What are /r/netcult's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

I don't really care about the objectification of women. We objectify all kinds of people all the time. Women are beautiful, and sexy, and visually fascinating. There is no reason to deny that, and it can be appreciated without knowing if they are also math geniuses or CEOs. And without making them the object of your violence or lack of respect.

And unlike this whole thing I don't think feminism should be about policing men's or women's actions, or about saying what people shouldn't say or do. (Dongle. Heh.)

What I do think is that your assumptions about the way the world works shouldn't make it automatically harder for any woman to do whatever the hell she wants to do. You think women aren't X (bright, adventurous, serious, crude, a hell of a lot like any other human), then fuck you. You think I shouldn't have a C-level job because I don't look like the other CEOs in our industry? See previous response.

And the real issue isn't the people who are jerks about this--assholes happen. It's the men that shrug it off or form a thin baby blue line around asshole behavior. And it's the small stuff, because that small stuff still adds up to lower wages, less power, and fewer opportunities all because I'm marked by an extra X chromosome. Fuck that too.

I thing commons based production are a thing but I also believe things like Wikipedia are a temporary blip. What I mean by that is I think commons based production the idea and how it can be seen going forward is a thing, however I think it consists of temporary ideas within it. To put it in perspective, think of clothes, clothes will always be around however the styles change in and out. I look at Wikipedia as a style much like most online platforms that will be swapped out for something better in the future. Think Myspace 15 years ago and now it is Twitter and Facebook.

Public policy is an interesting thing because when it comes to copyright and public policies especially when considering Wikipedia, the honor code is such a big thing. Companies do not want to and really do not have the time to search the web for copyright infringements and things of that nature nor do they want a big lawsuit. The public policy should be to be honest and have pride in the things you do online and act like everything has a consequence.

Reading the optional link above I found the section on Slashdot to be very informative as it talks about how it differs from Wikipedia but still shares common cores. Peer production projects online are all very trust based and one thing I have learned about and one thing everyone in this class should look into is upwork.com it is a website where engineers, architectures, basically anyone can find various jobs that range in size and length and is a platform to be creative and do basically everything this unit is talking about.

I think this copyright law is pretty awesome and makes a lot of sense- it’s useful for the public and also for companies to create works of art based on historically relevant media. This is the first post on this subject I’m commenting on this week so I don’t know if this has been brought up yet, but I think https://www.gutenberg.org this site is super cool to browse through expired copyright works. It’s awesome that in 2020 we can go online and find stuff from 1920 without having to spend time digging through a physical library.

I think it’s really important people have access to the unaltered historical past, in order to have a honest democracy. Whether people engage with or how they engage with these things is another matter, but the accessibility is key. I think this copyright law and online repositories for historical works is a great exposition in the power of law to allow the public to innovate and create meaningful structures to preserve this crucial factor of freedom of speech, and thought. Without access to knowledge, freedom of speech is null.

I found this that details the glitch and includes a tweet of google acknowledging it. I don't personally expect google to be perfect, because as you said, they're just a company. The site I linked goes into detail about how they're unable to tell whether the glitch was something that could be tracked (happened to many sites that were similar) or was a random bug. It also explains that big sites like Amazon were also effected by the bug.

I'll be brutally honest: I think it's a bit Quixotic. There are literally a million people out there trying to make a viral video. In some ways it's like having the project "I want to become famous." Actually, it might be identical.

I would feel a bit better about it if I knew the "why." Is it any random viral video? Are you trying to put some particular message out there?

And then, what will be your approach? I guess one approach would be to study the videos that have gone viral and replicate the common elements? Or you could coat-tail in by identifying videos at an early stage of virality and do your own version of them...

Or perhaps it isn't the content that makes something viral at all? This Techcrunch article got a lot of push-back, but it seems clear that at least some astroturfing is at the root of a lot of viral videos.

So, I guess what I am saying is that viral videos are a worthwhile topic. Getting a video to go viral is not an unreasonable way of doing "action research" on the topic. But given the high likelihood of failure (depending on how you define viral success), I want you to have something worthwhile to say even if none of your probes go big.

