If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Complex)   May the fleas of a google camels infest the armpits of your executives   (complex.com) divider line 38
    More: Asinine, fleas, camels  
•       •       •

3099 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Oct 2013 at 6:37 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-13 05:21:39 PM
Googol.
 
2013-10-13 05:51:21 PM
Ghostery smacked that redirect link wholesale.
 
2013-10-13 06:45:13 PM

BumpInTheNight: Ghostery smacked that redirect link wholesale.


Yeah, mine did too, to the tune of 26 beacons, ads, etc...

/loves Ghostery and Flashblock
 
2013-10-13 06:48:31 PM
Joke's on them. I'm unattractive.
 
2013-10-13 06:50:11 PM
i.imgur.com

When I +1 things, which is not often, it is intentionally so friends, etc., can see some product or service I like.

Up until now, they would see that only if it came up in a search result. (Right??)

Now that endorsement will come up to them if the company has bought an ad that they see. (Is that right??)

It doesn't seem as though my endorsement would show up nationwide as say testimonials in an ad for JiffyLube, although I can't quite tell from the TOS above.

Anyway, since I've had to already +1 this for it to show anywhere, it doesn't seem like quite the horror I've been reading it to be. But please, I'd like to know more about it.

(Regardless, I opted out by clicking here:  https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en )
 
2013-10-13 07:03:39 PM
southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com

should've read the terms and conditions
 
2013-10-13 07:11:49 PM
1) You can opt out.

2) I block ads.

But sure, go ahead and keep on pretending this is something to be outraged over.
 
2013-10-13 07:21:08 PM
Well as long as Google doesn't put pictures of that suicide impaired girl from Canada's welfare state(the Martitimes) in the ads. (She was raped and it was covered up by the police/politicians/prosecutors to stop the Rapists from being put in prison.)

/Heather spelled backwards is rehtaeh
//People sure love to put fake pictures on their profiles and dating sites make it worse.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/09/18/dating_website_apologiz e s_for_rehtaeh_parsonss_picture.html
 
2013-10-13 07:21:53 PM
I guess they should go ahead and make that announcement about changing their motto to "Only lawful evil"
 
2013-10-13 07:22:40 PM

RoyBatty: It doesn't seem as though my endorsement would show up nationwide as say testimonials in an ad for JiffyLube, although I can't quite tell from the TOS above.


Anyone who sees your activity can see that endorsement- which means if you post it publicly, JiffyLube can use your likeness in their ads. On one hand, "well, it's public", but on the other- there's a  huge value to JiffyLube (more to the point- there's a huge value that Google receives). Given how valuable this makes my endorsement, I don't feel that I'm being sufficiently compensated.
 
2013-10-13 07:34:45 PM

t3knomanser: RoyBatty: It doesn't seem as though my endorsement would show up nationwide as say testimonials in an ad for JiffyLube, although I can't quite tell from the TOS above.

Anyone who sees your activity can see that endorsement- which means if you post it publicly, JiffyLube can use your likeness in their ads. On one hand, "well, it's public", but on the other- there's a  huge value to JiffyLube (more to the point- there's a huge value that Google receives). Given how valuable this makes my endorsement, I don't feel that I'm being sufficiently compensated.


I agree with this:

Given how valuable this makes my endorsement, I don't feel that I'm being sufficiently compensated.

100%.

As for the rest of it, I still think their descriptions are confusing and I am not sure either you or I have it right.

I don't get the impression that Jiffy Lube will be given any sort of catalog of faces and endorsements and the ability to choose which to show.
I get the impression you will be shown Jiffy Lube ads and any endorsements of your friends they may have given, but I do think that it's ambiguous as to whether anyone would see your endorsements or my endorsements unless they know us.

I am quite willing to believe the answer is yes, because that is how Google makes money, I'm just not necessarily seeing that as what their description implies.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-13 07:41:35 PM

RoyBatty: I don't get the impression that Jiffy Lube will be given any sort of catalog of faces and endorsements and the ability to choose which to show.


Jiffy Lube won't be given a catalog. Like GMail's ads, Google will match the viewer of the ad up with users they may be connected to. It may be someone they are directly friends with, or it may be a distant node on their network. The privacy implications are mitigated by applying the existing G+ privacy mechanics to this.

That's my reading of the TOS and Google's general practice of advertising.
 
