On visiting a site with a “cookie consent” notice, I don’t feel empowered just irritated.

it really doesn’t take much clicking around the regional Internet to find a gaslighting cookie notice that pops up with a mocking message saying by using this website you’re consenting to your data being processed how the site sees fit — with just a single ‘Ok’ button to affirm your lack of say in the matter.

Out of 508 manually analysed websites that provide a way to opt out, we detected 39 websites where the banner stores a positive consent, even if the user explicitly refuses consent via the cookie banner.

We are not sensible, free thinking decision making people. As an individual I imagine that you will say "Yes I am". That's the beauty of the entire system. Consciously individuals believe that they are in control and make their own choices and yet I have met and experienced very few who have full autonomy

saying they give people all the controls they need to manage and control access to their information. But controls with dishonest instructions on how to use them aren’t really controls at all. And opt outs that don’t exist smell rather more like a lock in. 

Facebook does not even offer an absolute opt out of targeted advertising on its platform. The ‘choice’ it gives users is to agree to its targeted advertising or to delete their account and leave the service entirely. Which isn’t really a choice when balanced against the power of Facebook’s platform and the network effect it exploits to keep people using its service.

majority of the current implementations of cookie notices offer no meaningful choice to Europe’s Internet users — even though EU law requires one

that permission must be freely obtained. Ergo, a free choice must be offered.So, in other words, a “data for access” cookie wall isn’t going to cut it. (Or, as the DPA puts it: “Permission is not ‘free’ if someone has no real or free choice. Or if the person cannot refuse giving permission without adverse consequences.”)

On the other hand, asking them to check a box when they have very little idea what they’re agreeing to — and not giving them any other viable options — doesn’t seem to be an ideal solution.

Sometimes an even-point scale is used, where the middle option of "Neither agree nor disagree" is not available. This is sometimes called a "forced choice" method, since the neutral option is removed.

As with neoliberalism more generally, New Public Management is invisible, part of a new “common sense” that has somehow become hegemonic, whereby the “entrepreneurial spirit” has infused the public sector, leading to “businesslike government”. As with the claims of neoliberalism more generally as to its positive outputs in terms of prosperity, NPM has never been shown to have been successful even in its own terms. NPM “introduced punishments and rewards to produce better services with lesser staff. Instead of having freed energies and creativity of employees formerly shackled by their bureaucratic turfs, NPM reforms have bound energies into theatrical audit performances at the cost of work and killed creativity in centralizing resources and hollowing out professional autonomy... Fundamental deprivation of the legitimacy of public employees . . .has traumatized many most-committed employees and driven others toward a Soviet-type double standard.” (Juha Siltala, New Public Management : The evidence-based worst practice?, Administration; Vol. 45, No. 4.; 2013 pp. 468-493) Sekera quotes Christopher Pollitt et al., who “after compiling a database of 518 studies of NPM in Europe, determined that “more than 90% of what are seen by experts as the most significant and relevant studies contain no data at all on outcomes” and that of the 10% that had outcomes information, only 44% of those, or 4% of the total, found any improvements in terms of outcomes.” But in the end, the point of NPM is less that of measureable outcomes, and more that of the ideological victory of turning the public and its good into customers exercising their “choices” (see tax revolt example in Duggan), along of course with the radical disempowering of public administration workers and their unions, instituting “cost savings” by cutting their real income and putting more and more of the public sector’s production directly into the profit-making market.

Blair lceds the popular desire for rules of taste, guidelines for writing and speaking, and well-digested, if not predigested, samples of proper liter• ature.

dialogue fertilizes thought

parasitic inhabitation

wonderful, poisonous

I allow them the choice of which platform to use for the support they need, but I make sure they ask questions.

could both study and create “non-print,” “electronic,” and “visual” texts

Largely from this fact, have arisen their cultural gifts to America

Even if government may (and perhaps must) monitor and regulate the way that drugs or TMS devices affect our health and safety, there may be aspects of the way we use such cognitive enhancement tools that should be reserved by the Constitution (or perhaps through other means) solely for free and unrestricted individual choice.

patterns

If I have a number of ways of expressing and shaping my message, then the questions that confront me are: which mode is best, most apt, for the content / meaning I wish to communicate? Which mode most appeals to the audience whom I intend to address? Which mode most corresponds to my own interest at this point in shaping the message for communication? Which medium is preferred by my audience? Or by me? How am I positioning myself if I choose this medium or this mode rather than those others

to preserve

Rhetoric in this vein ultimately reinforces a humanist orientation as it focuses on developing one’s ability to articulate decisions through increasing an individual’s agency

Anyex~~isanimperfectionmarkedbyurgency;itisadefect,anobstacle,something~",aitiIIgtobedone,atlringwlrichisotherthanitshouldbe

sentiments

Why do you think that I said to my disciples, “Follow thou me”? Because it gave them the opportunity to make the choice, from within themselves, for their own reasons, for their Sanity. And why do you think I said to “sell everything that thou hast, and follow me,” or to forget about the mother who needed to be buried because she had died? Because the ego always has loose ends to distract one from waking up. Just one more thing to take care of. One last thing to do within the context of the dream. One last thing to do from the three-dimensional frame of reference.

#fedwiki #hypothesis #known #withknown #wikity #indieweb #delicious just twitter, #ohmy @judell @erinjo @joshu @holden @withknown @benward

RAJ: I think you can see that unfoldment is really a matter of how quickly or slowly we are willing to let go of limitations, rather than the presence or availability of something to expand into, since Infinity is the Actuality of every moment of conscious experience. This is important to understand, because we often feel that we are held back by the limitation as though it had the ability to influence or deprive us of our Good. Not true! There is never anything holding us!

You must realize, Paul, that the only bluff operating here is that doing this will not work. There really is nothing else presenting itself to you as a valid reason for not continuing. You literally only have two choices—you either do it, or you act upon the basis of a bluff. Now, let’s be good and clear on this: Under what circumstances would you ever base your actions upon a bluff? Normally, you wouldn’t. But, under a sense of pressure and fear, you could possibly be fooled into believing that there was no point in continuing further. That is why I am pointing out the simple, intelligent overview of the situation here.

Even when donations were mandatory, giving to this worthwhile charity provoked activation in reward areas of the brain. But activation in these reward areas (along with self-reported satisfaction) was considerably greater when people chose to donate than when their prosocial spending was obligatory.

1. Make it a choice Most of us have experienced a situation in which we felt cornered into providing help, whether by an overeager street canvasser, a colleague’s child selling overpriced chocolate bars for her basketball team, or a friend’s awkward request for a loan (an event so ubiquitous that Googling “awkward loan requests” gets about 90 million hits). Not surprisingly, feeling cornered can suck the joy out of giving.

We strongly urge you to reconsider your business tactic here and again respect people’s right to choice and control of their online experience by making it easier, more obvious and intuitive for people to maintain the choices they have already made through the upgrade experience.

But something began to compel me. How might I discover how to see only that Shimmering Radiance? Would it be possible for me to see my brothers and sisters as my Father sees His Children? And, in Truth, I discovered that the way to see with the Eyes of Christ begins with the acceptance that I, as a creator, created in the image of God, indeed, literally choose every experience, and call it to me; that I create the veils through which I view Creation.

It may be said that every individual man and all men in common aim at a certain end which determines what they choose and what they avoid.