iliketosleep

No, you've misconstrued what I've said. I am not implying that the payment being declined by a merchant is anything related to the government. Nor am I implying that the government shared my information with any company. Nor I am on any kind of blacklist (at least that I'm aware of). Read my original post, they are two separate issues.

The type of monitoring used was disclosed as was the "likely cause" of me being flagged. This wasn't a secretive kind of thing. Of course one can't "know" anything as it's a black-box. But it's not a stretch to see how such systems may conclude, from automated profiling, that users of privacy-centric services are more likely to be associated with fraud and hence flagged. This also represents a more general issue with the application of machine learning.

I am being monitored for using a privacy focused email address when signing up for services operated by a government entity. Yep, it happens. Their AI determined that people using particular email providers need to be watched. Not only that, I have had payments mysteriously fail with big online merchants, and after following it up through multiple layers of support I was told that particular email services are automatically flagged. You can guess which ones.

Now what do I do? Avoid privacy-focused email addresses for anything in daily life. It seems to be a battle that cannot be won.

Under the thin veneer of civilized society it's still the law of the jungle; while our civilization may have become advanced, our DNA hasn't caught up. We are programmed to blindly accumulate as much as possible, because for most of our evolutionary history scarcity and disaster was always just around the corner. In modern times, it translates into those who already hold positions of wealth and power going for even more, at the expensive of everyone else. This has in turn been amplified by technology and globalization.

Having said that, historically we're still at a "high point". It's a cold comfort, but still..

You make a good point. It's interesting how people seem to automatically equate hard work as automatically being a positive (or even as some kind of morality). In reality, without fully understanding an individual's true motivations, it's hard to make any kind of proper judgement.

> What industry?

There are many examples in the manufacturing industry, though unions aren't the only factor.

> Maybe we need to open a gigantic can of worms that “runs counter to globalization” if we’re talking about sending those jobs to countries with unethical working conditions.

I couldn't agree more, the problem is there are powerful interests that will keep trying to sweep this issue under the rug.

> The worst thing that people can say about unions is they are bureaucratic and inconvenient.

I disagree. Unions can lead to the death of entire industries - I have seen it with my own eyes. Inefficiencies created by unions lead to jobs going to places where such unions do not exist. Personally, I do believe the workers need to be protected, but if you protect workers then you also need to protect industries, and this opens a gigantic can of worms as it runs counter to globalization and free trade.

The article explains it perfectly: Understandably, male names still do not spot the “woman” radical (女, nü). 女 explicitly refers to women, whereas the “man” radical (亻, ren2) is more flexible, as it refers to humans.

This is also consistent with my understanding. On a cultural note, many ppl call Westerners with PC leanings “白左” and view the PC movement as a bit ridiculous. So definitely don’t apply modern PC standards to China.

> I feel my life outcome and success depends on emotional regulation more than anything else.

Indeed. It wouldn't surprise me that assuming a person is of at least average intelligence, emotional regulation is the greatest predictor of success. Not to be held back by one's own demons is a big step towards success.

That was an interesting read which shows the original intention behind it wasn't necessarily evil, and that the media code was designed to treat the symptoms of an underlying problem (which are of course the monopolies).

All I can find is that it was tabled by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission at the request of the federal government. But if I was to take a wild guess, I'd say that Murdoch was somehow behind it.

Because the media code set by the government should, in an overall sense, benefit the people of the nation. Clearly it's not the case, and the government deserves to be called out for it.

After reading the article, it appears that this deal favors large media companies who are able to negotiate a decent deal for themselves with Facebook. It seems like that the government will also use it as an excuse to cut finding to state-funded news sources. I cannot see how the deal favors the general public at all.