2013-10-13 07:51:13 PM
RoyBatty:(Regardless, I opted out by clicking here:  https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en )

Here is what I don't understand.  I created a Google+ account when it was new, just to try it.  Haven't touched it.  So I can get to the link to opt out of the endorsement.  My wife does NOT have a Google+ account and therefore can't seem to find ANY WAY to opt out.
Even clicking your link takes her to the "create a Google+ Account" page.

How can you opt out WITHOUT having Google +?
 
2013-10-13 07:52:27 PM

t3knomanser: RoyBatty: I don't get the impression that Jiffy Lube will be given any sort of catalog of faces and endorsements and the ability to choose which to show.

Jiffy Lube won't be given a catalog. Like GMail's ads, Google will match the viewer of the ad up with users they may be connected to. It may be someone they are directly friends with, or it may be a distant node on their network. The privacy implications are mitigated by applying the existing G+ privacy mechanics to this.

That's my reading of the TOS and Google's general practice of advertising.


Agreed. That's my take too. What isn't clear is if Google will be applying G+ Circle logic to the ads. If they are, well, I am not horrified by this, even if Google and Jiffy Lube are failing to give me my cut.  If they aren't it means it my ugly mug could once again be associated with the animal farm fleshlight way beyond my intended circle, and that would upset me.
 
2013-10-13 07:53:33 PM
Any way this can be farked with for lulz? As in, dummy accounts with offensive avatars and trollish comments, like those epic Amazon reviews but all over the internet...
 
2013-10-13 08:00:24 PM

buntz: RoyBatty:(Regardless, I opted out by clicking here:  https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en )

Here is what I don't understand.  I created a Google+ account when it was new, just to try it.  Haven't touched it.  So I can get to the link to opt out of the endorsement.  My wife does NOT have a Google+ account and therefore can't seem to find ANY WAY to opt out.
Even clicking your link takes her to the "create a Google+ Account" page.

How can you opt out WITHOUT having Google +?


If you don't have a Google+ account, you are already opted out, as this is for Google+ +1 endorsements.

i.imgur.com

If you don't have a Google+ account, you can't make those endorsements and they don't have your photograph.
 
2013-10-13 08:02:24 PM
Hmm, these have been my profile pics at times...

scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net

scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net

scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net

Consider it a warning before automating the grabbing of profile pics to commodotize in advertising.
 
2013-10-13 08:09:43 PM

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Any way this can be farked with for lulz? As in, dummy accounts with offensive avatars and trollish comments, like those epic Amazon reviews but all over the internet...


I have a feeling with new mother's penchant for using their children as their profile pic, the next Fifty Shades of Grey's promotional initiatives will be hilarious.
 
2013-10-13 08:17:14 PM
RoyBatty:

If you don't have a Google+ account, you can't make those endorsements and they don't have your photograph.

You're a good man.  Thank you!
 
2013-10-13 08:33:41 PM

buntz: RoyBatty:

If you don't have a Google+ account, you can't make those endorsements and they don't have your photograph.

You're a good man.  Thank you!


Besides, who is going to trust an advertisement "endorsed" by Weedlord Bonerhitler?
 
2013-10-13 09:08:35 PM

JudgeItoBox: 1) You can opt out.

2) I block ads.

But sure, go ahead and keep on pretending this is something to be outraged over.


A person should not have to opt out, they should have to ask permission. Changing the TOS should not be considered giving permission.
 
2013-10-13 09:43:58 PM

ReapTheChaos: JudgeItoBox: 1) You can opt out.

2) I block ads.

But sure, go ahead and keep on pretending this is something to be outraged over.

A person should not have to opt out, they should have to ask permission. Changing the TOS should not be considered giving permission.


It doesn't apply to any +1s you've given in the past.
The new TOS applies only to NEW +1s.

So you can opt out with a checkmark, or opt out by never +1 anything again.

And just to be a pest, I am curious, how do you feel about mandatory vaccination programs?

1. Parents should be able to opt their children out
2. Parents should have to opt their children in
3. There should be no opt outs at all.
 
2013-10-13 09:51:44 PM

RoyBatty: ReapTheChaos: JudgeItoBox: 1) You can opt out.

2) I block ads.

But sure, go ahead and keep on pretending this is something to be outraged over.

A person should not have to opt out, they should have to ask permission. Changing the TOS should not be considered giving permission.

It doesn't apply to any +1s you've given in the past.
The new TOS applies only to NEW +1s.

So you can opt out with a checkmark, or opt out by never +1 anything again.

And just to be a pest, I am curious, how do you feel about mandatory vaccination programs?

