SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the your-photos-are-still-your-photos dept.
A Paris court on Thursday ordered Twitter to change its smallprint, according to a consumer group which accused the tech giant of having "abusive" clauses in its terms and conditions.
UFC-Que Choisir claimed victory in its case against the US social media platform, saying "the conviction has a gigantic scope for the protection of users' personal data". The consumer association had called on the high court "to recognise the abusive or illegal nature" of 256 clauses contained in Twitter's terms and conditions that it said breached users' privacy.
In particular, UFC-Que Choisir said the court's decision guarantees Twitter users that their photos and tweets can no longer be "commercially exploited" if they have not given their consent. "By ticking a small box to accept the terms of service, the consumer has not expressly accepted their data can be exploited," the group said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 11 2018, @10:11PM (15 children)
In June, janrinok wrote [soylentnews.org]:
I notice a pause in janrinok's comments [soylentnews.org], with no comments posted between June 28 and July 22. Coincident with that is a gap in accepted Arthur T Knackerbracket submissions [soylentnews.org] between June 25 and July 21. It looks to me as though janrinok is the only user of the Arthur T Knackerbracket account. When he was inactive for about a month, so was it.
A submission made in May [soylentnews.org] from janrinok's account, using the Arthur T Knackerbracket software, was edited to remove the credit to janrinok [soylentnews.org] and instead credit Arthur T Knackerbracket. If janrinok would always use the Arthur T Knackerbracket software with his main account rather than with the Arthur T Knackerbracket account, as he did on that occasion, the fact that he selected the stories would be more obvious.
The comment by janrinok seem to be designed to leave the impression that the bot can select stories on its own. If the bot has that capability, why did it go silent for a month? I think the selection of stories to submit is done by the person running the bot, and as I said I think it's only janrinok using the Arthur T Knackerbracket account. If that's what's happening, then he chose this story, submitted it via the Arthur T Knackerbracket account, and approved it for posting. To say under those circumstances "the story is collected by a bot - it is not me submitting the stories" is akin to me saying it is not me submitting this comment--it is my browser.
For this story, who was the second editor? Is the bot deemed an editor for that purpose? I looked at the IRC logs [sylnt.us] for several days, although not for today because the log hasn't been uploaded yet. In that channel, janrinok participates sparingly under the handle "janrinok." [sylnt.us] Am I wrong in assuming that the co-ordination among editors, such as arranging for a second editor to look at a story, is done there? I don't see anything logged about yesterday's "NSA's Encryption Algorithm in Linux Kernel is Creating Unease in the Community" that was posted by janrinok. I like the idea of having two editors look at each story. A person can offer independent thoughts about whether a story is suitable or not. The bot merely scrapes text from other sites.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday August 11 2018, @10:31PM (2 children)
Signoffs (2/2)
janrinok 08-11 13:10:05 saved
Fnord666 08-11 14:45:49 updated
Only 1 signoff (i.e. saving the story) is required to get it onto the front page. 2 signoffs is what we shoot for as a minimum. It's a guideline. All of today's stories currently have that except for the JPEG Blockchain one.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @01:05AM (1 child)
Thank you for the information and explanation. Is there a guideline discouraging editors from posting the stories they themselves have submitted? Apart from the stories submitted through the Arthur T Knackerbracket account, I notice that stories submitted by an editor are almost always posted by a different editor. It appears that way, at any rate. When someone submits a story, then two different editors look at it, it’s been seen by three people before it’s posted. That is a mark of quality. When an editor submits a story through an alternate account, then that same editor approves it, then a second editor signs off, the story has only been seen by two people. The quality might suffer. It would be nice if the readers could see more readily whether a summary has been received the attentions of one, two or three people.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 20 2018, @01:44AM
Editors are definitely encouraged not to post their own submissions. The usual exception is Breaking News stories which ought to go out as fast as possible to be relevant and end up getting edited to add new info.
I'm not sure how Knackerbracket works. I think it passively collects stories from RSS feeds or IRC and then someone "releases the floodgates" to throw a few of them in to the sub list. janrinok or bytram could probably tell you more. Plenty of the Knackerbracket subs are dumb or dupes, but we usually get rid of them.
