Trolls And Bots Are Why We Can't Have Nice Things

I got an ugly surprise on my Google News feed on
an ugly news morning the other day. 

Monday morning, I got up early, went to my computer, and went straight to my Twitter feed.

There I saw my first hint that a horror had occured in Las Vegas overnight. I wanted to learn more immediately, so I went to Google News.

Of course, the top story was the atrocity in Las Vegas that claimed 58 lives, plus the despicable gunman, who killed himself.

But this post isn't about Las Vegas. Under "related stories" about the Las Vegas massacre was this "top trending" headline: "Jessica Simpson Nude Pics."

Yep, some awful troll apparently gamed Google's algorithms or something to place that nude pics thing in the top news, for profit, obviously. And I'm sure if anybody was stupid enough to click on that link, they got a computer virus or malware.

We all know now that Russians and maybe some other creeps influenced the 2016 election and very likely help a lot in getting Trump elected by inundating our Facebook and Twitter feeds with fake ads, fake news and all that to boost Trump's chances and hurt Hillary Clinton's.

As The Guardian points out, YouTube had its own problems with trolls and hacks gaming the system. Early this week, if you were on YouTube and searched "Las Vegas shooting" many of the top videos on the subject were posted by wacko conspiracy theorists who said the mass shooting was fake, and a false flag to take our guns and rights away, or something.

So YouTube was giving a platform for all these nutjobs. YouTube says the videos comply with their standards, which may be true, but really. On the bright side, my YouTube search of "Las Vegas shooting" was a little better, with the top hits mostly consisting of reports from legitimate news sources or videos from eyewitnesses.

I don't know how to fix all this,  but that's the big flaw in all these web sites and social media is they're automated, and algorithms, whatever they are, guide us to what we see.

Which is why none of us can ever serendipitously just wander around YouTube or search engines like we would in a book store, seeing what pops out at us.

Nope, we've done a web search, or we've watched a particular YouTube video, and now the algorithms steer us toward similar videos or searches. You can look at something else if you have something specific in mind, but if you're just sort of searching for whatever interesting pops up, you can't just stumble on something cool that's unrelated to your past searches. You can't discover new things. You're stuck.

And what about those ads that follow you around. Say, for example,  I bought some athletic shorts from Under Armour online. Now all I get ads for those very shorts following me around for weeks. Why would I want to buy shorts that I just bought? If an advertiser must advertise, the least they and their algorithms could do is advertise something else from that company that I might be interested in. But no: Buy more shorts! Buy more shorts!

It's why we can't have nice things.

Again, I'm no technology, internet or social media genius. But I like to think for myself. The tech companies think I'm incapable of doing such a thing. And it's terribly insulting.

And in the case of the Russian bots and fake ads and news, very dangerous.

Wishing You "Happy Holidays" Is Not An Insult, You Idiots!"

Texas Agriculture Secretary Sid Miller is going to slap
you if you wish him "happy holidays' instead of
"Merry Christmas." I don't think I'll wish him anything.

Ok, there's an insult in the headline for this post. I called people idiots. My bad.

But, I'm sorry, people who are insulted when somebody wishes them "Happy Holidays" are idiots.

Like it or not, this nation, and the world for that matter is full of Christians, Jews, Muslims, agostics, atheists, Buddists, Sihks and a whole bunch of other persuasions.  

Which means if you never met the person you're greeting, you don't know if they're celebrating Christmas, Hanukah, Kwanzaa, winter solstice or some other year-end holiday. Or maybe they're celebrating nothing at all.

When somebody wishes you "happy holidays," all they're doing is wishing you happiness. That's it.

You'd think all this would be obvious. You'd' think you'd be happy somebody is being nice to you. Just enjoy it. Say "thank you" if you have any ounce of politeness in you. 

However, some people just HAVE to find something to be outraged about. Some people are FURIOUS when you wish them "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."

Because a small subset of Christians think EVERYBODY just HAS to celebrate Christmas, and if you don't you should just go to hell.

I'm having this rant because of one Sid Miller, the Texas State Agriculture Commissioner, who recently said on Facebook. "If one more person says Happy Holidays to me I just might slap them....Either tell me Merry Christmas or just don't say anything."

