SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Microsoft, which purchased Skype in 2011, will soon increase its monitoring of Skype and other services. Starting May 1st they will further examine ostensibly private communicatiosn for 'offensive language' and 'inappropriate content' for the purpose of blocking. The changes are rolled out as part of a new terms of service advisory for the company's many services.
Microsoft will ban 'offensive language' and 'inappropriate content' from Skype, Xbox, Office and other services on May 1, claiming it has the right to go through your private data to 'investigate.'
From IDG's CSO : Microsoft to ban 'offensive language' from Skype, Xbox, Office and other services.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft to Ban 'Offensive Language' From Skype, Xbox, Office and Other Services
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 89 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @11:20PM (3 children)
Straw man. I did not say anyone was 'forced' to use these services. I advocate not using them.
But whether you are forced to use the service or device or not has nothing to do with whether what the companies are doing is unethical. Not respecting people's freedoms [gnu.org] is unethical. Spying on people is unethical. Digital restrictions management is unethical. This is all true whether or not using the service is mandatory.
I would also argue that there are significant negative externalities when proprietary software and monstrous surveillance engines like Facebook become popular. There comes a point where even if you refuse to use any of it, you are still affected by others using it because you will inevitably have to do business with someone who does, and then it's your data on the line. With Facebook, someone can upload a picture with you in it without your permission and then tag your name, even if you do not use the service.
Take note: This is the quality of the type of person who would defend these companies and practices. Zero intelligence whatsoever. It leaves you hoping that it is merely a troll.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 29 2018, @02:56AM (2 children)
But whether you are forced to use the service or device or not has nothing to do with whether what the companies are doing is unethical. Not respecting people's freedoms is unethical. Spying on people is unethical. Digital restrictions management is unethical. This is all true whether or not using the service is mandatory.
Only in your opinion. What's "ethical" depends on your opinion; there's no universal way to determine what is or isn't ethical. To many people (like those who live in some authoritarian countries), spying on people and not respecting their freedom IS ethical, because in their view these things are needed to maintain a stable society and strong government. To other people, digital restrictions management IS ethical, because it supposedly helps content creators get better compensated for their work.
It's all very simple: if you disagree with the values of the company that makes a service or device, and you don't like the restrictions involved in using that device or service, then don't use it.
I would also argue that there are significant negative externalities when proprietary software and monstrous surveillance engines like Facebook become popular.
Absolutely. But freedom-respecting alternatives do exist, such as Diaspora, but no one wants to use them. We've seen lately just how dangerous Facebook is, but is anyone going to change their ways? Hell no. They were able to do it in the earlier days of the internet when everyone dumped MySpace to switch to Facebook, but that just isn't happening now; the 30+ people absolutely refuse to give it up. The only way Facebook is going to die (or become the next MySpace) is for enough time to pass that their users die of old age, since the under-30 crowd doesn't seem to be so attached to it like the idiot X-ers (I'm an X-er BTW, so I have every right to bash my generation full of morons; the older Millennials are pretty stupid too).
Anyway, I agree with you: I advocate not using them. That's the best we can do now IMO.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @06:21AM (1 child)
Yes, to authoritarians, that sort of behavior is alright. But I think of the term "authoritarian" as an insult of the highest caliber to begin with, meaning that such people are mere trash to me. Clearly, that's just my opinion and many other members of this wretched species disagree.
Other than that, you're really just pointing out that different opinions exist, which is quite obvious. I will fight to have my views implemented.
I will say, however, that DRM and spying have consequences that demonstrably exist and have nothing to do with someone's opinion. All someone can do is say that they don't care about those consequences, but if they deny they exist, then they are just wrong.
And how do these alternatives stop someone from uploading a picture of me without my permission and tagging my name, thus allowing Facebook to add more facial recognition data to their database? It doesn't. Real privacy laws are needed to stop that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @06:15PM
What stops someone from posting a picture of you on a bulletin board worth your name?