![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 33. Go back in thread:
Posted by muffled on November 1, 2009, at 14:40:38
In reply to Re: yes, but..... » cactus, posted by Deneb on November 1, 2009, at 13:44:58
cannot be tweeted?You still have to search and find?
Or I suppose, if a person just posts on that thread, they can then tweet it?
Or can they not, if it is a thread started by me?
Can they only tweet their own threads, and not a thread started by another poster? Or can they tweet any of their own posts, therefor linking my thread to twitter ANYways?
Still this will not good enuf for me cuz of past history of babble. The blocks are still there. Bob will dissapear again. He's having fun now w/the computer stuff, but if past history is anything, he will disappear again.
So I won't be a contributor here.
My goals do not match Bobs, guess its just 'me' vs 'them'. I am selfish, I obviously don't care enuf about other people cuz I won't post here.
I can contribute elsewhere, either on the 'net or IRL, so perhaps I am not a complete selfish person.
Anyhow,
Just I am curious is all.Take care all.
M
Posted by muffled on November 1, 2009, at 14:43:48
In reply to Re: yes, but..... » cactus, posted by Deneb on November 1, 2009, at 13:44:58
I went to the twitter page, and there are MANY 'welcome' posts.
Then the link under says retweet...?
Seems to be ALOT of new people.
Oh well best wishes to them.
Posted by muffled on November 1, 2009, at 14:53:00
In reply to Re: yes, but..... » cactus, posted by Deneb on November 1, 2009, at 13:44:58
What about having some boards that are viewable only to registered users, plus, those boards NOT be tweetable/facebookable/googleable.
Sort of a semi private board that is more intimate, private, slightly safer, less busy.
Where I post now, there are boards that are only open to registered users.
Maybe THAT way, those that want less openess, but still want to be open to new people can still have a place on babble...
Cuz the way it stands now, alot will be gone.
Also, on the semi private boards, I think it would be nice if the moderators chose re: blocking(not Bob and his formula).
If nothing else, it should appeal to Bob as an experiment on different moderation styles and their effects. All on the same site. HIS site which he owns and has all the rights to. Bob could do some research here...
Sigh....
But it might work...maybe...if once it was set up Bob would leave it to the moderators of said board(s).
Thots....
Posted by yxibow on November 1, 2009, at 15:03:22
In reply to Another possible option,,,but I dunno....BOB, posted by muffled on November 1, 2009, at 14:53:00
The buttons appear on every posting when you view any person's post on a thread if that person didn't opt out.
I dont know how the crap Bob is doing the optout, but it aint something I can see.
If you have opted out, your posts and the people who have opted out in their posts wont have a button set on it now.
Get it ? Weird.Anyhow... tidings
Posted by muffled on November 1, 2009, at 15:19:23
In reply to Buttons still on posts that arent opted out, posted by yxibow on November 1, 2009, at 15:03:22
> The buttons appear on every posting when you view any person's post on a thread if that person didn't opt out.
*So my posts would have the buttons on that thread?
> If you have opted out, your posts and the people who have opted out in their posts wont have a button set on it now.*so I will see no buttons on my posts, but others will?
> Get it ? Weird.*I'm feeling a little like 10derheart...very confused!
> Anyhow... tidings*Tidings to you too.
Posted by Kath on November 1, 2009, at 16:19:55
In reply to so archived threads, posted by muffled on November 1, 2009, at 14:40:38
So, it looks as though ANY of my posts at all, no matter where, will not have the buttons.
I had wondered if it would be to do with if the person starting a thread was opted in or out, but it seems like no is the answer.
Kath
Posted by seldomseen on November 1, 2009, at 16:57:26
In reply to Buttons still on posts that arent opted out, posted by yxibow on November 1, 2009, at 15:03:22
None of my post appear to have buttons on them now.
Posted by seldomseen on November 1, 2009, at 17:02:59
In reply to yes, but....., posted by cactus on November 1, 2009, at 12:26:43
"If anyone responds to a post which then gets twittered, their name will still appear on the related thread."
could you elaborate a bit on why you find that problematic. Maybe I'm just missing something huge here (which may be likely), but I'm not bothered by that. Should I be?
