[Humanist] 31.89 how not to communicate

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Thu Jun 8 07:03:26 CEST 2017


                  Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 31, No. 89.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org



        Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 07:51:14 +0100
        From: John Levin <john at anterotesis.com>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 31.88 how not to communicate?
        In-Reply-To: <20170607054830.D8A361B41 at digitalhumanities.org>


I have neither the time nor the patience to fully unpack this fraud, so 
I hope this will do:

Microsoft Advanced Threat Protection is a disaster
https://blog.tylerbickford.com/2016/06/16/microsoft-advanced-threat-protection-is-a-disaster/

Suffice to say, "safe links" are not safe, and a privacy violation, and 
so should be scrubbed rather than forwarded.

John

On 07/06/2017 06:48, Humanist Discussion Group wrote:
> 
>                    Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 31, No. 88.
>              Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
>                         www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>                  Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
> 
> 
> 
>          Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:31:46 +0100
>          From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
>          Subject: what safelinks does
> 
> 
> Forgive the lengthy tediousness of the following, but I do think that a
> point needs to be made about the 'safelinks' mechanism and similar
> attempts to protect us from digital dangers at the cost of
> intelligibility. Since you have already received Humanist 31.87,
> detailing the contents of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities for June,
> I'll not repeat it here, only copy below what this message looked like
> when it arrived at this editor's virtual desk -- more than a metaphor
> for censorship, exactly in this minor instance what mindful editorship
> must amount to.
> 
> Of course one may argue that the safelinks links are intended for
> display by a browser, which will conceal the mess and show only
> the standard indication that a link is to be followed. But in this I think
> the density of linking interferes with reading, rendering the text into
> a horde of nervous invitations to go elsewhere. The problem exists
> with footnoting (which some authors have struggled to avoid) and
> especially with inline referencing, particularly as used in the sciences.
> Might this be a triumph of exhibition over communication, automated
> in the following?
> 
> Yours,
> WM
> -----
> 
>           [Digital Scholarship in the Humanities]
> [European Association for Digital Humanities]
> [Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations]
> 
> New issue alert
> 
> [Digital Scholarship in the Humanities]
> Volume 32 Issue 2
> 
> June 2017
> 
> [...]
>
-- 
John Levin
http://www.anterotesis.com
http://twitter.com/anterotesis





More information about the Humanist mailing list