Editors can typically figure out what constitutes a good story (at least in our opinion). We've seen it all (t h o u s a n d s of subs), and we know what's liked, hated, controversial, etc. I'd say quality suffers when we're lazy, tired, or the sub list runs low (or low + full of political crap).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @12:05AM (8 children)
Meta this. If you want to submit stories, then submit stories. If you want to be an editor, then volunteer. If you think you can do better, start your own site. And if you just want to bitch and moan, and spend the time writing your complaint rather than doing something constructive, then have at it.
"I want change, but I don't want to have to do anything myself" is a popular credo amongst who deserve neither.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @02:34AM (3 children)
Ah yes. "Those who would give up essential change, to purchase a little doing things themselves, deserve neither change nor doing things themselves."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @08:47AM (2 children)
Um, no. If you want change, but are unwilling to do anything about it, then what you really want is other people to change so you don't have to.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday August 13 2018, @02:25AM
Yup. That's what I want all right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @11:55PM
Criticism, of course, can be constructive or non-constructive. I think I've been constructive in my criticism. Why do you disagree? I am asking for change, but I don’t think I’m asking for anything burdensome. The bot can be run from an editor's normal account, instead of from the “Arthur” account. I linked to an example of janrinok doing so. I think that doing so would involve little or no additional effort. It's not something I can do myself, because I'm not an editor. Even if I were an editor, I could only do it for my own submissions and hope to influence the other editors to do the same. It looks to me as though janrinok is the main or sole user of the bot account, although he said the other editors can do so. So in actuality, the other editors are already behaving as I would behave, if I took your advice, was appointed as an editor, and stopped “bitching and moaning.” They haven’t influenced him in the direction that I seek to influence him. I made a few comments and you sought to influence me to behave differently. The difference is that I’m not the editor-in-chief. His actions have a very substantial effect on the site. For example, yesterday [soylentnews.org] he approved six stories for the main page, including two stories credited to “Arthur T Knackerbracket”; there were a total of five stories credited to “Arthur T Knackerbracket” that day. You want me to behave differently, yet you chide me for asking him to behave differently. You didn’t address the validity, or lack thereof, of my comment. Instead, you implied that it should be disregarded because it comes from someone who doesn’t participate in the ways you prescribe. Your reply is an attack, not a rebuttal.
And yes, I could create my own site. However, this site has a community. I feel that asking questions and making suggestions is a valid form of participation in that community. I sense that you disagree. Can you explain why?
The managers of the site can heed or disregard my comments as they wish. Making suggestions toward a better site is doing something. Perhaps it's not as much as you'd like, or perhaps it's more than you want. However, you aren't the only member of the community.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @05:36AM (3 children)
Do we have a meta channel?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 12 2018, @10:55AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @01:26PM (1 child)
Yes
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 12 2018, @05:31PM
When drafting a story you can always select 'Meta' instead of the 'Main Page', or you can email any member of the staff at our usual SN addresses.
Alternatively, for registered members, you can post to your journal and then let us know that you would like us to view your posting. That way we can have a multi-way conversation about whatever it is that is causing you some concern.
We all have busy lives and we don't spend as much time on IRC as we used to. The main reason that this is the case for the editorial team is that all of the current team members are experienced and there isn't quite the same need for constant discussion. We know how to action the majority of problems that we see. However, we do have both public and private channels on IRC that we can use when necessary.
Nevertheless, as you seem to be having some problem with the ATK account and its usage, I can perhaps explain a little more about it here. Firstly, as I have already pointed out the account is available to all editors and it enables the easy submitting of stories to the submission queue. While this isn't entirely automatic - Arthur cannot tell a good story from a bad one - it is still very convenient. All Arthur does to a URL is extract all of the text from the page, and running Arthur means that it checks all the feeds that we monitor for new material. The text that Arthur produces still has to be edited by 2 editors to meet the full requirements of our site. Some of the alternative methods of submitting a story only provide us with a URL which means that the editor has considerably more work to do than would normally be the case for a well written submission. So it is also possible to use Arthur to automate the text extraction rather than have to cut and paste from a web page. Arthur also does a reasonable job of cleaning up embedded links, it removes javascript and tracking data, and it removes advertising and other unwanted material from the page being processed. It is a convenient tool but it does not change the fact that it only provides another submission which enters the submission queue and is subsequently treated like any other submission from any other source. I don't see that it is any better or worse than having stories submitted by 'SoyCows', or by 'MrPlow' or 'Exec' on IRC.