Sid, Sid, Sid. When someone tells you "Happy Holidays," they're wishing you well. Maybe they don't  know you that well, so they revert to "Happy Holidays."

And yes, I know it works both ways. It's equally silly to have a hissy fit if someone wishes you a Merry Christmas even though you don't celebrate Christmas. If someone is being nice to you, why be hostile?

Speaking of hostile, respondents to Miller's Facebook whine were not exactly friendly. 

Jon Anderson: "Yeah, I hate it when people gie me well wishes that aren't the exact well wishes I want. It's like someone giving me a present and having it be a gift card to my favorite restaurant instead of to my favorite clothing store."

Ron Coley: "Let me get this straight: If one more person wishes you happiness with words that don't meet your approval, you'll slap them because you are a Christian and that's what Christmas is all about? Oh brother." 

Jonathan Buck: "Great idea! And, a great message for kids! Slap someone if they say happy holidays! Glad someone is focusing in on what is important."

You get the picture.

Sid's complaints about not being wished a "Merry Christmas" is all part of the "War on Christmas" a few conservatives and evangelicals think they see.  Right, Bill O'Reilly?

The Huffington Post offers a helpful chart to help you determine if you are being persecuted or not, so take a look at that, Sid Miller and friends.

What the "War On Christmas" really is is people who can't live with the fact that not everybody celebrates Christmas the way they do, and some people don't celebrate Christmas at all.

Yes, the whole Mary and Joseph and Jesus in the manger thing is really important and wonderful to millions of people and I think that's a great thing.

Is it really in the Christmas spirit, though, to slap down, literally or figuratively, people who are perhaps not that into Christmas, but are still generous enough to wish you well?

It's the season of sharing.  Maybe share some warmth instead of Grinchy bitterness instead.

Complaints About YouTube? Watch This Video

The woman on the left handles YouTube complaints
 deftly in the latest YouTube complaint desk video Add caption

 I know, I know, those of us who watch a lot of YouTube videos get frustrated at the ads we have to sit through, the misleading headlines, the promises of an exciting videos that don't pan out, all that stuff.

So, once again, we have an update video that walks us through all these complaints. It features a woman at a fictitious help desk at YouTube.

This follows up with previous, very similar YouTube complaint desk videos from 2014 and another great one from 2013. 

It's hilarious. See for yourself:

Complaining To Comcast Probably Won't Fix Your Cable, But Might Get You Fired

Did someone at Comcast get a guy fired
from his job because he complained
too much about the company's service? 

If they account in Consumerist of what happened is true, what Comcast did to a man who they apparently decided was too aggressive with his complaints is way too chilling: They got the guy fired from his job.  

The Consumerist article only gives the guy's last name, Conal, but the customer had all kinds of problems with billing, bill that were sent to an incorrect address, and $1,820 in equipment he says he never ordered and never wanted, but was charged for anyway.  

Says Consumerist:

"When Conal returned all the equipment to Comcast and, being an experienced accountant at one of the nation's most prestigious firms, even prepared a spreadsheet detailing every charge, oercharge, payment and credit on his account for his brief time as a Comcast customer.

He says even this didn't convince Comcast that there was a problem and that Conal had been overcharged. And even though it wasn't yet past due, Comcast sent Conal's account into collections in February, 2014."

With that, Conal decided he was done with Comcast's customer service reps, since they didn't resolve anyting. He called the company's Controller.

After a few unsuccessful attempts at the Comcast Controller's office, he said someone from Comcast contacted a partner at the firm Conal worked at to discuss Conal. It led to an internal ethics investigation against Conal, and Conal's subsequent firing from his job.

Comcast apparently says he mentioned his job at the accounting firm he worked for because Comcast did some business with it. Conal said he never mentioned to Comcast which firm he worked for, and Comcast looked it up. (You could do that easily with a quick Google search.)

Consumerist goes on:

"When he was fired, Conal's employer explained that the reason for the dismissal was an email from Comcast that summarized conversations between Conal and Comcast employees.

But Conal has never seen this email in order to say whether it's accurate and Comcast has thus far refused to release any tapes of the phone calls related to this matter."

