Fate of Your Social Media Content When You Die

Will your digital self vanish when your physical self dies? Have you ever thought about that?

Your photos, poems, statements, art, video, jokes, rants, everything that defined you as a social media participant -- will it have value for your children, siblings, parents, friends? Or will your social media legacy not matter?

What have you done to ensure the preservation of your social media content in the event of your death?

Facebook, for example, removes from public view all the content a deceased person posted, keeping it all on their servers, but not letting anyone see it. They leave the profile, so friends and family can post condolence messages. Big deal. They retain all the content that the dead person posted. The content is retained by Facebook for future potential, like history or monetary value that may be attached to the content.

"You have not been active on this account for 12 months. If you wish for your profile to continue to exist, you must log in and perform some action on it. Otherwise, we will delete your account as inactive and abandoned."

But you're dead and your surviving family members and friends were not left with instructions for maintaining your social media presences.

Jason Mazzone, law professor at the University of Illinois, says a Federal law is necessary and states in "Digital Afterlife":

“It’s becoming increasingly common for people to have digital assets, and some of them do actually have value,” he said. “Not only are such sites repositories of intellectual property, they also are important to family members and friends. Historians of the future will likely depend upon digital archives to reconstruct the past, which creates a real problem, particularly in an age when we don’t leave diaries, and, increasingly, people don’t write books.”

Pin It

Self Driving Google Cars and the Techno-magical World

Google hopes to have self-driving cars available to the public in about 5 years or so.

Big deal.

What exactly are the problems that a self-driving car will solve? I can't think of any. Supposedly autonomous cars that are driven by computer software will help traffic congestion and reduce human error accidents.

This plays into the silly myth that computers don't make mistakes. I don't have to belabor this point much. I think we've all experienced glitches, bugs, dysfunctions, unavailable sites, viruses, cache errors, browser screw-ups, and other problems. Sometimes just refreshing the page or restarting your computer fixes it. Other times, more drastic measures are required.

When you think about self-driving cars, not many benefits come to mind. Eat a sandwich, text your friends, read a book, talk on the phone, have sex, watch a movie, browse the web -- people are already doing these things in their car as they drive. A self-driving car will just allow the more timid (or less reckless and crazy, I should say) among us to join in.

The main thing for me is the possibility of hackers hijacking your car. A possible scenario: criminals hack into your car's operating system, they hijack it, taking you somewhere, then holding you against your will until you pay ransom money (the rich fat cats can worry about that), or just making Google cars crash for the sheer mayhem of it.

Viruses in Google cars, that will be a big problem.

Nobody does usability testing anymore, so you know the software for self-driving cars will be full of problems. The public, as usual, will be the unpaid beta testers. "Rush the buggy product to market, let the users find the glitches and suggest fixes for us" seems to be the prevalent "Don't Worry, Be Crappy" (Guy Kawasaki) mindset.

3rd party apps for the self-driving car represent yet another potential nightmare. Customers will be suckered into adding all kinds of apps, then the rise of rogue apps will appear, with an increase in malware, surveillance, and ad annoyances.

Sit back, relax, and watch these advertisements as your car drives itself to your destination.

Will a Google car have a glitch, go too fast, change lanes without a turn signal, or run stoplights, and then, when a cop comes after you, will the Google car pull over so you can get a ticket while Google car laughs at you?

According to Wikipedia: "In August 2011, a human-controlled Google driverless car was involved in the project's first crash near Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA. Google has stated that the car was being driven manually at the time of the accident.[12] A second incident involved a Google driverless car being rear-ended while stopped at a stoplight."

Some people seek a Science Fiction Reality. They want glasses that tell you what to do and cars that drive all by themselves and jetpacks that enable you to fly...and all sorts of things like that. They don't care about the new problems such devices may cause. They don't care about the opportunities these devices will make available for criminals and terrorists and idiots.

They just want to inhabit a techno-magical world. They're still lost in the childish illusions of Tolkien, Harry Potter, and DisneyWorld.

