Your High School Wants You To Install Snapchat 157
Five teenagers at Warren Township High School in Gurnee, Illinois were arrested in November in conjunction with a girl's topless photo being distributed throughout the school. Last Thursday, in Rochester Hills, Michigan, a prosecutor announced that contemplating filing child pornography charges against "dozens" of students for distributing explicit pictures to other students at Rochester Adams High School. In Portland, Oregon, police are investigating a group of Grant High School students for making videos of each other having sex at the school and off campus. (And, of course, these are just the incidents that police found out about.) Naturally, schools everywhere have been falling over themselves to institute strict anti-cyber-bullying and anti-sexting policies (not to mention that sending and forwarding sexually explicit pictures of children under 18 is a federal crime as well).
Schools have rules for reasons that are a mixture of cynical protection against lawsuits and sincere concern for the students. When education system teach students not to smoke cigarettes, they're presumably doing that out of genuine concern for students' welfare, since it would be hard to sue the school for not teaching about the dangers of smoking. When a school installs a railing by the side of a walkway to keep students safe from passing cars, they're probably motivated by a mixture of concern over being sued, and legitimate concern for students' safety. When the school installs software on their computers to block Facebook and Reddit (even outside of class time, when computers are sitting idle and students have nothing else to do), they're probably motivated entirely by liability concerns - because they know virtually all of those students can get on those websites at home, so they're not affecting the students' long-term welfare by keeping them off of those websites, but they just don't want to be liable for anything if the students access those sites at school.
In the case of anti-sexting policies, I'm not cynical enough to think that schools are motivated entirely by liability concerns. There are actual risks to sexting pictures of yourself, even if you're never charged with violating child pornography laws: the embarrassment of your picture being forwarded around the school, or ending up in the archive of a porn site. On the other hand, worse things happen to dozens of high school students every month, but only a handful of schools get dragged into the national spotlight as a result of a child porn investigation. So let's call it about 25% due to legitimate concern for students and 75% due to liability reasons and concern for adverse publicity.
But sexting students could vastly reduce schools' concerns about both issues, by sending pictures using an app like Snapchat, which automatically deletes photos after the recipient has viewed them -- in order to greatly reduce the chance of a picture being saved or forwarded after it's sent. Please note, I'm not saying the photos can't be saved anyway, or recovered by computer forensics. And take heed: I'm not saying you should do it either way! But if you greatly reduce the chances of an image being saved, you greatly reduce the chances of it leading to a scandal that engulfs the school, or leads to a federal child pornography charge.
Of course there are cases where teens were arrested for sending child pornography through Snapchat as well. But these high-profile stories don't address the relevant question, which is: Are you less likely to get arrested (or expelled, or humiliated) for sending these pictures if you do it through Snapchat, even if the likelihood doesn't drop to zero? Obviously, yes.
Now even someone with no phone-hacking knowledge can figure out that if they receive an image over Snapchat, they can "save" it by taking a photo of their screen with another phone or camera, and the sender won't know. (You can also take a normal screen shot with the phone, but that will notify the sender that you took a screen shot, unless you download a third-party app or try some other hack which may or may not even work by the time you read this.) However, this assumes that the trust relationship between the sender and the recipient is already broken at the time the message is being sent, if the recipient is saving the message without the knowledge or consent of the sender. Some of these sexts are presumably being sent in the context of a relationship in which some (sweet, naive, misguided) trust still exists, so that if the sender sends the message and the recipient doesn't use some sneaky workaround, the picture will get deleted on schedule. If trust only falls apart later, then the recipient won't have a copy of the image any more if it was sent by Snapchat, but they will if it was sent via text.
Actually, it may be possible for the recipient to recover a snapchat image after their smartphone Snapchat app has supposedly "deleted" it -- a company called Digital Forensics offers Snapchat image recovery as a service, but they charge $300-$500 per incident, and even they haven't figured out how to do it on an iPhone yet.
So, in terms of boolean logic, if you send an explicit photo via Snapchat, it might end up being saved permanently and forwarded if:
(
the recipient is already being dishonest with you (saving pics without your permission) at the time that you send the picture
AND
the recipient is smart enough to figure out how to save Snapchat pictures without notifying you -- not that hard, but eliminates
some people
)
OR
(
you later go through a nasty breakup with the recipient and they're determined to humiliate you or get you in trouble with the law
AND
they don't mind the fact that they could also get in trouble with the law, for saving or forwarding the picture
AND
they're willing to spend $300 to recover the image
AND
they don't have an iPhone
)
Whereas if you send a photo via regular text, all it takes to get in trouble is either (a) the recipient going through a nasty breakup with you, that puts them in a vindictive frame of mind, while they still have a copy on their phone, or (b) the recipient's family member snooping through their messages.