There are some really good systems for encrypting your data locally, and I would encourage their use. Some of this depends on platform. Now, to be honest, I don't do whole-drive encryption, because of latency, but my "documents" of various sorts do get encrypted. I use dropbox, as well, but have an encrypted folder within.

Actually, in terms of security, the first step for those not already doing so is to get a LastPass account. ASU actually struck a deal to offer students Premium lastpass accounts. Throw randomized 16 character passwords on everything and never worry about the annoying habit of companies storing their password files in plaintext and having them hacked.

The problem with encrypting coms is a bit harder, because you have to have equally paranoid friends. I do--it's the nature of my work--so many of them already use encryption for communicating. The easiest entre here is using Signal and Hushmail. Both still require trust. They are end-to-end encrypted, but Facebook says messenger is too. I frankly don't trust Facebook in this. People who are much more security-minded than I am place their trust in Signal and Hushmail (also Proton mail).

The most extreme end of this is to roll your own. In previous iterations of this course I actually gave points to people who sent me a PGP encrypted email, but the systems are so user-unfriendly that it really tripped a lot of people up...

At this point, you have probably gathered that I have a soft spot for manifestos. My suspicion is that most of you don't really ever think about crypto. The exception is those of you who have served in the military or with the government in other capacities, and journalists, and perhaps some of you who have worked in other areas (finance, health, education, etc.).

Under what conditions would you be convinced it makes sense to encrypt your coms? I would say "if you knew that the US and other governments are monitoring you" but at this point, it's really hard not to know that? So is there anything that would push you over the line and say "I might need to download and use signal on the regular."

>I was recently talking with a family member who told me that they frequently click on random articles and advertisements to “throw them off”, which at first I thought was a bit silly.

There's an extension that does that for you! It's a valid way of corrupting whatever advertising vector your tracker has on you.

https://adnauseam.io/

This article left me quite curious about the first - seventh most visited sites in the world. According to this link, Wikipedia is the seventh most visited, and only 3/10 most visited are porn.

Part of my problem with the P2P proposal was the problem with money, people simply doing all their work as volunteers. I enjoyed this article a lot because it views wikipedia editing as a hobby, and as something people do for fun. That is much more appealing than what I was imagining, which was people working full-time as a volunteer [which some people might, I'm not sure], for no payment. Some people can afford to spend their time like that, and others cannot. I was pleased to learn that not only do people sometimes view editing wikipedia as a fun pass time, a hobby, but also that there is a community surrounding wikipedia editing that was previously unbeknownst to me! How neat.

The other thing I really appreciated was how this article discusses enthusiasts and their contributions to wikipedia. Knowledge and education have the potential to be rather elitists areas, but this articles acknowledges that enthusiasts and specialists as different, validating both perspectives. I think specialists are probably viewed as more rational toward their subjects, and thus their knowledge is validated more easily. Enthusiasts, however, tend to be emotionally invested in whatever their topic of choice is, as they are viewed as accumulating their knowledge for fun. This is the perspective I'm assuming to be widespread. I appreciate this article, and Wikipedia's, acceptance of enthusiasts as a different perspective.

Before listening to the lecture or reading the article provided, my mind automatically went to the algorithms that Instagram uses on their home and explore pages. Before their new algorithms, the home page was simply based on who posted most recently, so there was no advantage or disadvantages among the users when posting. Their new algorithms take into account different aspects of the user posting, how many followers they have, what type of content they are posting, if your post regularly get sent around through DM's, etc.. https://later.com/blog/instagram-algorithm/ . When you have a site like Instagram that has the ability to sway people opinions and have an impact on what people think, it can lead to corruption very easily. Then having an algorithm that says it can choose how many people see your post based on the posts content... they can be scary. What if I want to post about something that Instagram disagrees with and they put my posts wayyy down on the home page so that no one will see it... and then they can put at the top of the home page stuff that pushes their agenda the best. Just seems like a very easy way to create corruption on social media to me.