Fundamentally, they seek a dream state where humans no longer have to do much, because machines (which have replaced fairies, wizards, and witches) are waiting on them hand and foot. They even hope for artificial intelligence, where the machines will think and feel and self-propagate and devise their own schemes.

My prediction: humans and civilization will then be deleted as irrelevant, antiquated, irrational, and dangerous. We already have combat robots (drones, etc.) that violate Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics:

1, A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2, A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3, A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

What will happen when self-driving cars also create an itinerary for you? When they decide where you should go, based on the Contextual Web? Based on data accumulated by various social media surveillance systems, your clicks, the time of day, and your normal routine will determine where the car drives you.

You get into the car at lunch time, you tend to eat Mexican food on Wednedays, so off you go to La Hacienda, with no input from you.

Contextual Web Self-Driving Cars will eliminate both driving and thinking from your life. Just hop in and go where you need to go, with no planning or spontaneity.

LOL

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9231707/Self_driving_cars_a_reality_for_39_ordinary_people_39_within_5_years_says_Google_39_s_Sergey_Brin

Pin It

Technology Quotes and IT Jokes

Those parts of the system that you can hit with a hammer are called hardware; those program instructions that you can only curse at are called software. -- Anonymous

Computers make it easier to do a lot of things, but most of the things they make it easier to do don't need to be done. -- Andy Rooney

For years there has been a theory that millions of monkeys typing at random on millions of typewriters would reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. The Internet has proven this theory to be untrue. -- Anonymous

If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into a committee. That will do them in. -- Bradley's Bromide

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. -- Thomas Edison

"If you're not failing 90% of the time, then you're probably not working on sufficiently challenging problems." — Alan Kay.

A good programmer is someone who always looks both ways before crossing a one-way street. -- Doug Linder

Any teacher that can be replaced by a computer, deserves to be. - David Thornburg

"Science is supposedly the method by which we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. In computer science, we all are standing on each others' feet." — G. Popek.

"Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools." — Gene Brown.

"Someone knocked over my recycle bin. There's icons all over my desktop." — billiam.

Why is it 'marketing' when a company helps itself to my information against my will and 'piracy' or 'industrial espionage' if I helped myself to THEIR information against their will ? — Causality.

If it's there and you can see it — it's real.
If it's not there and you can see it — it's virtual.
If it's there and you can't see it — it's transparent.
If it's not there and you can't see it — you deleted it.

Pin It

New Blogger and Unimproved User Interfaces

The "new Blogger" has been forced on everyone recently, just as the Facebook Timeline was. They warned us for a few months, gave us a chance to try it out, and I immediately reverted to the old Blogger interface. Clients are puzzled, one said "my Blogger just went bonkers!"

It would be nice if platform developers actually listened to user complaints and suggestions, then really improved the interface and added user-requested features. But that's not what happens. Interfaces are scrambled, 3rd party apps are imitated, glitches occur, what was obvious and intuitive becomes confusing and obtuse.

Functions are disorganized, some becoming hidden within gear icons, forcing you to guess their location, and click to view a drop down menu. Text links become mysterious icons, legible black text is faded out to hard to read light gray text on white backgrounds, and stuff nobody wants is pushed at you.

I have never seen an interface redesign that made me think, "Wow. This is so much better than the old design. I can accomplish a lot more, faster, and easier." Instead, I have to see the new interface as an obstacle course, a game, a challenge. Eventually, I master it and adjust to it. But this is not what innovation is all about.

Change is supposed to be about progress and improvement, not convolution and increased difficulty.

Do coders need to justify their salary? Do they get bored with the proven success? Are they tired of looking at a design that users understand and like?

Do they say, "Hey boss, I think our users are tired of simplicity and usability. Let's violate web norms, change things around just for the sake of change, force a new interface on everybody without usability testing it on typical users, disrupt their contentment and productivity, make them relearn the system, and call it an upgrade."?