Your high school would never tell you so out loud, but between Snapchat and texting, you can guess which they would prefer you to use.
Of course, this advice wouldn't have done much good for the Portland students who made and distributed their own sex videos, since creating the illegal permanent recording was their entire goal. Snapchat can help protect people from mild levels of stupid, but it's a barrier you can overcome if you aim high and truly believe in yourself.
Got something to say about privacy, technology, or other topics of interest? Long-form submissions are welcome.
ITS HIM (Score:4, Funny)
BENNETT!
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously bennett, I think you enjoy trolling slashdot way to much these days
Re:ITS HIM (Score:5, Interesting)
As I remarked in the comments for his last story, If Slashdot would make Bennett an editor, then those who don't want to read his stuff could filter it out using existing tools. That improves the site for those who don't want to see it, and for those who do by reducing the amount of spam and trolls that flood the comment section for every "article" he writes.
I sent an e-mail to /. to ask them to do so, or comment on why they won't. They didn't bother to respond, which is disappointing, although not unexpected given how hostile the Slashdot staff is towards their users.
So, I made the following user script to remove posts that mention "Bennett Haselton": https://gist.github.com/anonymous/3235db049b18699c082b#file-gistfile1-txt [github.com]
It works with Chrome and Greasemonkey in Firefox. If anyone wants to improve it or package it up nicely, please do; I don't have any prior experience with Javascript or browser extensions.
Obviously this isn't the best solution, but it's the only one we're likely to get.
Re: (Score:2)
Good Grief.
1. How hard is it to see "Bennett Haselton" in the storyline and ignore it. Does the computer have to do everything for you?
2. Who reads TFA?
3. ????
Re:ITS HIM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
1. How hard is it to see "Bennett Haselton" in the storyline and ignore it. Does the computer have to do everything for you?
Do you also refuse to use adblockers and spam blockers on the same principle?
Obviously people want to get rid of the stories they don't want to see. That's why Slashdot has the story filters in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
You ignorant simpleton.
How hard is it to see "Bennett Haselton" in the storyline ...
I knew it was Bennett Haselton by the characteristic, "TL;DR."
Re: (Score:2)
Does the computer have to do everything for you?
It should do everything he wants it to do. Jesus, did you really just ask that on Slashdot? Either you don't belong here, or I don't anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So since you're using your nifty little script to filter out Bennett... Why are you still bitching in this thread? Shouldn't this story be filtered out for you?
Because the point of the exercise is to help others. It's not productive for me to spend the time to create the script and keep it to myself. So I don't have it turned on yet. I figured I'd post a link to it once or twice so that those who would be interested will see it, and then I'll turn it on and be rid of him forever.
If you don't like it, set me as a foe and filter my comments out. Unlike Bennett, I don't have any desire to force anyone to read what I've written.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's an imposter. This article was only about 1200 words long. The True Bennet Hasselton would have made it longer.
First look at what EFF has to say. (Score:5, Informative)
Secure Messaging Scorecard [eff.org] - Which apps and tools actually keep your messages safe?
Re: (Score:2)
Just to add to it - one that EFF hasn't listed is Bitmessage [bitmessage.org].
Re: (Score:1)
I for one find it comforting that snapchat is listed as performing a recent code audit and decided not fix anything about it.
They can't really fix it as the initial premise is flawed -- all they can do is improve their marketing. I'm sure Facebook can do that for them.
Re: (Score:2)
That is an OK guide, but I do disagree with the "are past messages secure if keys are stolen." If an attacker gets messages, and then snarfs keys, there is at best obfuscation in place that can protect the messages.
Of course, there can be mechanisms to have keys that are ephemeral, such as having one's main public key be a signing key, which is used in a D-H transaction to generate a temporary set of public/private keys, and when the parties are done with the conversation, dump the temporary keys on their
Re: (Score:2)
I favor retroshare myself. It's got excellent file-sharing capabilities too (Yarrr!) and, as well as being encrypted to NSA-annoying levels, it's also decentralised and cannot be readily identified via traffic analysis, which means it's very hard for governments to block without blocking a lot of other applications too.
