Rodoy or Sodoy?
Your choice if you read the article. Where was the sub on this one? Sounds like they may have been at the Vulture Central lunch local.
Imagine fighting a big UK company for years for the simple right to campaign fairly online against an under-regulated industry. You go on to win a dispute resolution case probed by Nominet to keep your perfectly legitimate gripe website alive. You also successfully defend yourself against the firm's strong-armed appeals. Then …
FB: "When we receive a proper claim of intellectual property rights infringement, we promptly remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing content."
Dear Facebook,
Please take down Facebook, immediately, while my case winds its way through the courts.
Thanks.
"I do make a point of showing the ads and clicking on some of them from time to time,"
Well yes. I used to consciously permit ads too, till some of the ads got so intrusive that blocking was the best way of restoring some usability to the site. My mouse skills leave a little to be desired, so when a mistaken click in a border area fills the screen with an unwanted fullscreen animated advert, what am I supposed to do?
I'll turn the blocker off every now and again; if things have improved I might leave it off.
I still have a rejected comment submission on my profile on here because it happened to diss a famous recruitment agency that was pushing sponsorship The Reg's way.
I was most miffed at that. I thought The Reg was better than to censor comments in such a fashion.
@RegGuy1
Euro competition? What, someone does your job better or cheaper than you? Shocking. Where is it okay for that competition to come from? A local student from down the road? She might be the next one to try and under-cut you. Or is it the prospect of competition full stop that you're against?
Its just that in my humble experience, if you're decent, you can get a job. For sure maybe that easy-street job from ten years ago isn't so plentiful, but be patient - a time of plenty will soon be here again.
I still have a rejected comment submission on my profile on here because it happened to diss a famous recruitment agency that was pushing sponsorship The Reg's way.
I was most miffed at that. I thought The Reg was better than to censor comments in such a fashion.
Better at what? The Reg is here to make a profit, just like the websites I run myself. What, exactly, did you expect? Do you want The Reg to sacrifice their money so you can rant for free? If someone disses one of my advertisers, I'm going to take action, too. Anyone paying me is showing loyalty to my hard work. I want to reward that.
I understand your position and your need for justice, but - at the end of the day in the real world, these websites - The Reg, Facebook, Twitter, etc. - are out there to make a profit. That keeps the lights on and feeds my family. You and your opinions are not more important than my family. For-profit businesses are not the outlet of social justice you're looking for. I know this doesn't sound "right", but it is the way it is.
I say this gently - if you still want social justice, do it with your own money. Don't demand that others spend theirs to pay for your opinions.
>> Do you want The Reg to sacrifice their money so you can rant for free?
Any why would one person posting a comment cause the Reg to lose their money...
Reg is known as an IT website with an certain style and to be non-conformist. Censoring comments because they offend some advertisers, word will get round. They lose their following, they go bust.
Important point. Yes they are out there to make a profit, but they make that profit from us and as a result we are not powerless, we may be the product but piss off enough of us and we go. Then they are productless and let's see how long they last then.
So if it happens and it's important, get the message across. Enough bad publicity and the tables will turn.
>> if you still want social justice, do it with your own money
Possibly the most stupid thing I've read today and I was on FSTDT earlier.
I have looked at this rejected comment which dates back to August 2013. I am fairly sure the recruitment site was not a customer of ours at that time - although it had been previously for some years.
Personally, I would have accepted your post - but our moderators are particularly vigilant when it comes to potential libel - and sometimes we err on the side of caution. This is understandable as we are responsible under UK law for everything that is published on our site and we do not have resources to check claims made in posts.
If you post on someone else's site, they can take it down at their discretion. Internet forums and social networks are the "Wild West", if a grumpy moderator doesn't like you then tough.
Of course if you are making part of your living through a page on FB it gets murky. Has nobody sued FB for this yet, and at least made it to court?
"if a grumpy moderator doesn't like you then tough."
Under US law in particular, once a moderator gets involved the company is liable for what it misses (Cubby vs Compuserve, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. ) - although there's a safe harbour provision written into the 1996 CDA
It's becoming _extremely_ common to have gripe pages taken down by making bogus "copyright infringement" claims. At some point there's going to be a reckoning - making a false DMCA complaint is a criminal offence but for some reason noone's ever been prosecuted for it.(*)
(*) DMCA complaints are the way these are usually taken down, even if all parties involved are outside the USA. There's a legislated dispute procedure but Facebook and Google don't bother with them.
I disagree. If you open a bake shop and refuse to serve people with brown skin then you (rightly) get trouble from the authorities. Why should it be any different on the net when someone opens a social website that allows anyone to walk in? I can see taking down obvious unlawful or defamatory stuff, but that's not what is being discussed here.
"If you open a bake shop and refuse to serve people with brown skin then you (rightly) get trouble from the authorities."
Only if you specifically don't serve them because of colour, creed or sexual preference [and - cynically - are stupid enough to say so]. That's a prejudice issue, not retail law. Shop owners can refuse service to anyone they like and kick people freely out of their shop. Their shop: their rules. They are not obliged to serve us and a sale is a two-way voluntary contract. I have a friend who owns a shop who has said on numerous occasions that not one person who has said "I know my rights" ever really has. We have a very misplaced sense of entitlement as customers.