1. Parents should be able to opt their children out
2. Parents should have to opt their children in
3. There should be no opt outs at all.


What the fark does vaccinations have to do with this topic?
 
2013-10-13 09:57:20 PM

JudgeItoBox: 1) You can opt out.

2) I block ads.

But sure, go ahead and keep on pretending this is something to be outraged over.


I'm going to start taking cars.
People can opt out if they want.
So it's not stealing.
Also I took your identity, you didn't opt out.
 
2013-10-13 10:04:20 PM

Begoggle: JudgeItoBox: 1) You can opt out.

2) I block ads.

But sure, go ahead and keep on pretending this is something to be outraged over.

I'm going to start taking cars.
People can opt out if they want.
So it's not stealing.
Also I took your identity, you didn't opt out.


I'm going to create "NAMBLA East" and automatically include everyone. Hey, did you know we'll openly publish our membership roster on our website?

You can opt-out if you want.

/of either
 
2013-10-13 10:09:06 PM

wildcardjack: Hmm, these have been my profile pics at times...

[scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net image 228x238]

[scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net image 338x298]

[scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net image 200x200]

Consider it a warning before automating the grabbing of profile pics to commodotize in advertising.


Are you kidding? Cute animal testimonials are 1211% more effective than awkward, pasty nerd testimonials. That's like statistics 101.
 
2013-10-13 10:14:50 PM
Don't be evil past the point of maximum profit and market share
 
2013-10-13 10:15:33 PM

wildcardjack: Consider it a warning before automating the grabbing of profile pics to commodotize in advertising.


What could possibly go wrong?

www.globalpost.com
 
2013-10-13 10:25:00 PM

ReapTheChaos: RoyBatty: ReapTheChaos: JudgeItoBox: 1) You can opt out.

2) I block ads.

But sure, go ahead and keep on pretending this is something to be outraged over.

A person should not have to opt out, they should have to ask permission. Changing the TOS should not be considered giving permission.

It doesn't apply to any +1s you've given in the past.
The new TOS applies only to NEW +1s.

So you can opt out with a checkmark, or opt out by never +1 anything again.

And just to be a pest, I am curious, how do you feel about mandatory vaccination programs?

1. Parents should be able to opt their children out
2. Parents should have to opt their children in
3. There should be no opt outs at all.

What the fark does vaccinations have to do with this topic?


I apologize in advance for semi-long comparison of vaccinations and spam email follows

Well, CSB, I am for the most part pro-vaccinations, but I believe in informed consent, especially since I had a disease that is linked to vaccinations.  That is, if you want to see a real life example of a person that the CDC says was harmed by vaccines, that would be me, and I have the $100,000+ hospital bill to show it and some great pictures of me when I was in intensive care and paralyzed.  As such, the CDC tells doctors not to vaccinate me. That is, I rely on your getting a vaccination to prevent me from getting the flu. And my kids as infants got all of their vaccinations except for one which had just come on the market and had very little long term testing. But they since got that one too.

Regardless, since there is a good chance I was injured by vaccinations, I dislike mandatory opt out programs for vaccinations, and prefer opt in programs with tons of outreach.

There are some school age vaccinations that I definitely think should be opt out and that would be for the "traditional" vaccines for diseases that can kill a person in 24 hours (encephalitis) or that can injure the unborn or pregnant or that can become a pandemic quickly.

But for most flu vaccines for instance, I favor opt in programs with informed consent and tons of outreach.
Same thing for HPV, not because I don't want kids having sex, but because cervical cancer takes 20 - 30 years to develop. The vaccine is still very new in terms of long term effects and the long lag time for girls to get cervical cancer means that disease is not a risk to the community. So any mandatory HPV program (which has been lobbied for) should be an opt-in program, not an opt-out program.

Anyway spammers like to claim you can opt-out, but when anti-spam legislation comes up, most consumers want opt-in.

Porn sites, book clubs, record clubs, subscriptions, cell phone scammers, these are also people that make money off of opt out and rely on you forgetting to opt out, and so take your $19.95 each month.

So sorry for the long build up, one of the complaints about vaccinations, has been, why do so many mandatory vaccination programs rely on an opt out model that we excoriate the spammers, and subscription sites, and book clubs, and every other person that uses opt out programs? Doesn't that make vaccination programs as ethically sleazy as those programs? I think the answer is yes it does, because they rely on parents doing nothing out of ignorance or laziness.