In downside, it does have a few minor bugs, and there's no android or iOS client.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the greater point is that snapchat isn't about protecting from a malicious attacker, it's about protecting from accidents, and thoughtlessness.
The case of kids filming all over the place would probably not be snaps though, that sounds like something they'd want to keep (I don't know why, it just as I skimmed seemed like a game of collecting these things), but random sexy shots are completely the domain for snapchat, and if used normally protects from accidental leakage.
Re: (Score:1)
And how do you propose to disable screen capture? And why should Snapchat be trusted?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
1) On a phone that hasn't been jailbroken or rooted, I believe Snapchat notifies the sender if the recipient takes a screen capture of their message. This doesn't prevent it from happening, but it may at least make people think twice about it. If you're having a fling with a girl, and the girl sends you an explicit Snapchat picture which is intended to disappear after you view it, and the girl gets notified that you took a screen capture of it, she might go "What the f
Re: (Score:2)
Because Googling how to do a screenshot is obscurity...
Re: (Score:2)
What percent of sexually explicit pictures sent by snapchat, are still present on the recipient's phone the next day? Probably not the majority.
Snapchat is not perfect, it's just better. Seat belts don't prevent all injuries, but you wear them anyway, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Formatting (Score:5, Funny)
I don't care if it is pseudo boolean logic, tab your fucking code
LAST POST! (Score:5, Insightful)
Please let it be. Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
exactly. the truth here is that schools don't want to go anywhere near the subject of illicit photos. They would strongly prefer that it doesn't exist. If the photos were being taken on school equipment, schools would much sooner drill out the cameras than direct students to a medium more condusive to these photos.
schools care about what is best for the schools, not what is best for the students.
i knew it was Bennett (Score:5, Funny)
when i read the waffling "i don't have any evidence, but it's a good bet that i know everything anyway!" bullshit in the lede.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Notice the tag at the end: "Long-form submissions are welcome"? It's a cry for help from the Slashdot editors, "Dear God, someone else send us a long-form submission. Bennett is the only one who uses the damn link, please, please someone else use it."
Re:i knew it was Bennett (Score:5, Insightful)
I tried submitting a long form submission about dealing with Bennet's crap. It started changing colors pretty fast but then disappeared. Here's what it said:
Submission:
I am sorry this is as long as a Bennett post, I strive to be both clear and concise (with one anecdote).
First, I have to assume Bennett is paid by Dice to write inane postings, and then automatically moved to the front page. I commented on his last submission yesterday: http://slashdot.org/comments.p [slashdot.org]... , and he even responded asking to be fed (the hidden comment, he likes cheese). He wants the attention.
He appears to basically be an attention whore. I don’t use whore in a derogatory way (for him maybe), but he seems to be on every street corner on Slashdot. In the past I’ve used a Vegas concierge to procure untoward services from a woman for a bachelor party and it was unassuming and not in your face (except in the room of course, thank goodness it didn’t descend into Very Bad Things).
Further, he’s done some respectable things, per his Wikipedia page, regarding First Amendment rights. But all of that is obviously in the past given his propensity to post to Slashdot (and get to the front page a lot, what’s up with that?). It feels like Slashdot is his day job.
I mean him no harm, I just wish that Slashdot was no longer his blog.
He is a scourge upon us, lowering the bar, I fear we may have to have James Cameron dive in his submersible to raise the bar again (South Park reference, great episode).
So how can we deal with this menace? Here are some recommended guidelines.
First, I would recommend many “first post” and “can I subscribe to your newsletter” responses to any Bennett front page article (maybe even “How would a Beowulf Cluster of Bennet handle this”). Do not comment on the submission, just unrelated posts. Post tons of them; thousands if possible (let’s break posting records people!). Let them have the page views, but show how much we care.
As well, when viewing Firehose, check the submitter, and try not to promote his postings.
I will point out that his Wikipedia page actually draws out his success posting to Slashdot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B [wikipedia.org]...
Quote: Haselton is a frequent contributor to Slashdot, where he posts long-form essays rather than short text summaries of current events, a distinction from other contributors that frequently creates controversy.
Anyway, I would never suggest such things, but I would mention that his Wikipedia entry could be updated, maybe to add that his posts are universally loathed on Slashdot.
There seem to be forces at hand that are actively diminishing the quality of Slashdot. Can we do a “beta” smack down on an obviously corporate promoted Bennett? I think we can, and it can be fun!!!!