The main advantage of Arthur's material is that, in common with submissions by the likes of Takyon and many others, it is on topic and meet the requirements for the type of stories that this sites is looking for. However, Arthur does not provide a well written and researched submission unlike the majority of submissions that we receive from our regular contributors.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 12 2018, @05:02AM (2 children)
The account allows stories to be submitted using the API, which considerably reduces the workload of making a significant number of submissions. It is available for use by any editor. It is up to them to decide whether to use that method or another one. Arthur is also the name of the bot: if you go back and look at the period you are discussing, you will notice that quite a few stories have the phrase 'Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story....' That is because they have been processed using the bot. However, as you correctly pointed out there were no submissions by me - I was in hospital. Now you can see that I am not the only one using Arthur, Furthermore, is also part of the 'Exec' submission process used on IRC.
Secondly, if you look back over this weekend you will see that several stories have been processed and released by other editors even though they have the 'Arthur' phrase in them. The submissions are put into the queue just like any other. They do not have any special privileges regarding selection. The reason that we have to use Arthur is that we often have a lot of stories in the submission queue that are simply not going to be published. They are poorly written, or repeat themes that we have already covered, or are simply 'off topic' for this site. We have to keep publishing stories to keep the site active and when the community fails to submit them we have to go and find them ourselves.
You will also note that there are several other submitters who get most of their submissions printed - they produce good quality submissions which are interesting and well researched. That is how to get your submission published - not to submit more stories about American politics which will result in the same old finger pointing and accusations and provide nothing of value to the community whatsoever. There are other sites for that material.
Arthur would not be necessary if, rather than complaining about how we find stories, you sat down a made 1 good quality submission a day to help us out. Nah, not going to happen. bitching anonymously is much easier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @10:49PM (1 child)
Thank you for replying to my comment. I did indeed try to engage you in the easiest possible way, and perhaps an e-mail or an “Ask SoylentNews” submission would have been more appropriate.
In the instance of the stories submitted via IRC, the submitter’s IRC nickname is credited for submitting the story. For example, one story [soylentnews.org] now on the front page is credited as “Submitted via IRC for Fnord666.” (Because I joined the IRC chat I understand that the default nicknames begin with “SoyCow,” something that a casual reader wouldn’t know. If the default nicknames began with “default” it would be more descriptive.)
When a story is submitted via the Arthur T Knackerbracket account, there’s no indication of who submitted it, not even the fact that it’s operated by an editor. The account has a blank profile [soylentnews.org], by which I mean the biographical section is blank. Why not fill it out with something like “bot account used by the editors”?
You remarked severely on the fact that I’m commenting anonymously. I do value anonymity and I’m grateful that your site allows it. Stories submitted via the Arthur T Knackerbracket account are, as far as the public can see, submitted anonymously. In your comments, you’ve disclosed that the account is available to the editors. However, the use of the account disguises the identity of the submitter. Is that intentional? I wrote about one occasion when you ran the storybot software from your janrinok account, hence not anonymously. If you and the other editors (if any) who use the storybot software would do that consistently, that would fully address my main concern: readers would be able to see which editor submitted each story. Because you did this before, I assume there is no technical obstacle to doing so. I also assume that doing so would involve little or no additional effort.