So just to be a pest, I was wondering if you felt that Google Plus TOS should offer more consumer protection (by being an opt-in) than a vaccination program that the CDC and other doctors agree can harm people (and even kill them.)

If you think Google Plus should be opt-in, you might want to consider why vaccine programs should be opt-out.

Sorry for the long CSB, I probably shouldn't have brought it up.
 
2013-10-13 10:49:25 PM
All right, let's go ahead and get this out of the way in anticipation of the day Fark.com adopts this business model:

Music reached its creative apex with REO Speedwagon's 1980 Hi Infidelity album.
Xena: Warrior Princess is the finest television show ever aired.
All you need to know about spirituality and religion can be found in the book The Valley of the Dolls.
Pabst Blue Ribbon goes great with any meal, especially entrees with "Cheeze" in their name.
Flowers in the Attic by V.C. Andrews can tell you all you need to know about family relationships.
Muskrat Love is the finest balled ever created which explicitly endorses human/semi-aquatic rodent relationships.

Thank you, that is all.
 
rpm
2013-10-13 11:28:47 PM

RoyBatty: So sorry for the long build up, one of the complaints about vaccinations, has been, why do so many mandatory vaccination programs rely on an opt out model that we excoriate the spammers, and subscription sites, and book clubs, and every other person that uses opt out programs? Doesn't that make vaccination programs as ethically sleazy as those programs?


Public health and herd immunity, so no, it doesn't make them sleazy. It sucks that you were affected by them, but in aggregate fewer get hurt by the vaccine than do by the disease.
 
2013-10-13 11:38:30 PM

wildcardjack: Hmm, these have been my profile pics at times...

[scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net image 228x238]

[scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net image 338x298]

[scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net image 200x200]

Consider it a warning before automating the grabbing of profile pics to commodotize in advertising.


www.ansi.okstate.edu
static.pblogs.gr

This might end up being hilarious if they aren't careful with the filters.
 
2013-10-14 12:08:44 AM

RoyBatty: So sorry for the long build up, one of the complaints about vaccinations, has been, why do so many mandatory vaccination programs rely on an opt out model that we excoriate the spammers, and subscription sites, and book clubs, and every other person that uses opt out programs? Doesn't that make vaccination programs as ethically sleazy as those programs? I think the answer is yes it does, because they rely on parents doing nothing out of ignorance or laziness.


Well I have no issue with people choosing to not vaccinate their kids so long as they realize that public schools and other institutions can refuse their kids access. I know it sucks to be that 1 in 500,000 that has an adverse reaction, I have all the sympathy in the world for them, but as Mr. Spock once said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
 
2013-10-14 12:53:25 AM
I opted out, but I am more concerned over what the Facebook app wants to do to your phone when you install the app on an Android (and I'm sure on iPhone as well, even though it doesn't warn you like Android does).
img.fark.net


Why does it have to read/write my call log, or read phone contacts?

/have other screen shots, but you get the jist
 
2013-10-14 01:42:55 AM

blue_2501: wildcardjack: Hmm, these have been my profile pics at times...

[scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net image 228x238]

[scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net image 338x298]

[scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net image 200x200]

Consider it a warning before automating the grabbing of profile pics to commodotize in advertising.

[www.ansi.okstate.edu image 300x342]
[static.pblogs.gr image 685x497]

This might end up being hilarious if they aren't careful with the filters.


lh4.googleusercontent.com

This is mine
 
2013-10-14 08:39:11 AM

Grand_Theft_Audio: I opted out, but I am more concerned over what the Facebook app wants to do to your phone when you install the app on an Android (and I'm sure on iPhone as well, even though it doesn't warn you like Android does).



Why does it have to read/write my call log, or read phone contacts?

/have other screen shots, but you get the jist


So that it can find people in your contact list, who are on facebook, but not in your friends list? And it might need to write in order to let the app add contact from facebook to your phone.

/all conjecture
//permissions suck if you don't actually know what info is actually collected
 
2013-10-14 11:37:58 AM
As great as "free" is, there is always a price to be paid... and you can't really biatch about it when they want to change the terms on you.
 
2013-10-14 07:11:32 PM

Grand_Theft_Audio: I opted out, but I am more concerned over what the Facebook app wants to do to your phone when you install the app on an Android (and I'm sure on iPhone as well, even though it doesn't warn you like Android does).
[img.fark.net image 768x1280]


Why does it have to read/write my call log, or read phone contacts?

/have other screen shots, but you get the jist


What DerAppie said. You also might find this interdasting: http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/26/android-app-ops/
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report