Seldom
Posted by muffled on November 1, 2009, at 17:29:24
In reply to Re: yes, but....., posted by seldomseen on November 1, 2009, at 17:02:59
For me, initially I didn't really undrstand about what it meant that babble was linked to google. It does really open it up to alot of viewers very easily. I'm not that thrilled w/that even, but I could live w/it.
The internet is NOT private of course, but everytime you add a button/link to make it easier...well, then it just becomes more exposed.
The posters more exposed.
Personally, its not ONLY the buttons that bother me, as to how Bob went about it.
Not telling/warning anyone, just barging ahead.
Thats why I am not here mostly.
As far as babble being widely advertised, then it does lose its personalness. Its more a big crowd. I had a hard enuf time trying to keep up w/a smaller crowd, and I worried so much that people would feel left out. And I would check so much that all were included etc.
I don't have a hope in H of keeping up w/a large influx of new and passing thru people.
They won't know me either.
So while I like to be able to support and educate, I cannot get any real support here any longer 1. cuz its too open 2. cuz I would just be constantly overwhelmed by the number of people.
And judging by the twitter and the number of 'welcome' posts...its likely to be much busier.
Babble has UTTERLY changed.
It is not the same place AT ALL.
Too bad,
I had some wonderful times here.
M
Posted by Dinah on November 1, 2009, at 17:40:37
In reply to Re: yes, but....., posted by seldomseen on November 1, 2009, at 17:02:59
I'm not *as* bothered by that.
Perhaps because my concerns with the icons were not the same concerns other people have. And I respect that people have their own reasons for concerns.
I'm thinking that if the issue is privacy, it might concern people if their posts can be reached from a tweeted post. My thought is that posts tweeted by anyone go onto *their* facebook or twitter page. Their friends are unlikely to be people any given babbler knows in real life. And if someone who *does* know you in real life, they could put a link to something in the thread on the facebook page, but it doesn't have the same impact to say "click this link and go three posters back on the thread and you'll see a post by Dinah" as it would to link one of my own posts, particularly one in which someone who knew me might be able to identify me.
I think that there were two aspects of this that concerned me. One was adequately addressed for my concerns. One wasn't so much.
It is far less likely to be an effective method of bullying. There's no getting around it. Social networking is ideally suited for bullying. So much so that the use of them is sometimes specified in school conduct policies. The whole concept of who you allow as a friend, how high you rank friends, tweeting or putting things on a facebook page to embarrass fellow students or teachers. Even apart from Babble these things are widely known. Inside Babble, it would be an excellent tool for that.
The second is that if you tweet or link something from within Babble, it is all well and good for Dr. Bob to say that it doesn't necessarily mean that you are associated with Babble. But if you are associated with Babble and you link or tweet your own post, you are associating your real life twitter or facebook identity with your Babble persona. Even if you don't tweet your own post, I think we're all fooling ourselves if we think we can bring the attention of someone in our life to Babble and not have them recognize us if they came here. Unless we are immensely unforthcoming about anything intimate about ourselves, if we led our husband or coworkers here, it's not unlikely they'd get a clue. My second concern is that not everyone is all that aware of these issues, and might click without thinking them through. After all, we have heard of many therapists with private facebook pages with public settings, and we know that that isn't a particularly wise idea. I think Dr. Bob ought to warn people on some intermediate step in the linking process what the result can be. Yes, facebook pages can be erased. But tweets can't be untweeted.
My more general privacy concerns are less. Twitter and Facebook are immense. I just don't see this taking those sites by storm. They aren't relevant to the main purpose of Twitter and Facebook, and most people who post on Babble would be unlikely to link themselves on their own Twitter or Facebook pages. Even if they do, those places are huge and Babble is small. The numbers are hardly likely to be significant. *Maybe* if a link was sent out on a related Twitter site. Like if there was a twitter site about transference, and a tweet was sent to the subscribers of that list, it is possible that members of that list might be interested and find babble. But even that is not a huge number.
On the other hand, someone could quote my entire post, and someone could link that quote, and effectively my post can be linked. So for those who find that a violation of privacy there is no doubt that privacy can still be violated that way.
I don't see this as being any more, in the larger picture, than the firecracker in the rain I previously described. And again, that perceived fact increased my third and final concern, which was perhaps greatest, although nothing whatsoever to do with Twitter or Facebook directly. And that is the attitude of our administrator towards Babblers.