And big-ups to dnebing for creating a MoveOn.org petition against his postings, awesome:
http://petitions.moveon.org/si [moveon.org]..."
OK, you made me snort. (Score:3)
“How would a Beowulf Cluster of Bennet handle this”
OK, you made me snort. This is really quite funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing is I actually read all of Bennett's post, but yours got TLDR'd in the second paragraph, right about where you typed the word 'inane'.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with inane? It's a great word.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also share them with people whose opinions I respect...
it's good that you've now explicitly admitted that you have contempt for your audience. this is something your critics have been saying for years. so, why not move on to a more suitable forum or, perhaps, a psychiatrist?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
One issue is that it's only your long-form posts that seem to merit as a Slashdot story, and the process of determining your post's merit seems contrary to Slashdot's user moderation philosophy. Care to explain? Oh wait...
I'd also add that long form posts are also contrary to Slashdot's general format of summary with link(s) followed by concise comments. Yes you've got the occasional book review but they're few and far between. They
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, like how in Soviet Russia you could also submit a vote for anyone.
Re:i knew it was Bennett (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey Bennett! Can you tell us the pricing terms to use /. for your own personal blog? I might want to get in on the action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's lead, not lede.
(this post brought to you by the committee against the degeneration of language)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, "lede" is correct.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lede [merriam-webster.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Dictionary entry or not, lede is a recent 'invention' [howardowens.com] by people who should know better than to make up new words when the old one was clear and unambiguous. See also "when it bleeds, it leads".
Re: (Score:2)
Hey it worked for Pete Townshend [wikipedia.org].
I'll betcha ten dollars to a donut... (Score:2, Funny)
...that Bennett Haselton has an account on Slashdot called Nerval's Lobster.
Anyone done the analysis? (Score:1)
Has anyone out there done any magical mystical text-processing statistical analysis to determine how many unique users slashdot actually has? Sometimes I feel like I'm lost in a sock drawer, but I don't actually know that's the case, and I wonder if I'm just being paranoid.
Re: (Score:3)
As it turns out, "Anonymous Coward" is an actual person with no job, a lot of time, and a lot of conflicting opinions.
Re: (Score:1)
...that Bennett Haselton has an account on Slashdot called Nerval's Lobster.
Nerval's Lobster is Nick Kolakowski [nickkolakowski.com], former SlashBI content schlub and current Dice content mill schlub.
"Read on for the rest. " (Score:5, Insightful)
troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Personally, I think it's a twisted variant on the famous Milgram Experiment [wikipedia.org]. Here's Wikipedia's description of that, adapted to the variant:
The Dice manager (PHB) orders the editor (E), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter recognizes are painful electric shocks to Slashdotters (S), most of whom which for the site to thrive and prosper. The subject believes that for each Bennett Haselton post, the Slashdotter experiences the same effect as receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality it was much worse.
The goal of the experiment, of course, is to determine if E will actually kill Slashdot under the orders of an authority figure, PHB, or whether he/she will stop short of a lethal dose to the site. If the Milgram Experiment is any guide, the punishment will continue regardless of the screaming of S, until a lethal voltage has been administered.
For a related experiment
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I work IT in schools (Score:3, Insightful)
UK opinion here:
Liability is not the only concern.
We have child protection to take into account (in the UK, if you're under 18, you're a child even if the age of consent is 16 - so it's possible a photo of yourself performing a legal sex act with a consenting adult is actually illegal in itself!) and, no, we can't force you or your parents to take similar actions at home. However, we don't run child protection and eSafety workshops for the sake of it, nor are we required to do so in many cases.
It's not about liability. It's about protection. I can no more stop you from jumping railings or smoking outside of school that I can stop you getting on Facebook or Snapchat outside of school. But while you're in our property, under our "duty of care", and we have the ability to limit your behaviour and put in safeguards, we will.
I don't block Facebook / Snapchat for the fun of it. I block it because you're in school. You're not SUPPOSED to be on it. In some cases, you're not ALLOWED to be on it (e.g. if under 13, etc.). You're in school to learn, not to post selfies. If you want to just talk to your mates there are a million and one ways to do so, and each one I discover I will block. Because you're not supposed to be chatting to your mates in school for the majority of the time and we're under no obligation to provide the resources for you to do so at the expense of, say, lessons going on and staff getting to online resources.
