Jeudi 12 juillet 2007

what's the big deal?

So what's the big deal about Facebook? I remember checking it out a while ago and thinking, Uh, no, I don't think so. Then today I read this almost glowing review. And then in the comment thread of that review somebody posts a link to this, which links Facebook to various branches of the US government, including the Department of Defence, the DARPA (who?) the Office of Information Awareness (who?) and the Central Intelligence Incomptetence Agency. But apparently Facebook is one of these Big New Things that anybody who is anybody joins and then everybody networks and.... whatever. Anyway, I'm having another look at this Facebook thing to see what the fuss is about.

Update:

Well, so I'm wading through the legalese in the Facebook terms of service, and, as I was warned by that not so positive article about Facebook linked to above, the one that ties Facebook up with the CIA:

When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.

[emphasis mine] 

And:

By including a Share Link, Online Content Provider automatically grants, and represents and warrants that it has the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use the Share Service in order to link to, use, copy, publish, stream, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part), summarize, and distribute the content, links and other materials of any kind residing on any web pages on which Online Content Provider places the Share Link.

[no emphasis needed here]

So, basically, Facebook owns everything. Clauses like this in the terms of service do not do much to persuade me to sign up. It doesn't get any better by pointing out that any personal data I may enter into Facebook will be transferred to and processed within the US, not given the practices of the Bush administration. If they cared so much about their users' privacy, they'd have all of their servers in Canada and do all the processing of data their. And then having claimed ownership of any and all information, data or whatever else you put on Facebook or on any site of yours on which you post one of their dinky little "share buttons" or whatever they called it, they turn around and, in addition to the usual "anything bad that happens could not possibly be our fault" disclaimer, they say:

The Company is not responsible or liable in any manner for any User Content or Third Party Applications, Software or Content posted on the Site or in connection with the Service, whether posted or caused by users of the Site, by Facebook, by third parties or by any of the equipment or programming associated with or utilized in the Site or the Service. Although we provide rules for user conduct and postings, we do not control and are not responsible for what users post, transmit or share on the Site and are not responsible for any offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful or otherwise objectionable content you may encounter on the Site or in connection with any User Content or Third Party Applications, Software or Content. The Company is not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of the Site or Service.

Right. So you claim ownership of any material anybody posts to your site and any material on any site that has a "share button", but you refuse to take responsibility for it. That seems mature to me.

You know, the more I read their terms of service, the more Facebook persuades me to not sign up. I don't think I'm even going to bother with their privacy policy or code of conduct. I think I'll just remain out of fashion and out-dated and not facebooked for the time being. 

Par chrislzh - Publié dans : chrislzh
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires - Recommander
Jeudi 12 juillet 2007

slowly waking up...

I don't know how, but I fell out of the habit of checking the China Development Brief regularly, which is a shame because it's got lots of great stuff. Anyway, somehow the news that China Development Brief is in a spot of bother with the authorities got me thinking, hey, didn't I have that bookmarked somewhere? And so I looked it up, and I'm glad I did, because they've got a great article on the degredation of China's grasslands. Some academics, it would seem, have been casting doubt on government policies towards the grasslands and are arguing for a more people- and culture-centred approach to preserving the grasslands. 

According to Wang Xiaoyi (王晓毅), a CASS scholar organising the Kunming conference, after years of huge investments to tackle desertification in Inner Mongolia—which is home to one of the world’s largest grasslands areas and most complicated ecosystems—there is no sign of degradation coming to an end or even slowing.

Surveys show that more than 90% of China’s 400 million hectares of grassland suffer from various degrees of degradation. In the past two decades, only 10% of desertified land has been treated. Meanwhile, two million hectares of rangeland turns into desert each year.

And then:

More and more researchers are questioning the policy, which started in the 1980s, of dividing Inner Mongolia’s grasslands into smaller plots and allocating them to individual families. Policy-makers have applied agricultural logic to pastoral areas, failing to recognise key differences in the management of farmland and rangeland.

“This fundamentally changed the nature of people’s lives on the grasslands, forcing herders to become settlers and farmers and leading to the erosion of grassland culture,” says Wang.

“Chances are the original way of living and production had their value and rationale in maintaining a more sustainable ecosystem that is destroyed by the agriculturalisation and industrialisation of the grassland,” he suggests.

Wah! Who'd've thunk it! The nomads had adapted their lifestyles to suit their environment, and then these people from the agricultural cultures south of the Great Wall (reminds me of what I've spent the last three days reading and writing about), who of course knew better, came and buggered it up with their lifestyles and techniques ill-suited to the grasslands environment.

Well, fortunately nobody is arguing for a full-on return to the Genghis Khan horse- and camelback nomadic, raiding and pillaging the other side of the Wall when the mood takes you, the occasional conquest and empire lifestyle. Nor even just the regular nomadic herding. But they are arguing for an updated, modernised adaptation of the old practices. Bringing the old, suited to the grasslands lifestyle into the modern age:

She [Hao Bing] suggests that although a return to nomadic lifestyle is not practical, new technologies such as solar energy and Internet might give herders a better chance of reshaping their traditions.

And:

In the fields, some herders have merged their fragmented pasture and graze their animals together, a semi-nomadic way of herding in the new era. Co-operatives have also been established among herders.

“We are studying these new approaches, which are more productive and environment-friendly. Cooperatives could be a solution, which will benefit the herders while minimise the impact on the environment,” she [Hu Jingping] says.

And even involving the herders themselves in the process:

“We want to stress the development impact on people and to analyse government policies and systems from a cultural perspective. We will also pay more attention to herders’ opinions and empower them,” says Hao Bing (郝冰), coordinator of the Network.

Sounds like the right idea.

Par chrislzh - Publié dans : chrislzh
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires - Recommander

Calendrier

Juillet 2007
L M M J V S D
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
<< < > >>

 

Articles récents

liste complète

 

Recherche

 

Blog : Voyages sur over-blog.com - Contact - C.G.U. - Rémunération en droits d'auteur - Signaler un abus