Message
Anonymous wrote:Which should we give up to protect our anonymity - gmail or dcurbanmom? Both you and your google contact are very short-sighted.
How about instead of being rude you try to be thoughtful? You are not giving up your anonymity. Gmail has nothing to do with it. Giving up Gmail would not change a thing. I'd love one of you who are so sure that your deepest secrets are automatically being disclosed to everyone on earth because of a simple button to explain to me how you think such a thing is occurring. It's simply not happening. What is happening is that you are massively over-reacting.
BTW, how come there's no comments about my removing all the Facebook stuff? Positive feedback, folks. Has anyone ever heard of that?
Anonymous wrote:
I am not generally a privacy freak, but I think that many of the posters here - like myself - post simply because they are comfortable that this board is anonymous. This change makes me completely uncomfortable. I want to be assured that in no way will my real name be associated with my posts (i.e., they are anonymous), and this makes me think that there are circumstances in which the posts, and even the posts that I am reading, may be associated with my name, if only for a few minutes. To me, that changes the nature of the anonymity of the site drastically.
I understand completely. I appreciate your input. Based on the feedback received so far, I would be surprised if the +1 button is on the site at this time tomorrow.
Anonymous wrote:Don't sell out man.
I'll never sell out. If there is general agreement that the +1 button sucks, I'll remove it. I said that in my first response in this thread.
Anonymous wrote:While I understand that google may have been on your case about adding this, I don't understand the appeal for an ANONYMOUS forum. That is one of the great benefits of DCUM, and I don't think anyone wants to use their real name. Therefore, why would you even consider adding this button? I mean, it's not hard not to click it (it is pretty small), I just don't don't get your reasoning to include a button that would (potentially) identify users on a board that's main draw is anonymity.
Google being on my ass is a pretty good reason given that our entire income from the website comes from them. More specifically, I have been done very big favors by the individual who made the request. I'm not the type to refuse to return a favor. This is just an experiment aimed at gaining feedback. If everyone hates it, please just post message saying that you hate it. Of course, if you don't hate, say that as well. If I get universally negative feedback, that is helpful.
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-03-31/tech/29971864_1_google-1-privacy-case-share-links
So, is Business Week wrong that it is visible to everyone?
It's a question of interpretation. The article says, "can be visible to anyone". "Can" and "will be" are not the same thing. If you don't believe me, find an innocuous post and click the +1 to see what happens. When I did that, it said it would identify me by my email address which is also my Google Account login. However, I don't have a Google Profile which is required for +1 to work. So, it wanted me to create a Profile. I declined to do so.
From what I understand, if you have a Google Profile, you can choose who gets to see your +1s. You can also manage you +1s and remove any you don't want.
Regardless of whether BW's statement can be interpreted in various ways, Google's statement that anyone on the web can potentially see it and that you shouldn't use it if you don't want to publicly agree is not. I will not use my real name even once to be a guinea pig. Moreover, the fact that it may not be displayed right now does not mean that it won't be. If you are ending the anonymity of the board, please be clear about it and don't do it through the back door like this.
Again, you ignore the phrase "can potentially". You are assuming that a potential worse case is the norm when all evidence is to the contrary. You are really getting ridiculous when you accuse me of "ending the anonymity of the board". In the very worse case, I am providing a mechanism through which users who have a Google Profile with settings that allow everyone to view their +1s to accidentally make their +1s public.
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:I often multi-task and have a lot of things open, including usually my email, and often this site. When my mouse brushed over the +1, it said that it would identify me by my name. On several occasions, I have accidentally hit the "report" button, and I was very happy that it asked me if I was sure. I am concerned that the same thing could happen here, but if it does that it will have my actual name. Thus, the response "just don't click the button" isn't good enough, in my opinion. Please get rid of the button if you want the free conversation to continue.
Do you have a Google Profile? If not, the button can't identify you. If, yes, you can set your preferences so that +1s aren't displayed. I probably will be removing the button, but ai need to give it a couple of days in order to have sufficient feedback. One person is not a big enough pool.
Like most people I know, I have gmail. It identified me. I don't care if I can see other's +1s, I care if they can see mine! Please do a little research on this before people lose their anonymity inadvertently.
I did do research. Having a Gmail address is not enough for +1 to work. You need a Google Profile. They are not the same thing. The +1 button is a little tricky in that it can display your Gmail address or Google Account login. That confused me as well.
Anonymous wrote:http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-03-31/tech/29971864_1_google-1-privacy-case-share-links
So, is Business Week wrong that it is visible to everyone?
It's a question of interpretation. The article says, "can be visible to anyone". "Can" and "will be" are not the same thing. If you don't believe me, find an innocuous post and click the +1 to see what happens. When I did that, it said it would identify me by my email address which is also my Google Account login. However, I don't have a Google Profile which is required for +1 to work. So, it wanted me to create a Profile. I declined to do so.