In the same way I block game websites, violent or not, cartoons and funny websites, offensive or not, and other time-wasting crap. I have no legal obligation to *block* some of the above. But I do. Because a) it's safer for the younger kids, b) you're supposed to be using my (limited) resources for working towards an education and not distracting others, and c) because the parents would go ape-shit if they found out you were on Facebook / Snapchat (by whatever access) all day while you were at school.
Now, in the UK, school has a different meaning, but I've worked in primary (3-11), secondary (11-16/18) and sixth form (17/18 when it existed separately) schools, both state and private. And I can see no reason why even a college /university (18+) would be obliged - under liability or not - to actually block most such websites. They are worried about misuse of their resources as well as what you go on, but we don't want you going on that crap and we CERTAINLY don't want you bypassing our systems to go on that crap. Hell, it's all logged and monitored whether we block it or not.
This is possibly the worst article ever. No, I do not, would not, and never would - even under anonymity - suggest that you should be doing this stuff on your phone so that I'm not liable. Fuck that. This is about child protection, and getting your school work done. Neither of those factors are aided by your doing it on some other device or illicitly. But whether it's banned or not... that sends a message.
Fucking Americans. Everything is about not getting sued. Protect the damn kids, not by suggesting they can avoid child pornography charges by doing things on ephemeral systems but by NOT TAKING PORNOGRAPHIC IMAGES.
Re: (Score:3)
UK opinion here:
Thinks may work differently on that side of the pond.I don't block
Facebook / Snapchat for the fun of it. I block it because you're in school.
In the USA you don't block anything that can be accessed on a phone. FCC regulations. And although you might institute rules against using phones while in class, you don't ban or confisacate them. Or parents will come down on you with a world of hurt. Because their little kiddy absolutely must have the latest gadget* in the event some sort of emergency comes up.
*Could give them a dumb 'feature phone'. But kids won't be seen without the late
Re: (Score:2)
My kid uses my dad's previous phone (a Moto x) because his phone I got free previously broke.
My younger son uses a Moto x I bought for 1 penny. A real expensive phone there.
My kids also come home to an empty house with no landline (it is cheaper to have two additional cell phones), so they need to be able to call me if there are issues. I am sorry if it bothers you that some people have valid reasons for their kids having "the latest gadget", but frankly, it is damn hard to get a cheap feature phone anymo
Re: (Score:1)
Fucking Americans. Everything is about not getting sued. Protect the damn kids, not by suggesting they can avoid child pornography charges by doing things on ephemeral systems but by NOT TAKING PORNOGRAPHIC IMAGES.
Dude ... what's the worse consequence:
1. Having some people see you naked.
2. Getting charged with child porn offenses.
We don't live in Victorian Europe or modern Islama-totalitariastan, so, without a shadow of a doubt ... IT'S 2!!! The most sane thing to say to children is, "You really shouldn't be doing this, but, if you're going to anyway, make damn sure you don't get caught, and here are some good ways to help ensure you don't get caught." Using Snapchat is one of them, I guess, although there are mu
Re: (Score:2)
In the same way I block game websites, violent or not, cartoons and funny websites, offensive or not, and other time-wasting crap. I have no legal obligation to *block* some of the above. But I do. Because a) it's safer for the younger kids, b) you're supposed to be using my (limited) resources for working towards an education and not distracting others, and c) because the parents would go ape-shit if they found out you were on Facebook / Snapchat (by whatever access) all day while you were at school.
We've recently seen the proliferation of social media into the workplace, with corporate Twitter accounts, and plenty of businesses advertising on Facebook.
That said, I'm wondering how your old-fashioned mentality is going to fare when your teaching guidelines and cirriculum are not sent to you via hardcopy, but instead have been posted to the brand new teachers "portal", powered by Facebook.
What happens when the iParent of tomorrow gets pissed for you denying their child access to social media? Speaking
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you all sent all the Puritans over here...when did UK decide that the human body was disgusting?
This is a new low (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I love how oblivious he is to "The Snappening" while he ignorantly flaps his gums on a topic he is obviously totally uninformed on.
My local high school is primarily afraid of being accused of molesting/fucking/sexually harassing their students.