"Why should it be any different on the net when someone opens a social website that allows anyone to walk in? "
As fair-minded as I am, I don't believe that any site or shop should be forcefully obliged to serve anyone, or continue serving them if they don't want to. That said, in this case it looks like FB have indeed been unfair in their decision-making. I support their right to make that decision, but not their process.
She is not "making a living", just raising awareness of the unregulated methods that are allowed in the UK. I have spoken with Sasha and it's clear that she is on a crusade to prevent others suffering as she has. Anyone who is considering laser eye surgery should be given an accurate evaluation of the chances of the procedure failing - which any procedure can. However the companies fudge over these numbers and require you to sign away your rights.
It is free to use Facebook.
Therefore, the users of Facebook aren't customers.
If they are not customers, what are they?
Bystanders? Not likely.
Freeloaders? Doubtful, it wouldn't be tolerated for long.
Partners? What a whimsical thought.
The users of Facebook are, in fact, products. They are Facebook's product. As in: "What can we offer you? We can enable you to reach out to 1.2 billion consumers" or "We can offer you lists drawn from our database of 1.2 billion consumers, with extensive consumer / behaviour profiles and other data".
It is the people who 'reach out' to these consumers who are the customers of Facebook.
Certainly don't host your content on them.
Host it somewhere else under your control and link it in, then you never lose anything but exposure.
All the companies I know that do social networking post to one place that is sucked in via RSS to all their Facebook, Twitter, etc. and usually just links with shortlink to their "official" website.
That way you can be "removed" but not silenced.
"That way you can be "removed" but not silenced."
Given she has a web-site and I quote
"comments posted on Rodoy's website opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk"
I think she's already followed that path, it's just that fleecebook and twatter I guess have more prominence in the public's unconsciousness.
@JDX: Agree 100%
Social networking sites give the false impression that everyone with an IP address is your trusted friend and have tricked humanity into thinking that sitting in front of a computer, unkempt and in your underwear is the same as going out and interacting with people face to face.
"These corps are nothing more than privacy slurping, web parasites, arrogant and prepared to ignore morality and law in pursuit of profit."
As opposed to those 'good corps.' who aren't greedy immoral b4stards like big pharma, BAe, Boeing, Walmart, Microsoft, Google and Apple?
Q: I ask again that you provide details of my alleged IP infringement and name of complainant...
A: ... you may want to contact the complaining party to discuss this matter further...
You may indeed but can't until FB fesses up to who it was! FB seems to have rather deliberately missed the point there.
I liked the bit where Facebook said they are "not in a position to resolve a dispute", they know most people cant, or wont, bother getting legal on them, so its a clever fob off.
Perhaps Facebook are under the impression that as part of any take down, the claimant also tells the other party that they have made the request.
You hopefully have a doctor who has your best interests at heart (very rare these days) and will advise on all the risks and whether you are a good candidate for this surgery.
That said, my uncle who lives here in the US has been wearing contacts/glasses since he was a teen. He went for an evaluation and was given the green light. 24 months later he complains of constant discomfort in both eyes and has to use eye drops on a regular basis for his dry eye conditions. He tells me he has close to 20/20 vision but not as good as he had when he wore glasses. He went from being dependent on eyeglasses to being dependent on eye drops. Furthermore, this is considered elective surgery so no insurance here in the US will cover this. He regrets the decision but as it is irreversible he will have to deal with it or have more corrective surgery. He declines of course. He considers himself fortunate after reading some of the other eye surgery disasters.
At one point I too was considering this surgery but I think I will stick to my contacts/eyeglasses. My vanity will have to suck it.
Egg-Aactly! I had some minor procedure done on my eyes some 10 years ago and the surgeon suggested that I could get my vision corrected with a LASIK procedure.
Of course I laughed, the guy asked why, I point to his glasses - and he goes "Oh, yes, but ...".
I still checked the brochure, but then I found in the "terms & conditions" that they would not guarantee that I would get rid of my glasses after the operation. Dodgy - do not want!
"Where there is money involved, and it's elective, where is the incentive for the doctor to have your interests at heart above his/her own interests, namely bank balance?"
Exactly why private medicine should be illegal in any civilized country. Medial staff should be paid a salary with absolutely no options for bonuses. It should be a good salary, mind you.
I used to use some eye drops for a period of about 12 months afterwards after which it was no longer needed (the eye drops are similar to/the same as contact lens solution anyway, so its not much of a hardship). Because my correction was about the maximum of which they were capable of at the time (-9.75, -10.50) I expected some issues, but the advantages of not having to wear two substantial lumps of glass on my nose are substantial, and the cost of the operation has repaid itself many times over in the saved cost of glasses/contact lenses.
Eye surgery does not work out for everyone, but personally I think the small chance of something going wrong is worth taking for the benefit of 15-20 years without need for glasses.
"Eye surgery does not work out for everyone, but personally I think the small chance of something going wrong is worth taking for the benefit of 15-20 years without need for glasses."
I only know two opticians.
Both wear glasses.
Neither are planning on getting laser surgery until it 'gets better'.
That rather makes my mind up on the matter.