivation for such activity - there would be more money to be made hacking banks.

Ah, so your argument is to put more security and controls on regular internet behavior?

No, I don't think that is necessary.  I don't see why anything more than a username and password would be required to access the service.

[Captain Utopia]

In that case I agree with Sigmatic - anonymous slander would just be filtered.  Perhaps not initially, but certainly after the Nigerian scammers started routinely blackmailing people - a small fee and we don't invent shit.  In fact any group of non-anonymous individuals who were known for such activity could be also blacklisted quite easily, and their slander filtered too.

I see.  So if I don't like someone, I simply question what they've said, and if it's not 100% +/- 0% factual, I get them thrown off the internet?

WOOOOOO!

Not thrown off the internet, simply they would no longer be considered an authoritative source when it comes to dirt on someone else.