Like finely tuned instruments executing the "ostrich mentality" they are perfectly content to stay as far away from students genitals &/or pictures as possible and will only intervene once the legal standard of "reasonable person" forces their hand. Once they no l
IF (Score:4, Insightful)
( post_is_by_bennett OR content_involves_use_of_pseudo_code_where_english_would_do_fine ) THEN IGNORE
Bad Law (Score:2, Insightful)
It's probably a bad law if you find yourself arresting and charging half of a high school with a federal crime for disseminating nude pictures of themselves. At this point it seems like they have criminalized common behavior for high school students of this generation. I'm sure other generations did this too it's just that now the internet and cellphones have not only made the information in question easier to disseminate but also to track so now we are criminalizing large swaths of our youth over what is e
Seriously Bennett? (Score:3, Interesting)
As a system administrator in a high school with about 1,000 students, I can say in short: No way and this post totally misses the mark.
First and foremost, anything that is going to distract a student in class and is not educationally related will be blocked in school. Simple as that. Teachers have enough to manage in class or outside of class during normal school hours without having to deal with social media intruding into their work.
In regard to sexting and using Snapchat over traditional communication, I have not seen an observable difference in the frequency of issues pre and post Snapchat sexting. There are plenty of ways to save Snapchats that students know know to do, including such low-tech ways as taking photos of the phone displaying the message. OP doesn't consider that these images are sometimes sent to many individuals initially by the person who took the images. By that point, one of the students would most likely alert a school administrator. I'd say a larger indicator of when this would be a school issue is how many individuals it was sent to initially.
Instead of fixing the law, let's sweep it under (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Most actual offenses are committed by kids being kids.
2) Most arrested for sex crimes do NOT re-offend (while people arrested for theft, drug related or violent crimes DO re-offend).
3) Most places have huge double standards punishing men more than women, boys more than girls.
4) States do their best to ensure that anyone that committed one sex crime gets screwed over entirely - no job, no place to live, no friends, all under the banner of "protect the children", when in reality they endanger the children by encouraging the offenders to break ridiculous laws instead of getting involved in normal social activity like attending church.
5) The rules are set up to the worst first time offenders - family and close friends - while making everyone else paranoid about strangers.
Grow up and smell the coffee... (Score:1)
"When a school installs a railing by the side of a walkway to keep students safe from passing cars, they're probably motivated by a mixture of concern over being sued, and legitimate concern for students' safety...."
'Schools', as such, have no concern of any kind. Individuals have concerns. Schools are a human social and commercial enterprise - much the same as a company.
Railings are put up because the school has to employ a safety officer by law. The safety officer has a job to do - he does a risk analysis
Can't be saved, can't be forwarded. (Score:2)
Currently in alpha for iPhone only,
https://sly.cr/ [sly.cr]
Have fun!
Oh I know this plot ... (Score:2)
... it's the same as condoms for minors and stuff.
I love Bennett's articles (Score:1)
PLEASE JUST BRING BACK JON KATZ! (Score:3)
I mean seriously Slashdot, if you're going to go full mediocre then go full mediocre.
Really? (Score:2)
"the recipient is already being dishonest with you (saving pics without your permission) at the time that you send the picture
AND
the recipient is smart enough to figure out how to save Snapchat pictures without notifying you -- not that hard, but eliminates some people"
How small of set is that? It would be the intersection of people smart enough to use a smartphone and can not use Google
So the headline is TOTAL BULLSHIT (Score:2)
Your High School Wants You To Install Snapchat
TL;BH
You missed out the words "It's my completely uninformed guess that..." from the front of your stupid clickbait headline.
who is this idiot writing article? (Score:1)
Doesn't make any sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I saw the abbreviated version of this post without taking in the fact it was yet another BH diatribe, I'd already loaded the page before I realised what it was so Dice's stats will register a hit on the page despite the fact I didn't want to read 90% of the rubbish contained
Re: (Score:2)
I agree but unfortunately /. (or more specifically Dice) doesn't care about usability (have you seen Beta?), they only care about page views/eyes on ads.
Yes, Beta looks like ass. However, I serendipitously discovered recently that Beta is the only way to view slashdot on my mobile and for some reason it browses comments at 0 or below. The "happy" consequence of that is that I got to see more of the trolls than I'm accustomed to on the classic site through my computer, and I didn't know the goatse and gnaa trolls were still around. That fondly reminded me of the good-old days of shitdot.
IMHO a Greasemonkey userscript would be one way* to allow users to more easily avoid BH posts completely and help get the message to Dice that we don't want these steaming piles of elephant shit. * I'd be happy to consider other methods such as native plugins or whatever...
This guy [slashdot.org] looks like they're on to something.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, using FF Mobile on Android, I just "Request Desktop Site" and get
Re: (Score:2)
Petition Not Available
The content of this petition is under review.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't give them any ideas!!