At best, I could say that he's thinking of Babble as a place to exchange medication tips, and he doesn't understand that there are more personal things here that are private to us, however public the internet may be. That we care about how those things are handled. That they are a part of us, a vulnerable part of us. And saying that this is a good reminder that we should have never put those things on his board isn't all that reassuring that he understands.
Posted by Deneb on November 1, 2009, at 17:41:10
In reply to Re: yes, but..... » seldomseen, posted by muffled on November 1, 2009, at 17:29:24
I think Babble has gotten smaller now than a few years ago. People have noticed Babble has become a "ghost town".
Dr. Bob is probably trying to save Babble by making it more visible and by helping new people find Babble.
Check the archives. Babble was much busier 5 years ago. Since then, member numbers have dwindled. I think having more people (but not hordes) is better for Babble.
Also Babble used to be a lot more visible in Google searches. More people found Babble through Google 5 years ago. Google changed things so that Babble is no longer easily found by Google. I think that is why Dr. Bob is trying out the Facebook and Twitter thing, to make it so that Babble can be found by more people.
If you liked Babble more 5 years ago, then you liked Babble more when it was more visible and more newbies were here. Dr. Bob is just trying to make Babble vibrant again like back then.
Posted by muffled on November 1, 2009, at 17:52:06
In reply to Re: yes, but..... » muffled, posted by Deneb on November 1, 2009, at 17:41:10
> I think Babble has gotten smaller now than a few years ago. People have noticed Babble has become a "ghost town".
* primarily because of Bobs policies...
> Dr. Bob is probably trying to save Babble by making it more visible and by helping new people find Babble.*yes, he's doing things *ss backwards. Maybe he should have 'listened' to the posters all those years ago, and babble wouldn't have become a ghost town in the first place.
I really liked that stuff you found about hpw to keep a website alive etc. You will notice that Bob is missing a few (well many) key points.
The website slowed down because of that, NOT because of lack of visibility.My thots.
BTW Deneb, your are very sweet and are trying really hard. I admire you. I hope this place works out for you. If it doesn't there ARE other places, so don't despair OK?
Take care.
M
Posted by psych chat on November 1, 2009, at 18:06:08
In reply to Buttons still on posts that arent opted out, posted by yxibow on November 1, 2009, at 15:03:22
Right,
And as I was trying to say below - someone who did not opt out could just reply to your post and Tweet it to bully a person who chose to opt out.
That's why the only solution is to allow people to edit/delete posts. I private board is a good idea-it's been proposed numerous times already, that could work too. But that doesn't solve the problem of the tens of thousands of archived posts.
Posted by psych chat on November 1, 2009, at 18:18:17
In reply to Re: yes, but..... » muffled, posted by Deneb on November 1, 2009, at 17:41:10
That's a good point, Deneb. I know you are well meaning and trying to help.
Psych Central has tons of posters - and they don't tweet comments of posters, or remove comments to use for other purposes.
The posts at Psych Central do not come up in Google because they have a security layer. Anytime I google a medication along with a couple of words, a Dr. Bob thread comes up.
Psych Central has a policy prohibiting others from removing comments from their site - whether it be cutting and pasting or whatever. Not easy to enforce, but the site encourages privacy and respect for others rather than employing policies that violate its members privacy.
Psych Central lets you edit/delete your posts. Yet, there are tons of posts there - it hasn't disintegrated.
With all those privacy and safety measures in place, Psych Central has much more traffic. I don't think Dr. Bob understands.
Of course, I am moving over to Psych Central for my discussions concerning mental health. I prefer the community here, because of the nature of people's backgrounds, etc., but I'm sure there are a lot of knowledgable people over there as well. Just haven't used that site too much to experiement.
Posted by muffled on November 1, 2009, at 18:28:17
In reply to Re: yes, but..... » Deneb, posted by psych chat on November 1, 2009, at 18:18:17
> Psych Central has tons of posters
* kinda crowded??? :(
> The posts at Psych Central do not come up in Google because they have a security layer. Anytime I google a medication along with a couple of words, a Dr. Bob thread comes up.
*really, they have a security to stop google?????? Thats neat!
> Psych Central has a policy prohibiting others from removing comments from their site - whether it be cutting and pasting or whatever. Not easy to enforce, but the site encourages privacy and respect for others rather than employing policies that violate its members privacy.*and thats nice too.
> Psych Central lets you edit/delete your posts.*yes!