Again, from Consumerist:

"Even though Comcast insists that Conal attempted to leverage his place of business to get his issue resolved, it has not specifically cited languate that he allegedly used in the call.

How many times a day do Comcast reps hear a customer say something like 'I'm a lawyer' or 'I'm a big shot at (fill in the blank.)' ? How many of those result in Comcast going out of its way to contact that customer's employer?"

Comcast responded to Consumerist by not responding. Just saying they want to treat customers well, the standard PR response.

Conal has not filed a lawsuit, but he might. His lawyer has sent Comcast some letters already.

I hope there is a civil lawsuit to get to the bottom of this. Does Comcast retaliate against customers they've cheated when the customer has the gall to persistently complain about it?

Or is Conal lying or mistaken. Comcast could clear this up by releasing recordings of the phone calls and the emails involved.  If Conal is lying or wrong, it would certainly help Comcast and almost everybody else if the cable company proves it.

(By the way, if it turns out Comcast is innocent of all this, I'll post a follow up. Or if there's major new developments that prove Conal's case, I'll do the same.)

Comcast has been getting a lot of nasty publicity lately for treating customers in a well, nasty fashion.

It got to the point where Comcast admitted it will often only refund customers if the customer records the call. 

Here in Vermont, and in other states, it's illegal to record someone without their permission. So if Comcast ever cheated our household out of money, we have no recourse. I guess theft is now legal, as long as it's done by a big corporation, and not by some thug on a seedy street corner.

Free market advocates say that if a company is this bad, people just take their business elsewhere and the bad corporation either improves or goes out of business.

That's true, but in many markets, cable companies like Comcast are a monopoly. If you have a problem with them, tough. And they know that.

Maybe the drumbeat of bad publicity will make Comcast better somehow, anyway. Certainly, I imagine most Comcast employees are not evil. Perhaps many of them are overworked or poorly trained, or their internal systems could use improvement, but most people don't go out of their way to cheat or threaten others, especially customers.

I'm guessing the corporate culture at the top needs to change. Or, I know people are loathe to see more regulations, but maybe some government agency ought to ensure Comcast customers who got screwed don't screwed again.

For Once, Town Does NOT Crack Down On Lemonade Stand

T.J. Guerrero sells lemonade in Dunedin, Florida,
which has opted not to crack down on him. Photo
by Jim  Damaske, Tampa Bay Times.  

I've seen a lot of weird news about crackdowns on lemonade stands and such in recent years, as towns decide that lemonade stands are apparently criminal enterprises that will destroy their communities. Or something.  

So I have to congratulate the community of Dunedin, Florida, for letting a kid named T.J. Guerrero, 12, sell his lemonade in peace, despite vigorous and persistent objections from a grumpy, mean neighbor, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

The Times says this about the cranky neighbor:

"Doug Wilkey contends that the Palm Harbor Middle School student's year round operation is an 'illegal business' that causes excessive traffic, noise, trash, illegal parking and other probles that reduce his property values.

'Please help me regain my quiet home and neighborhood,' Wilkey, 61, wrote.

So far, Dunedin, Florida town officials have not done as Wilkey has wished, probably figuring it's just a lemonade stand, and also thinking about the wave of negative publicity if they shut the kid down.

"'We're not inthe business of trying to regulate kids like that; nor do we want to do any code enforcement like that,' said Dunedin planning and development director Greg Rice. 'We are not out there trying to put lemonade stands out of business.'"

Which is a nice switch. Because there does seem to have been a nationwide crackdown on lemonade stands by municipalities in the last several years. As far back as 2011, Forbes magazine had a rundown of the various kids' lemonade stands shut down by mean old zoning and code officials. 

The Forbes article called the shut downs "inexplicable" and I agree. It seems many of the code enforcement actions seemed to be an effort by cash strapped cities to collect fees and fines by whatever means and amounts necessary.

Hence the fines and bills that amounted to as much as $500 for parents of kids who tried to sell lemonade.

There's even a Lemonade Freedom web site, fighting back against police and municipal efforts to rid their communities of the "scourge" of lemonade stands. The tag line on the Web site is "Because selling lemonade is not a crime."