This is the common strategy: take a perfectly good, simple, easy to use interface...and mess it up, then call it an "upgrade". When Twitter convoluted their interface, I pretty much quit using Twitter, after being a big fan since it first began, having followed Robert Scoble's lead.

All you can do is roll with the punches.

Blogger remains the best blogging platform around. Google owns it, so Google gives SEO preference to Blogger blogs. Also, I have never heard of a Blogger blog being hacked.

So we spend valuable time learning a new, unimproved interface because that's what the platform has forced upon us, without giving us the option to always be able to revert to the old interface. This is what we have to do, there's no getting around it. Once we master the new interface, life can go on.

But I dream of a day when new interface designs are real improvements to enjoy, rather than nuisances to endure.

Pin It

Ability to Send Friend Requests Suspended by Facebook

Some people just don't understand how Facebook works. They send out friend requests to people they don't really know.

Why? Because they want to push their opinions and "great content" on others. Because they want to inflate their number of friends, so they feel more popular and influential. Because they think other people could benefit from their posts. I don't know. Could be any number of silly or legitimate reasons.

But "because Facebook listed them in my sidebar as Suggested Friends" is not a good reason. And it can get you in a lot of trouble. You could be considered a malicious spammer. You could even get kicked off Facebook, your account deleted.

It doesn't matter that Facebook "suggested" them as friends or "people you may know". That's just a computer program algorithm that puts those "Suggested Friends" into your sidebar. No human being at Facebook is sitting around thinking, "Hmmm. I wonder who ought to be friends with Steven Edward Streight".

All that matters is how these people have their privacy settings configured and how they react to getting friend requests from strangers. Telling them that "Facebook recommended you as a friend" means nothing to them. They don't know you. It creeps them out. Con artists reassure people that they are "legitimate". You cannot persuade them to give you a chance to prove yourself.

Some people don't want a bunch of friends on Facebook. They use Facebook ONLY to communicate with family, old school mates, and intimate pals. You cannot know this. You cannot guess what their privacy settings are, nor their policy about friend requests from unknown people. Women in particular must be very careful about such things.

Your reassurances and your hopes that they "honor" your friend request means nothing to them. THEY DO NOT KNOW YOU. They don't want you knowing what they post or who they interact with. THEY DO NOT TRUST YOU. Leave them alone.

You cannot win their trust, unless you get introduced to them in the real world.

A friend of mine on Facebook today posted this message:

QUOTE

You know, I'm really GETTING DISGUSTED WITH FACEBOOK again. They keep recommending friends for me to whom I often send a request, or I request someone from our "If You Grew Up in Marion, Illinois" page; these people usually accept almost instantly.

Those are the only ways I am requesting friends these days. I sent several requests within the last couple of days, and now I get a message from Facebook that I am "banned for 14 days from sending Friend Requests for sending friendship requests to people with whom I have few friends in common."

I have no idea who the people are to whom Facebook complains that I have sent such requests. Since they have no Customer Service, there is no way you can find out this information at all. Now Facebook is sending messages that it is against their policy to send friendship requests to people you do not know. Maybe 911, Homeland Security, etc. has caused them to adapt such a policy.

END QUOTE

He doesn't understand that it's not Facebook, it's the people. It's not that Facebook doesn't like who he's sending Facebook friend requests to, or at least that's not the entire story. It's the fact that some people are configuring their privacy settings to reject friend requests from people they don't know. They get the friend request, they don't know you, so they report you to Facebook.

All you have to do is send Private Messages to these people and ask them to SEND YOU a friend request. Just change your methodology. Facebook doesn't want you sending friend requests to people you don't really know, no matter what the Suggested Friends list says.

I explained this to my friend, but he still didn't get it, or didn't like it. He responded:

QUOTE

Basically I have always done as you suggested in your first RSVP above except I send the message, tell them who I am, and that Facebook suggested I send them a Friendship Request.