> With all those privacy and safety measures in place, Psych Central has much more traffic. I don't think Dr. Bob understands.*no, I don't think he does, I don't understand him :(
> Of course, I am moving over to Psych Central for my discussions concerning mental health.*I think I stayed away from there when I left babble cuz there was some controversy over there at the time, so I went far away. I dunno how it is over there now. I do get their newsletter.
Maybe I will look again.
Thx.
Posted by psych chat on November 1, 2009, at 18:57:56
In reply to Re: yes, but....., posted by seldomseen on November 1, 2009, at 17:02:59
I think I understand what you are saying, Seldom. If links to our posts are Tweeted as opposed to the word text of our comment - how does that impact us?
For one, as I already said somewhere else, that can be used to bully others here-like what happened to Dinah. Someone who posts about something they are having a real hard time with - then someone else decides to respond to their posts and tweet their comments (and act innocent about it). So stop them? So the next person comes along and does the same thing...etc. etc. The person bullied will not be able to post here anymore. While most people have good intentions, there is maliciousness/bullying going on every day, as Dinah pointed out. The 'disinhibition effect' of online communications enables this behavior. Dr. Bob can fix this with how he structures the opt out, but he did not do this yet.
People want their posts to remain here for various reasons. The Twitter community is not a mental health community while PB is. We (some of us) want our posts to stay in the mental heatlh community, not passed around the world. We (some) don't want links to our conversations here passed around to the non-mental health community for a variety of reasons.
The opt out could still work, but programming changes would have to be made so the links from those who opt out don't show up on Twitter. Or-the entire thread would have to be "Twitter-proofed" if the person who started the thread opted out, or just let it apply to only new posts so the 10s of thousands in the archives can't be tweeted/linked to Facebook and people could choose to no longer post. Bob used a band aid instead of a cure; he didn't carry through with everything necessary to provide a truly opt-out opt out.
Like I said below, Psych Central's policy/TOS prohibits anyone from taking another's words/comments/posts from that site. That's done for a reason. It's not easy to police, but at least a person has some recourse if it happens. It also encourages the respect and privacy of its members. The site also does not encourage this behavior by providing icons to link and tweet others' most intimate thoughts and comments. Instead, it discourages this behavior.
Just as we have laws that are broken all the time...Having the laws in place doesn't stop crime, but it does deter. It encourages a community where people have incentives to not break the law. And because of laws, people have recourse. For TOS, people have legal recourse as well. It might be more difficult to act upon, but they are still there.
For me personally, I just think a policy here similar to Psych Central's TOS, along with other features of that site - the ability to delete/edit posts would be more ethical in protecting the safety and privacy of the mental health community. Psych Central also adds a security layer so everything doesn't come up on Google. That seems like a respectable, reasonable thing to do - do you disagree?
The edit/delete option is what concerns me the most. People can be held hostage by their posts the rest of their life. I have read several people here discuss manic episodes-I think it's awful you could be writing while having mania or hypomania, only to be mortified about what you wrote while you reread it the next day. Also, when I first came here, I wrote a lot before I knew I couldn't edit or delete my posts. Every online forum I had used in the past had this option - I was upset about that. Another newbie might be in that same situation.
At the same time, technology changes and people become more and more vulnerable. Look at all the new crawlers out there - go to pipl.com and see what is in there about you. Technology is changing so fast, people are creating more and more applications to gather private information and identify others. This site's security is akin to the security of decades ago-before these new tools were in place.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone at this very moment is inventing a program to crawl the net to automatically gather all a person's posts based solely on linguistics, links, phrases. The federal government already does this to collect information about people.
This is happening so fast - it does have serious implications; and due to the rate of technological change, people are just starting to realize...people like us who have already put all this stuff out there about ourselves - and are powerless to delete it. It would be detrimental if people had no control over all sorts of aspects of their lives because we use the internet for anything and everything. It doesn't seem reasonable to say "don't use the internet". The more careful we become, the more sophisticated the technology becomes to mitigate.
It is well known employers are combing websites to find personal information about employees or potential employees - so there is a huge market for data gathering programs like the one i hypothesized earlier. THere is also a market for programs like that due to the needs of the govt. intelligence community.
