Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Brian Carnell
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 months ago
in Twitter Shuts Down StatTweets: Should Developers Be Concerned? on Mashable - The Social Media Guide
I went back and forth with the *@X at Twitter over "mass" account creation. I have 6 or 7 topical sites at different domains and one night I created a twitter account for each one, and they all got shut down for violating the TOS, even though what I was cited for -- sequential account creation -- wasn't actually in the TOS but on a separate page they pointed me to.
They wanted me to supply them with some information about each of the sites, but were vague on what was acceptable and what wasn't. It was several e-mails of "try to read the mind of the support rep." Finally I just gave up and created new accounts only put some time and different ips between them so they wouldn't get flagge
They wanted me to supply them with some information about each of the sites, but were vague on what was acceptable and what wasn't. It was several e-mails of "try to read the mind of the support rep." Finally I just gave up and created new accounts only put some time and different ips between them so they wouldn't get flagge
1 reply
Darren
What is more interesting is that Twitter is still hiring a Business Development person for Strategic Partnerships. This would probably fall right in line with someone at Twitter working directly with organizations, brands and celebs to protect their copywrited or trademarked material.
9 months ago
in Mark Cuban: Blogging For Justice on How To Split An Atom
"I have always believed that if you cannot say what you write face to face, then don't write it. The First Amendment, which includes the Freedom of Speech, was not signed by "Anonymous", it was signed by men who believed in the rights of the individual and we have them to thank for this fundamental symbol of freedom."
Really, you might want to educate yourself. The Constitution was heavily debated by those who signed it in *ANONYMOUS* pamphlets and editorials. It may surprise you but there's actually a very influential series of writings that were published anonymously as part of the debate over the Constitution. That collection is commonly referred to as THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.
Anonymous speech served a number of important purposes and has throughout U.S. history.
Really, you might want to educate yourself. The Constitution was heavily debated by those who signed it in *ANONYMOUS* pamphlets and editorials. It may surprise you but there's actually a very influential series of writings that were published anonymously as part of the debate over the Constitution. That collection is commonly referred to as THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.
Anonymous speech served a number of important purposes and has throughout U.S. history.
1 reply
ophelia_chong
Thank you for adding this, I will now research the Federalist Papers.
9 months ago
in Mark Cuban: Blogging For Justice on How To Split An Atom
This article was incoherent:
a) we're told that Howard is protected by the First Amendment, etc, etc., but then we're told that his critics just shouldn't be saying certain things.
b) Cuban's defense is incoherent...this is not a private matter since Howard is a public figure. This is no more a private matter between Howard and the Mavericks than were John Rocker's comments simply a private matter between Rocker and his team.
c) The article is really no different than Howard's critics. Howard's critics are pissed that he slammed the national anthem and think he went to far. The article defends a lighter version of Howard's views and says that "overzealous nationalism" is going to far.
a) we're told that Howard is protected by the First Amendment, etc, etc., but then we're told that his critics just shouldn't be saying certain things.
b) Cuban's defense is incoherent...this is not a private matter since Howard is a public figure. This is no more a private matter between Howard and the Mavericks than were John Rocker's comments simply a private matter between Rocker and his team.
c) The article is really no different than Howard's critics. Howard's critics are pissed that he slammed the national anthem and think he went to far. The article defends a lighter version of Howard's views and says that "overzealous nationalism" is going to far.
2 replies
Greg Hollingsworth
First off, Howard is protected by the first amendment when he makes comments about his beliefs in regards to the national anthem, the pledge of allegiance, etc...
Second, not all speech is protected (as anyone who chides people on not having read the Federalist Papers) should well know.
Third, simply being a public figure does not rescind one's right to privacy.
Fourth, my point was that those who claim to defend America's freedoms (namely freedom of speech) by telling people they don't agree with to shut up (or worse) are missing the point.
Lastly, I never, ever, said anywhere that those who do this don't have every right to do it. They do, but they should be every bit as prepared to take responsibility for what they say as they want Howard to be.
Second, not all speech is protected (as anyone who chides people on not having read the Federalist Papers) should well know.
Third, simply being a public figure does not rescind one's right to privacy.
Fourth, my point was that those who claim to defend America's freedoms (namely freedom of speech) by telling people they don't agree with to shut up (or worse) are missing the point.
Lastly, I never, ever, said anywhere that those who do this don't have every right to do it. They do, but they should be every bit as prepared to take responsibility for what they say as they want Howard to be.
Greg Hollingsworth
just out of curiosity, did you read any of the comments sent to Mark Cuban? Many of them are have very specific nationalistic sentiments.
I am not defending Howard's sentiments, I am merely defending his right to hold un-popular beliefs.
I am not defending Howard's sentiments, I am merely defending his right to hold un-popular beliefs.