I then say, "I am sending you that request, and I hope you will honor it." That is the only difference between your suggestion and what I have always done. I have sent a complaint to Facebook telling them that I no longer want them to suggest friends for me. I hope they will honor that request.

END QUOTE

I then told him "NO NO NO. Do NOT send a private message and a friend request. Send them a private message and ask them to SEND YOU a friend request. Otherwise, you're still considered a spammer or bully."

They don't have to "honor" anything. It's not about "honoring" you. It's about you honoring and respecting their right to privacy. You don't send them a private message warning them that you, a totally unknown person, are about to send them a friend request and they better, by golly, accept it.

Don't get angry at Facebook. Just learn to play by their rules. Learn to respect the fact that some people just aren't into you, no matter how charming, bright, and funny you think you are.

You must stop sending friend requests to strangers whom you assume will like to be friends with you. You must instead send private messages to them and ask that they SEND YOU a friend request. 

But even with this technique, you may still get in trouble if you do it too often.

Facebook is trying to track spammers. If a technique is used too frequently, it will make Facebook think you may be a spammer. Spammers are using every trick they can think of, and what seems to you like a polite method, may be a gimmick that spammers have abused and overused. 

NOTE: I'm not saying that you can't develop nice online relationships with people you don't know, but begin to know a little bit, through sending friend requests to strangers who seem to have a few things in common with you, based on their About/Info page. What I am saying is that you need to be aware of Facebook's rules and the privacy concerns of some people.

If you refuse to comply with Facebook rules, and more people report you as a spammer or stranger they don't know personally, eventually your Facebook account will be deleted.

Pin It

Jihadist Terrorist Attack on World Trade Center 9-11

Click on image for LARGER view.

9-11 Jihadist Terrorist Attack as God Saw It

Frank Culbertson took this photo from the International Space Station the day the World Trade Center twin towers were hit by radical Islamic terrorists.

This was NOT a "man-made disaster" as the politically correct (corrupt) elitist fools insist on saying nowadays. This was a malicious Jihad terrorist attack by religious Muslim extremists who hate freedom, Christianity, women's rights, and everything America stands for. They love burqas, male domination, and the oppression of women.

Not all Muslims are bad, just as not all Christians are Ku Klux Klan, Jeremiah Wright, or Westboro Baptist "Church".

The Forgotten Side of 9-11 and Non-American War Casualities

One of the saddest things about 9-11 is how we Americans mourn over the loss of innocent life in the World Trade Center, but don't seem to care much about the innocent lives lost in the many wars and drone strikes we've been involved in.

It's always American deaths that matter, and not so much the non-American, innocent civilians killed in various wars and "kinetic military actions". The news media reports on how many American troops were killed today in Afghanistan, never how many innocent civilians also lost their lives.

Some may think it's "patriotic" to care only about American deaths. I disagree. I care about all deaths. Enemy combatants and terrorists deserve to die, and good riddance to them. But so many women and children and civilian men also perish, often through negligence or "shoot everybody in the general area from which hostile fire comes" type tactics.

Now with drone attacks, young guys in Nevada are killing suspected terrorists in a module that's like a video game. This remote killing has a detached, misanthropically abstract feel to it. The drone activators are so far removed from the blood and screams and pain, if they make a mistake, it deserves a lot more than "Oooops".

NY Times "US Drone Pilot Waiting for a Kill Shot"

A deeply ignorant comment I got on this post on GooglePlus: 

"Today is not the day that we as a nation honor them - today is about honoring our own. If this is something you feel passionately about then start an international day via the UN to honor them." 

Bull. We should honor and mourn the loss of innocent civilian life every day...and we don't need a special declaration by the UN or Congress to do it.

Click on image for LARGER view.

Pin It

Go Away GoDaddy: Anonymous Member Takes Down the Sleazy Hoster

GoDaddy, the web hosting service with skanky commercials, has been taken down by a member of Anonymous.

