(Some would say this is an attribute of Gawker Media in general.) Having one less web site holding my passwords in an insecure database is a plus as far as I am concerned. Its easy enough to have an account that is reserved for such postings, even one per web-site if you want.Īll this does is allow Gawker to off-load all user account stuff to some other entity, making them less of a hacking target, because there will be Nothing Much There to Gain. Ardis did not take kindly to this caricature, ordering a police raid on Daniels house Daniel sued in federal court claiming civil rights violations.
Given the rapidity with which one can create gmail/facebook/twitter accounts it won't assure "secure and responsible" posting either. TyleesaAnNoor Pandas gon panda.Lu Lu is trying to work his way off the Endangered Species list. If the page was reloaded then the (easy to compress) markup would be sent again, and the images, css, js, etc would be loaded from cache. So Twitter is looking into building a 'skybridge' to optimize efficiency. Caching has nothing to do with it - the data is still on the page. But having two buildings really breaks up the open floor plan. All they provide Gawker is a YES or NO answer when you ask to log in. Twitter finally began posting profits over the summer, and the company is spending it on an expansion into the building behind them. Spamming Gmail accounts is already a fools errand.Īt least in Google's case, they glean nothing either, other than the fact that you use Gawker, but any advertising revenue that comes to google via that knowledge goes to Google, and not Gawker. If hulk hogan can take down Gawker, then Dominion Voting Systems Can Surely Take Down & Bankrupt the murdochs & force. And since Gmail is already great at handling spam, there is precious little opportunity for Gawker to profit from this by selling your email address. For the archival newsletter copy Im working with David Remnick on (the Sunday newsletters, not the Wednesday ones), I alone. Just because you let Google handle the login doesn't mean Gawker gets anything more from you than an email address which you were already obligated to provide in the past. Is this a step too far for an online community? Is it a cash grab or a genuine effort to encourage secure and responsible posting?" Is this really a good idea, considering the security issues Gawker has had in the past? Per the article, for 'security purposes' Gawker is 'putting our account security layer in the hands of some of the best in the business - major sites with more security expertise and resources than anyone else on the web.' To my mind, it's hard to see this as anything but a grab to milk Gawker commenters' social networking accounts for targeted ad revenue - which really shouldn't be a surpirse considering Denton's contempt for most of the Gawker community. First time accepted submitter wynterwynd writes "In a move that seems to be in line with Gawker Media founder Nick Denton's opinion of his sites' commenters, some Gawker Media sites are now instructing their commenters that they will have to link their Gawker commenter ID with their Facebook, Twitter, or Google accounts in order to log in.
0 kommentar(er)