So it's refreshing to say the least that Dunedin, Florida is resisting calls to shut down one lowly lemonade stand in the town.

Still, Wilkey is persistent. He's tried saying the lemonade stand attracts misbehaving kids who throw rocks and debris and spew profanity, that they might kill somebody selling contaminated lemonade, and that his neighborhood is not zoned for business.

But authories have not found evidence of lemonade stand misdeeds. A sheriff deputy has been out a couple times. He polled other neighbors, who all said they were fine with the lemonade stand. So at last report, you can still get your lemonade from T.J. Guerrero in Dunedin, Forida.

The lemonade stand might disappear in a couple years, though, when Guerrero will turn 14. At that point, he says, he'll be old enough to work as a bagger at a nearby supermarket, which might be more lucrative for him.

Way Too Overly Sensitive Workers Get People Thrown Out of Donut Shop, Plane

A mother and her four year old son
are banned from this doughnut shop
because her kid asked a too personal question.  

Gawker had two stories yesterday on how overly sensitive workers got people thrown out of a donut shop and a plane.  

In the first instance, a four year old boy named Justin Otero asked a woman in a donut shop if she was pregnant. The woman in question was not expecting.

Justin's mother, Rebecca Denham, said she was mortified and profusely apologized to the woman. The woman accepted the apology and all was good.

Or not.

According to television station WSFB when Justin and his mother went to the donut shop the next day they were told to get out, because Justin is "rude" Denham said, relating what the store manager said. She tried to explain the situation, but to no avail.

After the "pregnant" incident, Denham said she explained to her son that while curiosity is a good thing, he shouldn't ask such personal questions of strangers. He "sort of" gets it, says Denham, which is a good start.

If anyone should be offended here, it's the not pregnant woman. But she shrugged it off. If the donut shop bans everyone who commits a social faux pas, then there will be a lot of unsold donuts going stale on the store's shelves.

Next, we go to a Southwest Airlines flight, where Duff Watson and his two daughters were trying to get from Denver to Minneapolis.

Watson was unhappy with a gate agent and Tweeted his displeasure with "Kimberly." Apparently, Kimberly saw the Tweet and had Watson and the daughters kicked off the flight as a "security risk."

They were allowed back on after Kimberly made Watson delete the Tweet.  (Watson says he now regrets backing down and should have retained the Tweet.

Here's the "security threat" in question:

As you can see, Watson didn't exactly threaten to blow up the plane.

Southwest later apologized to Watson, but Watson is pissed and said he won't fly Southwest anymore.

Maybe Kimberly shouldn't have been so sensitive. Her job is no doubt hard, but she just made it a lot harder by causing a Federal Production over a Tweeted insult.

That is, if she still has a job. Southwest probably isn't too keen on the PR problem.

Bad Book Covers and the Streisand Effect

The old saw is you can't judge a book by the cover, but you can sure judge the poor taste of people who design book covers.

Which leads me to the latest fun time-waster I found on the Web. It's a Tumblr site called Lousy Book Covers is a fun way to spend the hours if you don't feel like reading a book, but would rather just mock how bad the cover art is.

The people behind Lousy Book Covers acknowledge they would have toiled away on the site in obscurity had it not been for a shout out from Andrew Sullivan and a stink from a thin-skinned book author.

Apparently, the stink the thin skinned author pulled is example of  something called the Streisand Effect. It's when somebody is embarrassed or offended by something they see about themselves on line or in the media.

They raise holy hell about it, that attracts a ton of attention and suddenly something that would have died a quiet death explodes into the national conscience, futher embarrasing and infuriating the person who complained to begin with.

In the case of Lousy Book Covers, authors and others who don't like having the bad art show are claiming copyright infractions. Though really, it's fair use.

Either the authors don't understand copyright law or they're just harassing the operator of Lousy Book Covers

But no matter, Lousy Book Covers is nice and instructive in how not to design your next big best seller. Hint: Don't hire a cheap artist who flunked Basics of Art 101.  Using dozens of fonts at the same time is a bad idea. A design confusing and weird enough to induce a headache is not going to encourage readership.

If you violate these rules, you will get mocked.