Jump to content

The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.

Qwalyphi Korpov

By Qwalyphi Korpov,
in General Discussion Forum

 Share
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4593 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Petronilla Whitfield

Petronilla Whitfield

Posted
Posted

When you wrote "I go by the adage..." following a phrase about old-fashioned manners, were you implying that those who practice old-fashioned manners wait for the person who started an interaction to finish it?  If so, I'm not saying you're wrong, but only that I've never heard anyone express that idea before.  I was unaware that any etiquette existed regarding who should end an interaction between equals.  I was taught that a superior (say, one's employer) should be allowed to indicate when an interaction was over, regardless of who initiated it.  I had no idea that anyone would think I was unmannerly for ending an interaction with an equal that I had not initiated.  (I'm American, BTW, raised by British parents, and am around the mid-century mark.)

 

(Edited for spelling.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Perrie Juran

Perrie Juran

Posted
Posted

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

Perrie Juran wrote:

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

PudgyPaddy wrote:

Ok, I am going out on a limb with this, but I will say the egg.  

Hey PudgyPaddy.  Thanks for staying on-topic.

..... hey, wait a minute.   Which one is the egg?

You never told us if the egg was fertile.

um.... had you not heard that
privacy
is on the rise.  u can't ask dat question.

LOL... trick question cuz u don't get chickens unless the egg is fertile.  (unless ur using some cloning techniques)

edited - cuz I realized it was a trick question.

Can I ask if you know who the Father is? 

Which then raises the issue, where did the Father come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Perrie Juran

Perrie Juran

Posted
Posted

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

LOL, dats sum funny stuf.

I don't know when eggszactly but somewhere along the way the chicken crossed the road and this thread got off track.

It's about the evolution of privacy or lack there of.

(& or the creation/destruction of privacy)

because they had no privacy in the caves

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MoiselleErin Teardrop

MoiselleErin Teardrop

Posted
Posted

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

Not knowing the history on this

I'm wondering

What came first

The option - Only friends and groups know I'm online

Or the ability to work around the option

Was it originally intended to be a viable option

Or always intended to be an in-effective half measure

Or did that come later

If you want a laugh, imagine jesse jackson saying the above.

It was not the chicken or the egg that came first. You see, the egg DID come before the chicken but what kept the egg alive? An incubator did! So now we know, the incubator came first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Qie Niangao

Qie Niangao

Posted
Posted

At the risk of intruding on a perfectly good thread...

It really bugs me that we refer to this thing about hiding our avatars as a "privacy" issue.  I'm not against being able to hide, and most social networking systems have that option; I just don't think it has anything to do with "privacy."

It's just not in the same universe as privacy concerns with Facebook, for example, or Google.  The ability to detect that an avatar is online is about as much a privacy violation as teleporting an avatar home is homocide.

Whether it's real or virtual privacy, however, I've been thinking lately about the ethics of monetizing privacy.  Right now, for example, there's much fuss about tracking cookies, which might violate a kind of internet "privacy" but has real commercial value.  Without such cookies, some services simply could not be offered for free.

For now, we're offered the choice: pay for the service with our privacy, or don't get access to the service at all.  But what if there were another option where we could choose to pay real money to the provider in exchange for the service without compromising our privacy?  A "freemium" model, then, that lets us pay not just to get rid of ads, but to keep our information away from those who would otherwise pay to collect it.

Would that raise ethics eyebrows?  Should it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eileen Fellstein

Eileen Fellstein

Posted
Posted

sadly, the only way you will get true privacy here is get in your car, drive at least 100 miles away, get on an entirely differnt machine and make a new account and new avatar and never breathe a word about it to anyone else on the grid, even the person you think is your dearest friend. From there, don't friend anyone, don't join any groups, don't go to any businesses and don't listen to inworld music or have any media going at any time.

Anything less, someone has ahold of your IP and has already begun to data mine you.

 

Yea, they really need to fix that. They can start by including a 'do not show me online to anyone (including dashboards) option in the standard veiwer that actually works

Link to comment
Share on other sites
161488303349

161488303349

Posted
Posted

seriously, you are absolutely right. is silly to provide a function in the viewer and then also provide a method via LSL, and/or leave holes, so that the purpose of the function can be circumvented

stuff that only half works kinda sorta is not good. not when it can leave an impression on the user that it does work as they would reasonably expect it too. i think that with this particular privacy viewer option then it should either totally work in all circumstances or it should be removed from the viewer

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4593 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...