And whether we like it or not - mental health is still discriminated against in employment and other areas. One example is all those who need security clearances for their jobs. They may have posted stuff here years go, that can be easily found by the computer forensic people who investigate that stuff. Millions of government workers, military members, contractors, researchers, consultants, etc., need security clearances to do their jobs. Stuff posted here can EASILY prevent one from obtaining the clearance.
And the fact this website is owned by a medical doctor may provide more of a false sense of security. I am so used to my psychiatrists and therapists being so protective of my words i say to them. Others might think that way too, not knowing reasonable protections for privacy and safety are not used on this site. By the time they say too much and find out, it may be too late. Oops, sorry, can't delete your post. It's there to haunt you the rest of your life.
A reasonable amount of security and privacy from Dr. Bob is not too much to ask for, considering all of that. I can almost promise you, this will be much more profound a year or 2 down the road.
Does that make more sense?
Posted by 10derHeart on November 1, 2009, at 19:36:14
In reply to Re: yes, but..... » seldomseen, posted by Dinah on November 1, 2009, at 17:40:37
>But tweets can't be untweeted.
I think maybe you meant this another way, but Tweets can be untweeted :-) You can delete your own Tweets, but not edit them. This includes RTs (ReTweets, which is what they appear as if you use the little buttons)
I know as I have tried it (not from Babble) and when I did Twitter a little months ago, I wrote such dumb things I deleted them all the time, just in case ANYONE (even strangers) read them. Which I am sure they did not, as I was talking to myself.
But I think we are talking about the goodness of someone's else's heart - who may have already linked to FB or made our posts (or threads containing our posts) into RTs on their Twitter accounts "unTweeting" correct?
That we cannot control, for sure. It all comes down to decency and respect, and unfortunately, those are not a given, nor perceived in the same way by all, nor by Dr. Bob. Sad to say.
Posted by 10derHeart on November 1, 2009, at 19:55:52
In reply to Re: yes, but..... » psych chat, posted by muffled on November 1, 2009, at 18:28:17
>>*really, they have a security to stop google?????? Thats neat!
I have hugely mixed feelings here. Stop Google. Hmm. You see, you could be talking about me. Five years ago, if something had stopped Google from pointing me to Babble, I might have died or at least made a suicide attempt, I was in such a bad state. I credit about 50% Babble and 50% finding a new T. back then (BUT that was months AFTER Babble - the psychology board was my T. for a while and they really did save me from a lot of awful stuff...) with stopping me. That is an awfully large percentage.
What if I couldn't have found a place like Babble? Okay, maybe another avenue would have opened and I would have found a way to feel better w/o Babblers. I place those things in God's hands anyway. But who knows? I hate the thought of others just like me, in extreme emotional agony, isolated, in horrible grief, unable to talk to anyone IRL, thinking no one has EVER felt what they are feeling before, pretty much wracked with shame and pain, being "shielded" from places Like Babble - and Psyche Central for that matter. Are we sure that is an altogether desirable thing? It sounds good to be really, really private (to me, too)...but...sheesh, in 2004, I wouldn't have had the energy, mental ability (too depressed) or technical knowledge to do much else BUT Google, as that wasn't so hard. How *would* I have found Babble?
Five years ago, when THANK GOD I found Babble by typing in something like "in love with therapist" or maybe "my therapist is leaving" into Google, it changed my life for the better, and may well have saved it. Knowing that, I feel really uncomfortable viewing security layers so good they stop Google as completely good.
I know and remember I was once "they" and "them" and I NEEDED desperately to find "us."
Does anyone understand what I am saying?
Posted by Dinah on November 1, 2009, at 20:19:04
In reply to deleting at Twitter » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on November 1, 2009, at 19:36:14
Tweets also go out to followers. They aren't just on your website.
If you tweet something and it ends up going to someone's cell, it's gone and you can't take it back, if I understand it.
Or at least, I've seen some entertainment figures delete things, and people will say "so and so tweeted this, but i see they've deleted it. but i've saved it. here's what it said." or stuff like that.
Posted by Phillipa on November 1, 2009, at 20:30:52
In reply to Re: deleting at Twitter, posted by Dinah on November 1, 2009, at 20:19:04
Yes I changed my setting and no more icons. Phillipa
Posted by 10derHeart on November 1, 2009, at 20:40:50
In reply to Re: deleting at Twitter, posted by Dinah on November 1, 2009, at 20:19:04
True, you can't take back others knowing about it, if they read it before you delete it. As far as saving it, yeah, I guess they could Copy_Paste it.
