There's an App for that...

13»

Comments

  • More on how the beast is tracking us.

    includes how long you look at something online, whether you hover on a video and what ads you look at.

    Facebook will know that you're attending something or you're buying coffee [whether you are logged into to it or not

    Q: if you're not a Facebook user, Facebook has no information about you, right?
    A: Wrong. They track you through your friends and via an invisible "pixel" a piece of code that Facebook convinces web site owners to install on their pages.

    I don't think it's okay at all. I see Google analytics installs cookies even when on the ship. Not the ship's fault, it's the adverts.
  • Where did you get that from? It sounds like bullshit to me. That's not what a pixel is.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    edited December 2018
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    And disability is not such a minority really, if you consider the whole lifespan. Anyone can become disabled at any time, and in all sorts of ways.
    And those will be disabilities.
    Again, I think we are treading the border of labels and the value assigned to those labels. And that is clouding the discussion, IMO.

    Just seen this, so coming to it a bit late, but wanted to point out that yes, it would be treading the border of labels if one were to say disabilities are the exception, and there is some perfect 'normal' out there which is the majority and the default, while disabled people are somehow defective and don't really count when it comes to discussing mainstream ideals. Whereas I would argue, from the social model, that disabilities are the hindrances society puts up for people with various differences. And arguing that technology has somehow lowered our quality of life as a species (not that you are necessarily arguing this, but it is often argued) is one such hindrance. So what you see as clouding the discussion, I see as quite central to the discussion.

    And I will note, also, it is something I observe that people who are very hot on noticing, say, ingrained racism and homophobia, and who stongly champion minority rights in those areas, tend to be less hot when it comes to noticing ingrained ableism and championing disability rights.

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did you get that from? It sounds like bullshit to me. That's not what a pixel is.
    No, apparently it really is a thing. It's a tiny image embedded in a web page - when your browser loads the page, it has to request the file for this image (along with all the other graphics that you do see) and that request supplies the image's owner with some identifying information about your system along with the fact that you have (obviously) just seen the content on the web page.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did you get that from? It sounds like bullshit to me. That's not what a pixel is.
    No, apparently it really is a thing. It's a tiny image embedded in a web page - when your browser loads the page, it has to request the file for this image (along with all the other graphics that you do see) and that request supplies the image's owner with some identifying information about your system along with the fact that you have (obviously) just seen the content on the web page.

    Sorry didn't post the link. :disappointed:
    CBC on facebook and tracking
  • fineline wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    And disability is not such a minority really, if you consider the whole lifespan. Anyone can become disabled at any time, and in all sorts of ways.
    And those will be disabilities.
    Again, I think we are treading the border of labels and the value assigned to those labels. And that is clouding the discussion, IMO.

    Just seen this, so coming to it a bit late, but wanted to point out that yes, it would be treading the border of labels if one were to say disabilities are the exception,
    But they kind of are. If they weren't, we souls not be having this conversation.
    and there is some perfect 'normal' out there which is the majority
    There is a relative normal, this is why the word exists.
    As I see it, trying to change the label is pointless, beyond a certain point. It is the underling value placed on disability that needs to change. A person with a disability is of no less value than a perfectly able-bodied person.
    and the default, while disabled people are somehow defective and don't really count when it comes to discussing mainstream ideals.
    Here is the issue. I am not saying this in any way, shape or form. Societies goal should be, IMO, to make as many things as accessible to as many people as possible.
    Whereas I would argue, from the social model, that disabilities are the hindrances society puts up for people with various differences.
    I am not sure I am understanding you here. Disabilities are the things life has given to people or time has worn into people. Society choosing whether to assist where it can is the concern.Society can make the disability a liability or negate it as much as possible.
    And I will note, also, it is something I observe that people who are very hot on noticing, say, ingrained racism and homophobia, and who stongly champion minority rights in those areas, tend to be less hot when it comes to noticing ingrained ableism and championing disability rights.
    People notice what affects them and place more value on righting their own wrongs than the wrongs of others. It has always irritated me to see the sexism in maligned minority groups, the homophobia in feminism, etc. We are truly a fucked up species.



  • In the case of the 'Facebook Pixel' it's so called because that's how that particular product is branded. It's similar in concept to the 1x1 images (which is where the 'pixel' comes in), but uses javascript instead.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    Just seen this, so coming to it a bit late, but wanted to point out that yes, it would be treading the border of labels if one were to say disabilities are the exception,
    But they kind of are. If they weren't, we souls not be having this conversation.

