Sharing is Caring: The Streetlight People of Never Never Land

(via wildelven)
Check this out: the music video of a mash-up, performed by a real band, of Don't Stop Believing and Enter Sandman, complete with backstory of how this horrible, awesome, hilarious thing came to be. You gotta see this!

Sharing is Caring: The Streetlight People of Never Never Land

(via wildelven)
Check this out: the music video of a mash-up, performed by a real band, of Don't Stop Believing and Enter Sandman, complete with backstory of how this horrible, awesome, hilarious thing came to be. You gotta see this!

(no subject)

So I woke up this morning (er, shortly after noon) to find that Fugitivus, the blog of the now infamous "Fuck You, Google" post about privacy concerns with Google Buzz (and the follow-up post "Screw You, Google"), is now a protected blog that I can't read with my Wordpress account (meaning the protection is not being used as a host-deny list but rather as a host-allow). I'm hoping that this is simply battening down the hatches during a storm, that the blog will be back in its full public glory soon. But it's quite worrisome - I hope she's OK, and I hope that Google hasn't, in its reckless enthusiasm to join to world of social media, accidentally chased an awesome female blogger who talks about subjects that go without saying far too frequently in our culture (e.g. rape and abuse, including when one is married to one's rapist/abuser) off the blogosphere.

ETA: From Harriet's twitter feed: "Blog set to private for now. Will return when things have calmed down". So looks like my hope was right. If you're interested in knowing when she comes back, let me know.

(no subject)

So I woke up this morning (er, shortly after noon) to find that Fugitivus, the blog of the now infamous "Fuck You, Google" post about privacy concerns with Google Buzz (and the follow-up post "Screw You, Google"), is now a protected blog that I can't read with my Wordpress account (meaning the protection is not being used as a host-deny list but rather as a host-allow). I'm hoping that this is simply battening down the hatches during a storm, that the blog will be back in its full public glory soon. But it's quite worrisome - I hope she's OK, and I hope that Google hasn't, in its reckless enthusiasm to join to world of social media, accidentally chased an awesome female blogger who talks about subjects that go without saying far too frequently in our culture (e.g. rape and abuse, including when one is married to one's rapist/abuser) off the blogosphere.

ETA: From Harriet's twitter feed: "Blog set to private for now. Will return when things have calmed down". So looks like my hope was right. If you're interested in knowing when she comes back, let me know.

Proof that there ought to be a law

One last thing: apparently Google did *not* give Buzz to all Gmail users. In particular, people who have special privacy protection such as The Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (e.g. people whose schools are providing them with Gmail accounts for e-mail) were not even given the option of using Buzz at all, much less auto-Buzzed and auto-follow(ed/ing). The implications of that are pretty ugly, crossing the line from stupidity to malice - someone at Google told the team there *was* the potential for privacy violation and they went ahead with it anyway for people who don't have legal protection against such violation.

What does that tell me? That we the general public should be asking for a law to grant us privacy protection rights in a similar fashion. It saddens me that a freakin' law needs to be made, but it would be difficult to find a more clear-cut example of the difference between having legal protection and not having that protection. I am going to contact Kerry, Brown, and Capuano about this.

Proof that there ought to be a law

One last thing: apparently Google did *not* give Buzz to all Gmail users. In particular, people who have special privacy protection such as The Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (e.g. people whose schools are providing them with Gmail accounts for e-mail) were not even given the option of using Buzz at all, much less auto-Buzzed and auto-follow(ed/ing). The implications of that are pretty ugly, crossing the line from stupidity to malice - someone at Google told the team there *was* the potential for privacy violation and they went ahead with it anyway for people who don't have legal protection against such violation.

What does that tell me? That we the general public should be asking for a law to grant us privacy protection rights in a similar fashion. It saddens me that a freakin' law needs to be made, but it would be difficult to find a more clear-cut example of the difference between having legal protection and not having that protection. I am going to contact Kerry, Brown, and Capuano about this.