From what I understand, if you have a Google Profile, you can choose who gets to see your +1s. You can also manage you +1s and remove any you don't want.
Anonymous wrote:I often multi-task and have a lot of things open, including usually my email, and often this site. When my mouse brushed over the +1, it said that it would identify me by my name. On several occasions, I have accidentally hit the "report" button, and I was very happy that it asked me if I was sure. I am concerned that the same thing could happen here, but if it does that it will have my actual name. Thus, the response "just don't click the button" isn't good enough, in my opinion. Please get rid of the button if you want the free conversation to continue.
Do you have a Google Profile? If not, the button can't identify you. If, yes, you can set your preferences so that +1s aren't displayed. I probably will be removing the button, but ai need to give it a couple of days in order to have sufficient feedback. One person is not a big enough pool.
Yes, that's it.
I also believe that it only identifies you to your Google+ contacts. Since I don't even have a Google+ account, I guess it wouldn't identify me to anyone.
Google has been urging me to add the +1 button. Frankly, I don't know much about it so I added it as an experiment. I don't believe that you are correct that it identifies you by your real name if you accidentally click it. I think you would need to login to Google after you clicked it and then it would only identify you by your Google ID (which may or may not be your real name). After I tested it earlier today, I didn't like it and I would never click it myself. But, I wanted to get some input from users. To that end, your input is helpful. Please don't stop using the site. Just don't click the button and keep complaining about it.
Please do not post messages that involve any of the following:
1) request free prescription drugs;
2) offer to buy prescription drugs;
3) offer prescription drugs for sale; or
4) offer to give away prescription drugs.
Basically, there should be no posts that involve the exchange of prescription drugs. Any posts that violate these guidelines -- along with any responses to those posts -- will be removed as soon as they are identified.
1) request free prescription drugs;
2) offer to buy prescription drugs;
3) offer prescription drugs for sale; or
4) offer to give away prescription drugs.
Basically, there should be no posts that involve the exchange of prescription drugs. Any posts that violate these guidelines -- along with any responses to those posts -- will be removed as soon as they are identified.
The original poster of this thread asked me to remove the thread. However, when I came to take a look at things, I immediately noticed that she had sock puppetted the 10/28/2011 22:06 post. That, plus the responses suggesting that she is selling drugs at other sites, led me to see what else she has been posting here. It seems she has really bad luck with her protocol being switched. The same thing happened in February 2010:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/93823.page
That was on the heals of her not being able to afford drugs a month earlier when she was the OP of this thread:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/85936.page
In this post of that thread, she seems to have found a source of gonal F:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/85936.page#670632
Then, last month she was back here not having any insurance coverage at all:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/191036.page
Now, another protocol switch. The OP points out that the messages selling the drugs were all from 2010. I don't see more recent attempts. So, I am not prepared to say that hollydaly123 is collecting free drugs and selling them. But, I am prepared to say that something very suspicious is going on. Certainly, a better explanation that a sock puppetted whitewash is required.
Beyond that, I am going to take this opportunity implement a new rule for DCUM, but specifically for this forum. It is my understand that all of these fertility drugs are prescription only. It is also my understanding that even giving away prescription medicine is illegal. Therefore, simply requesting that prescription drugs be offered freely or for sale, if not illegal as well, is certainly very close to a line that I don't feel needs to be crossed on DCUM. I've previously removed posts advertising drugs for sale. From now on, I am also going to prohibit posts requesting those drugs. Basically, DCUM is out of the prescription drug business.
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/93823.page
That was on the heals of her not being able to afford drugs a month earlier when she was the OP of this thread:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/85936.page
In this post of that thread, she seems to have found a source of gonal F:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/85936.page#670632
Then, last month she was back here not having any insurance coverage at all:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/191036.page
Now, another protocol switch. The OP points out that the messages selling the drugs were all from 2010. I don't see more recent attempts. So, I am not prepared to say that hollydaly123 is collecting free drugs and selling them. But, I am prepared to say that something very suspicious is going on. Certainly, a better explanation that a sock puppetted whitewash is required.
Beyond that, I am going to take this opportunity implement a new rule for DCUM, but specifically for this forum. It is my understand that all of these fertility drugs are prescription only. It is also my understanding that even giving away prescription medicine is illegal. Therefore, simply requesting that prescription drugs be offered freely or for sale, if not illegal as well, is certainly very close to a line that I don't feel needs to be crossed on DCUM. I've previously removed posts advertising drugs for sale. From now on, I am also going to prohibit posts requesting those drugs. Basically, DCUM is out of the prescription drug business.
It appears that you have attempted to turn DCUM into an illegal drug market. I'm not immediately inclined to assist you in hiding the evidence. I think an full and honest explanation of your activities is in order.
Anonymous wrote:That 'silver paint' link is risky, people! when you click on it, malware or something similar gets downloaded to your computer
just discovered this the hard way. check your 'downloads' or other folders, asap
I've removed that post. Thanks to whoever reported it.