    I don't really get the logic here. Discussions happen where women's needs are assumed to be less important, or an exception, and the same with the needs of people who aren't white. Minority tends to mean less power - the people who have traditionally not been the default.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    and there is some perfect 'normal' out there which is the majority
    There is a relative normal, this is why the word exists.
    As I see it, trying to change the label is pointless, beyond a certain point. It is the underling value placed on disability that needs to change. A person with a disability is of no less value than a perfectly able-bodied person.

    Would that relative normal also be male, white, heterosexual, cis-gendered? Is it helpful to have a default normal like this?
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    and the default, while disabled people are somehow defective and don't really count when it comes to discussing mainstream ideals.
    Here is the issue. I am not saying this in any way, shape or form. Societies goal should be, IMO, to make as many things as accessible to as many people as possible.
    Whereas I would argue, from the social model, that disabilities are the hindrances society puts up for people with various differences.
    I am not sure I am understanding you here. Disabilities are the things life has given to people or time has worn into people. Society choosing whether to assist where it can is the concern.Society can make the disability a liability or negate it as much as possible.

    You might find it helpful to read up on disability politics and the social model to see what I'm saying.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    And I will note, also, it is something I observe that people who are very hot on noticing, say, ingrained racism and homophobia, and who stongly champion minority rights in those areas, tend to be less hot when it comes to noticing ingrained ableism and championing disability rights.
    People notice what affects them and place more value on righting their own wrongs than the wrongs of others. It has always irritated me to see the sexism in maligned minority groups, the homophobia in feminism, etc. We are truly a fucked up species.

    Well, as a female-bodied, asexual, agender person, I kind of fit into a few. But if you do read up on disability politics, you will see that disability rights really have lagged behind and continue to do so. There are all sorts of evidence and examples. People's attitude to disability is harder to challenge, because it's often more insiduous and patronising - the inspiration porn type stuff. Anecdotally, once, when I applied for a job and was asked in interview what equal opportunities meant, I was told I was the only candidate who mentioned disability in my answer.

    I am pressing the point with you because you are someone I observe often pushes quite insistently that people are being prejudiced in various ways, but you never seem to see it when it comes to disability, and you can sometimes say things which are ableist, and you are unaware of it. You're certainly not the only one who does this, but because you are so insistent with other things, I feel I should be insistent back at you, so you can be consistent with your insistence. :wink:
  • fineline wrote: »

    Would that relative normal also be male, white, heterosexual, cis-gendered? Is it helpful to have a default normal like this?
    What I am trying to say is that we should value people regardless of what constitutes who they are. And I think what gets to that goal is to treat everyone as a valuable person, not try to relabel or ignore it. My early childhood was in a somewhat isolated place where people of various colour lived together. I had no concept that colour of skin meant anything different to colour of hair or eyes or height or anything else. Not because anyone said this was how to view things, not because we didn't notice the differences, but because no one said it should mean anything. And no one acted as if it should mean anything.
    In the larger world, it is not yet possible to be this way, because the differentiation exists and because inequities exist and those need to be addressed.
    You might find it helpful to read up on disability politics and the social model to see what I'm saying.
    Yes, I probably should. Though, my experience with groups who advocate for things that I am is a mixed one.
    Well, as a female-bodied, asexual, agender person, I kind of fit into a few. But if you do read up on disability politics, you will see that disability rights really have lagged behind and continue to do so.
    Completely agree.
    There are all sorts of evidence and examples. People's attitude to disability is harder to challenge, because it's often more insiduous and patronising - the inspiration porn type stuff.
    There exists a similar thing for colour, sexuality and gender as well. Though I would agree that it is most insidious for disabilities.
    Anecdotally, once, when I applied for a job and was asked in interview what equal opportunities meant, I was told I was the only candidate who mentioned disability in my answer.
    This is sad. I would like to think I would mention it as well, but I am not sure.
    I am pressing the point with you because you are someone I observe often pushes quite insistently that people are being prejudiced in various ways, but you never seem to see it when it comes to disability, and you can sometimes say things which are ableist, and you are unaware of it. You're certainly not the only one who does this, but because you are so insistent with other things, I feel I should be insistent back at you, so you can be consistent with your insistence. :wink:
    Fair enough. I would like to think I am not ableist, but I know myself well enough to understand I can be just as blind as anyone else.


  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    fineline wrote: »

    Well, as a female-bodied, asexual, agender person, I kind of fit into a few. But if you do read up on disability politics, you will see that disability rights really have lagged behind and continue to do so. There are all sorts of evidence and examples. People's attitude to disability is harder to challenge, because it's often more insiduous and patronising - the inspiration porn type stuff.

    Thank you for posting this link fineline,
Sign In or Register to comment.