If the purpose of the account is anonymity, it would be a service to the readers if the stories were to clearly indicate that they were submitted by an anonymous editor, much as my comments here say prominently “by Anonymous Coward.” You’ve stated publicly in your comments that the account is available to the editors. On each story that’s posted from the shared account, I’d like to see something like “An anonymous editor found the following story:” where you now say “Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:”. You could achieve that simply by creating and using an account with the pseudonym “An anonymous editor.” The current account name is cute but uninformative. A less prominent, and therefore less desirable, place would be in the header generated by the bot. The way it’s being done now is opaque to readers, at least to those who haven’t read this thread or the previous one. A visitor who sees “Arthur T Knackerbracket” is likely to assume it’s one person’s pseudonym, or even someone’s real name. If you’ll forgive me for telling you how to do your job, it’s my opinion that a major goal of an editor-in-chief ought to be to minimize readers’ confusion.
I’ve made suggestions; I intend them to be helpful. I didn’t suggest that you stop using the storybot software. The “Arthur” account does appear to be unnecessary and one of my suggestions was that you discontinue using it, instead posting from your main account. If you choose to adopt any of my suggestions, readers will readily see that numerous stories are being submitted by the editors. Whether that would encourage some other readers to submit stories, or the opposite, I don’t know. I feel that opacity is not a good look. I don’t begrudge you or the other editors the option of submitting stories anonymously. I’m asking that you inform your audience when you do so.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 20 2018, @01:17AM
Not necessarily. The software is in use on IRC - where some of the submissions receive the 'story collected by Arthur....', it is used by some editors, and it is available for use by quite a few of our regular submitters. I've made sure that the header identifies that the story is collected by and not 'submitted by'. All the bot does is strip out the story from the rest of the HTML in which it is embedded. And it can, but doesn't have to, automatically submit the story via the Arthur T Knackerbracket account. This is necessary because AC accounts have an enforced time limit on the submission of stories to protect the site from flooding attacks. For the software to function it is preferable to have an account because a) it does not suffer from the imposed time limits - it is a 'named' account, and b) it is immediately obvious to editors that it has to be processed in a certain way because the content cannot be identified as being a good or a bad story. The bot cannot differentiate between the two as it has no understanding of the story content. The bot returns all the story material, it requires extensive manual editing to make it suitable for release. The material might have been viewed by someone prior to submission but it might have been operated in fully automatic mode wherein the collection and submission are entirely automatic.
Normally, Arthur can find and process between 200 and 500 stories per day. It is fed directly from the RSS feeds that we maintain on IRC, and which are available to anyone if they want to submit a story. I believe that no-one actually operates the software in fully automatic mode with no human intervention because that would flood the submission queue with each of those stories i.e. all submissions are viewed by someone to remove material that is obviously unsuitable for our site.
Not all of the methods by which stories can be submitted from IRC identify the submitter. You have correctly identified one that does, but there are others that do not. As Arthur is also used by some other bots, some of which are still under development, and can be invoked in software by new bots that are being written now or in the future, it is impossible to say how they might operate.
Arthur uses an API that has been written by TMB, has been published on the site and is fully documented in the Wiki. Anyone can use the API to write software which interfaces directly with the submission process and software can also query data from the database so that users can submit and display data entirely by their own software if they chose to do so. Changing that API would have a major impact on the way a lot of software operates. The Wiki also contains a list of all the bots in use, their function and, in most cases, their maintainer. It is there for anyone who is interested to see. The site is being as open as it can be regarding such things, but I cannot force anyone to read the contents of the Wiki. However, having a named account is essential if you wish to avoid the anti-flooding timing restrictions. There are, or at least were (I haven't checked recently), other accounts that exist that are not single users, you just happen to have noticed one of them.
The Arthur account is NOT intended to be a 'single user' account. Changing it could have an knock-on affect on how other people's software works. For example, if they receive an unexpected field from the account it might prevent their software from functioning at all. This is entirely speculative on my part, I have no idea on how Arthur is being used by others.
I welcome your comments and observations, and I am treating them in the spirit in which I believe they have been made. I will look again at how I identify material that is collected by Arthur, but that will not change software that has already been written by others or which is not updated to reflect any changes that I might make in future versions. To be honest, yours is the only discussion/comment raised by anyone on the site regarding how we collect stories when the submission queue does not contain enough quality material to keep the site operating. That does not imply that your views are unimportant; I will look at how we can improve things as I have promised above.