I suppose that's right. I get all my pastor's Tweets, and if he deletes one off his own page later I guess I would still have mine...
Hard to grasp for me maybe (and this will likely come off high and mighty or something) but since I would never collect such things for gossip or harm, those things you said don't even enter my consciousness...
Not to mention I had people I don't know (and there have been about 3-4) blocked from my Twitter account so they cannot see my Tweets. Because to me it was weird for strangers to want to follow me. But, flip side - I am a stranger to my pastor (big church, multi-site..) and I follow him, as do over 800 other people....but of course, that is his intention. He could always have more than one Twiiter page if he wanted a personal/family one for other things, I guess.
It all makes my frickin' head hurt and I am rambling.
Sorry.
Posted by BayLeaf on November 1, 2009, at 22:17:07
In reply to Google is a double-edged sword *mild suicide trig* » muffled, posted by 10derHeart on November 1, 2009, at 19:55:52
If you google "psychology help online" the first site that pops up is PsychCentral. And the posts on PC are not searchable on Google. And plenty of people still find PC. So if Bob made the posts not searchable, people could still find Babble, just as they find PsychCentral. They just would be able to search our posts from Google.
Posted by 10derHeart on November 1, 2009, at 22:18:56
In reply to Re: Google is a double-edged sword » 10derHeart, posted by BayLeaf on November 1, 2009, at 22:17:07
Posted by Dinah on November 1, 2009, at 23:16:31
In reply to Re: deleting at Twitter » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on November 1, 2009, at 20:40:50
Is it the link to Twitter that is sent to cell phones and computers? Or is it the text? If it's a link and you delete it I guess it's gone, except that someone might have already read it or saved it or whatever.
If it's text that's tweeted, it's out there and can't be recalled.
Posted by seldomseen on November 2, 2009, at 6:27:01
In reply to Re: yes, but..... » seldomseen, posted by psych chat on November 1, 2009, at 18:57:56
My primary point of contention with this whole deal was that *anyone* could tweet/facebook my posts. I simply thought that was beyond all comprehension of what was right and proper at babble.
It appears to be working now such that a link to a post from babble (not my post) can be seen on twitter, but if someone clicks that link they are brought back to babble. If I have posted to that particular thread, they can read my post. My posts, however, stay on babble. The context of the post is maintained.
There is now a new and indirect link to my post from facebook/twitter, as the entire thread on babble can now be viewed if one chooses.
That level of exposure and risk is one with which I am okay I guess. I've certainly struggled with a lot in my life, and I do think if revealing that struggle can help someone else, then that's why I accept that risk. At least no one can directly tweet my post without my permission and comment on how stupid I am. Most importantly though, my posts stay on babble. Even google brings people to babble.
The ability to outright tweet a post against a poster's wishes (which to me constitutes abuse) is gone. I suspect this abuse already happened prior to this modification being implemented and that is *wholly tragic*. I wish Dr. Bob could wave a magic wand and have that just be erased. I don't know if Dr. Bob anticipated that potential outcome. He has apologized for mishandling the whole thing. It's up to us as to whether we accept that apology or not.
I'm not sure if I consider babble to be a mental health site. I've certainly argued previously that it was not. It's stated purpose mentions only support and education. However, what it actually *is* versus what its stated purpose *claims* it is, may be two separate things. Dr. Bob does maintain a mental health site, but its stated target is mental health professionals.
The fact that Dr. Bob is a psychiatrist in no way influences how I view his decisions, actions, lack of actions etc... I believe on this site he functions only as a moderator. He is not my personal physician, and I've yet to see him offer any kind of professional service on this site other than moderation on occasion and maintenance of the site. However, transference is very real, and IMO *does* happen on this site. In fact, this appears to come up so often, I think Dr. Bob should specifically state his role somewhere on on this site (maybe he has I don't know). Then again, I don't know if that would help or not.
It appears that babble is dancing in the surf on a lot of issues: research, privacy, intent etc... Right now, I'm okay with where it is, but I understand why others are not. Maybe these conversations will force babble to get into the water, or stay on the shore. I don't know.
I hear you when you say that privacy on the internet will become more and more of an issue in the coming years. The internet isn't known for its benevolence and it is a huge database of all kinds of self-revealed information that's just out there for all to see.
Seldom
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.