TechCrunch "GoDaddy Outage Takes Down Millions of Sites"

Forbes "5 Reasons to Leave GoDaddy and How"

GoDaddy uses the most sleazy, sexual commercials to promote their business. I've been repulsed by their marketing and have seen reports about terrible customer service and pro-SOPA orientation. Now we find out that they also did not harden the security of their servers. While I feel sorry for the businesses who got tricked into hosting on GoDaddy, I don't feel sorry for GoDaddy.

GoDaddy did end up opposing SOPA, but their flip flop was a result of tremendous pressure, not their own ethical values or corporate culture.

CNET "RE: Dump GoDaddy Day"

The member of Anonymous that brought down GoDaddy has bigger plans: to take down the entire Internet. This is starting to look like an Austin Powers movie.

Brandon DuBois, in a comment on TechCrunch, states:

QUOTE

As a systems administrator, I have to honestly say anyone who is complaining about godaddy had this coming.

Not only are they one of the most horrible shared hosting solutions out there, but they also support legislation that essentially wants to kill freedom of speech and creativity on the internet.

I wouldn't have given them a penny years ago solely because of their poor network architecture, overloading of servers, and poor customer service...

Now that I know they are trying to kill a free internet, hate them even more. Why don't you just use a reliable company that isn't hated by almost every IT person in the world?

END QUOTE



Pin It

Bear Hugs Not Appropriate for POTUS

Let's protect our President of the United States, whether we like him or not.

Pizzeria Guy Gives Obama a Bear Hug

I suggest we not allow pizzeria guys, or anybody else for that matter, to pick up the President and toss him around like a toy. While some business owner may think it's a good publicity stunt, I fear for the safety and well being of our elected officials.

The pizzeria owner who grabbed the POTUS and gave him a bear hug claims that he was not cleared by the Secret Service and that it was not planned or vetted act, it was purely spontaneous and caught Obama and the Secret Service off guard. This is very concerning and alarming. What if he was a really bad person...???

UPDATE: Presidential "Bear Hug" Was a Serious Security Breach -- not a "fun" moment.

Like I said before, he's lucky he didn't get a bullet right between the eyes.

POTUS is not a toy anybody can toss around due to a sudden urge to get physical.

“I guess I got caught up in the moment,” Van Duzer told Wolf Blitzer during an episode of The Situation Room. “I had a brief moment when I knew he was coming. He opened up the door and he was like, ‘Where’s Scott at?’ As soon as I saw him, he came right at me, shook my hand. I was so excited, I picked him up.”

When Blitzer questioned whether Van Duzer encountered any issues with Secret Service lifting the president, Van Duzer said, “I’m telling you, Wolf, just spur of the moment. We didn’t plan it, we didn’t have no communication with the Secret Service…I felt comfortable being able to pick him up.”

-- MEDIAITE "Pizza Shop Owner Who Bear Hugged Obama"


If anybody can just go up to a public servant and grab them, a malevolent person may someday take advantage of this over-familiarity and try to do harm.

Enemies of our country have been known to do some pretty wild things. Like crash airplanes into buildings...

Pin It

How Boys Google vs How Girls Google

Maybe males and females do relate to computers and the internet differently, as the image above jokes about.

Guy Googles: "PC overheated solutions".

Gal Googles: "My PC is overheated how do I get it to cool down because this PC is my life!"

How do you like my new computer?

Guy:  "Nice."

Gal: "OMG, that is the cutest, most adorable computer I have even seen!"

Pin It

Political Lunacy 2012

Sadistic barbarism comes out of some people when they get caught up in political discourse. They probably get obnoxious and crude when it comes to sports, religion, science, and tastes in music or films. But it's politics that really turns dummies into raging lunatics.

The political party extremists are doing a good job on immature, irrational people. They've got them whipped up into a frenzy, got them making hysterical statements and undignified remarks. F bombs, filthy talk, hate speech, nothing is too low for them.

The underlying psychology is an inferiority complex falsely bolstered by inflammatory rhetoric. As I repeatedly state, it's just preaching to the choir or political troll baiting. These ideological freaks can think only in very simplistic ways.

It's all or nothing. If you question their candidate, that automatically means you support the opposing party. They're locked into a black or white world. Party X is wicked. Party Z is pure. Party X is insane. Party Z is intelligent. Party X is to blame for everything. Party Z does no wrong.

This is the tired, old "God (or The Universe, or Progress, or Decency) is on our side" argument. This is how people are pushed into wars. We are the Good Guys, perfect, angelic, loaded with nothing but pure intentions. They are the Bad Guys, malicious, demonic, full of horribly stupid ideas.

They are obsessed with politics. All they can do is hate the other party's candidate and supporters. They are literally insane with rage. They want to pick a fight. They love to argue. They want to bully others into agreeing with them. They will call you an idiot if you express any dissent. They go crazy with hostility at the mere idea that someone could have a different point of view.

It is totalitarianism of the left or the right. Force everyone to stick to the party line, with no deviations or critique. We can't handle probing questions or blunt assertions. Don't look at our performance record, just listen to our speeches. Love what we say and how we look.

Support the candidate that you would like to have a beer with. This is the dumbing down of the electorate.

Be impressed with oratory. Succumb to the campaign slogans. Let the party do your thinking for you. Let the government be your husband, your god, your protector and provider. Put all your faith in a politician. Trust in the system.

It's a circus of ignorance.

Totalitarianism begins with believing your party is totally right all the time and the opposing party is totally wrong all the time. You blame everything bad on the other guys. Your party's farts smell like roses. Your party is pure, angelic, perfect, loaded with good intentions and brilliant minds. The opposing party is crazy, demonic, horrible, full of lies and stupidity.

The lunatic logic: "We are all good. They are all bad."

To suggest cooperation and finding common ground, will trigger accusations of being a "false centrist", "bipartisan compromiser", or "appeaser".


"If you disagree with me, you're an idiot," the idiot screamed.

ideology (n.)

1796, "science of ideas," originally "philosophy of the mind which derives knowledge from the senses" (as opposed to metaphysics), from Fr. idéologie "study or science of ideas," coined by French philosopher Destutt de Tracy (1754-1836) from idéo- "of ideas," from Gk. idea (see idea) + -logy.

Later used in a sense "impractical theorizing" (1813). Meaning "systematic set of ideas, doctrines" first recorded 1909.

Ideology ... is usually taken to mean, a prescriptive doctrine that is not supported by rational argument. [D.D. Raphael, "Problems of Political Philosophy," 1970]

Mark Zuckerberg's IPO Letter and His "Noble" Goals

All he wants to do is connect the world, make businesses more social, and cause government to be more responsive to The People. So says Mark Zuckerberg in his disingenuous Facebook IPO prospectus and an alleged letter to shareholders.

Some tech pundits are going to bizarre lengths to devise defensive apologetics for the miserable failure of the Facebook IPO.

Yeah, sure, all Mark Zuckerberg wants to do is get everyone in the entire world "connected", as long as they connect through his spy machine called Facebook.

In fact, he wants to force people to share everything they do online. He calls it "frictionless sharing", automatic sharing without permission, the super surveillance of the Timeline.

Mark Zuckerberg: "Over time, we expect governments will become more responsive to issues and concerns raised directly by all their people rather than through intermediaries controlled by a select few."

Making products "more social" has so far not improved the economy or made the bloated corrupt bureaucracies of government more responsive to The People. Good luck on that lofty objective. Government continues to be far from transparent, with secret deals and unpublicized executive orders changing our country to conform to the interests of the totalitarian globalist agenda.

"Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission — to make the world more open and connected." - Mark Zuckerberg
I don't trust anybody who says "It's not about me or making money, it's all about helping humanity" -- what a load of bull.

Mark Zuckerberg continues his lies with this gem: "We also believe that giving people control over what they share is a fundamental principle of this rewiring."  

Oh really? Then explain why the Facebook "map", now called Places, announces to the world where you've been and there is no way to remove it from Favorites, to hide the Places map, or disable it. Thus, Zuckerberg disrespects user privacy in his great and philanthropic mission to "connect the world" and produce "social products".

And why has Zuckerberg made it so convoluted and mysterious to disable other default sharing features of Facebook? Why are there so many rogue apps hijacking user accounts? Why do Facecrooks, Hoax-Slayer, Sophos Naked Security, Snopes, and other watchdog groups keep coming out with danger alerts related to malicious activity on Facebook?

"Connect the world, empower people from the bottom up, facilitate greater understanding in the human community." What a noble and altruistic goal. He just loves humanity so very much, that he calls them "dumb f---s" for trusting him with their data.

Pin It

Political Troll Bait

I have very strong political opinions, a mix of various ideologies, I'm not a partisan freak. But I refrain from posting political images or statements on Facebook, and only rarely enter into any political discussions on someone else's post.

Why? Because you only accomplish one of two things:

(1) Preach to the choir.
(2) Troll bait (looking for a fight).

You never convert anyone to your side of the political spectrum. Nobody is going to say, "Wow. Candidate X did that? What a moron. What a lousy leader. I'm now going to vote for his opponent."

You may hammer away with your cartoons, and photos, and inflammatory remarks, but all you're really doing is expressing your rage, anger, or allegedly superior views.

Preaching to the choir is pointless.

Those who agree with your political view will just chuckle, or say "Amen", and move on. You accomplish nothing for that crowd. Are you hoping they'll like you more? Is your life that empty?

Troll baiting is sadistic.

"Troll baiting" means luring (like with fish bait) people with opposing ideologies to your inflammatory post, individuals whom you will then call "trolls" when they express their dissent in your topic thread.

You post something with combative rhetoric, F bombs, abrasive statements, controversial assertions, hateful allegations. You are trying to annoy people who have political views contrary to your own. You want to rile them up, mock them, stir up strife, cause a conflict.

You are not seeking an intelligent discussion. You are not receptive to other points of view (and there are more than two).

Political troll baiters even go so far as tagging individuals in their inflammatory posts, individuals who they already know are going to disagree with the post.

But troll baiters are surly, sour, crabby partisans who think their political party is 100% pure and correct about everything. They tend to parrot the party line on every issue, proving they don't have mature critical thinking skills. They cannot tolerate dissent or questioning of their candidate or party.

You must be completely in alignment with their party and candidate or you suck and you're a total idiot. Can it get more immature and irrational than that?

Pin It

Digital Peoria online magazine Issuu prototype

Open publication - Free publishing - More art

Here;s a quick mock-up of the Digital Peoria online magazine concept: art, photography, fiction, and all things creative in the Peoria IL area. I brought some material together to demonstrate how this platform could be used.

If you're interested in showcasing your creative work in an online magazine format, CONTACT ME.

Digital Peoria will supplement the Peoria Life online magazine. Your personal artistic work can be displayed in Digital Peoria. Your "stories about living in Peoria" belong in Peoria Life.

How To View Digital Peoria:

(1) Operate the embedded version at the top of this post by clicking on "Expand".

(2) Click on "Click To Read" for Full Screen View. Click on Escape button to leave Full Screen View.

(3) Click on a page to make it larger. Or scroll wheel up and down to change the size of a page of the magazine. Or move the sizing tool slider from left to right.

(4) Click on > and < arrows to turn the pages.

(5) By moving your cursor around on the page, you bring different areas of the page into the center of your computer screen, for better viewing. This helps as you enlarge the view.

You have great control over how large the view of any page is, so you can easily read text and see images. It's easy to operate this online magazine, because it has redundant controls (multiple options) and intuitive user interface design.

Pin It