Who needs social media?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    I work for a very large and well-known international corporation. Recently the gods of the web proxy have decreed that social media websites are wasting too much employee time. All Twitter, Facebook, and even YouTube access shall be blocked, company-wide. Makes sense.

    The problem?

    We're the web marketing team.

    Yes, there are people here whose sole job is to maintain our public persona on social networking sites - and they are blocked from accessing them. I, as a web developer, have to integrate social media into the majority of the web pages I build. I have to hope my code works on the first try, because there's no way to test!



    Edit: OK I found out it's more about bandwidth, and less about time-wasting. That, if anything, seems dumber.


  • @joe.edwards said:

    I, as a web developer, have to integrate social media into the majority of the web pages I build. I have to hope my code works on the first try, because there's no way to test!
     

    If you did your job properly, you wouldn't write code with bugs. You'd have the time to do it, and the proper concentration to do it, if you didn't piss away your brain and waste all the company's time on Facebook.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    I work for a very large and well-known international corporation. Recently the gods of the web proxy have decreed that social media websites are wasting too much employee time. All Twitter, Facebook, and even YouTube access shall be blocked, company-wide. Makes sense.

    The problem?

    We're the web marketing team.

    Yes, there are people here whose sole job is to maintain our public persona on social networking sites - and they are blocked from accessing them. I, as a web developer, have to integrate social media into the majority of the web pages I build. I have to hope my code works on the first try, because there's no way to test!



    Edit: OK I found out it's more about bandwidth, and less about time-wasting. That, if anything, seems dumber.

    TRWTF is your IT department not being able to configure an exception on the proxy for certain users?

     


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @DaveK said:

    TRWTF is your IT department not being able to configure an exception on the proxy for certain users?

    Yes, the policy is no individual exceptions (except, I'm sure, for the guys administrating it). I'm expecting a riot to overturn this issue relatively quickly (weeks, in bureau-speak).



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @DaveK said:
    TRWTF is your IT department not being able to configure an exception on the proxy for certain users?

    Yes, the policy is no individual exceptions (except, I'm sure, for the guys administrating it). I'm expecting a riot to overturn this issue relatively quickly (weeks, in bureau-speak).

    Lol... didn't it occur to them that a policy which explicitly states no exceptions to the policy is just strange? What about exceptions to the non-exceptions policy?



    Does it have a clause stating that the policy must never be changed, and a section explaining the punishment for questioning the policy?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @eViLegion said:

    Does it have a clause stating that the policy must never be changed, and a section explaining the punishment for questioning the policy?

    I think you underestimate the levels of bureaucracy involved in a corporation that does business in 71+ countries/regions.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @joe.edwards said:

    I think you underestimate the levels of bureaucracy involved in a corporation that does business in 71+ countries/regions.
    So… All exceptions to any policy have to be translated into all national languages of all countries that you operate in? Except for countries that have an exception, of course.



  • Yet tdwtf forums aren't blocked?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    Yet tdwtf forums aren't blocked?

    They only block sites that are needed to do my job.

    Seriously, a while back they wouldn't let me download the Oracle client, or IE9/10, but all the web comics seem available.



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    Yet tdwtf forums aren't blocked?

    "Block this site" policies generally come from non-technical people, so something like these forums isn't going to come up.



  • @locallunatic said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    Yet tdwtf forums aren't blocked?

    "Block this site" policies generally come from non-technical people, so something like these forums isn't going to come up.

    I would imagine that the amount of vulgarity that shows up in these forums would be enough to get it one some sort of corporate block list.

  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    What's sadly going to happen is people are going to break the other rules to get around this one. We'll see QA happening in the production environment, since that's the only environment accessible outside the network, or violating VPN policy to split network traffic. Some at the office people will tether to their mobile devices and bring up URLs secretly published to the production environment; others, like me, will find elaborate ways to forward ports over SSH and SOCKS, wasting valuable work hours working around the don't-waste-time policies.



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    I would imagine that the amount of vulgarity that shows up in these forums would be enough to get it one some sort of corporate block list.

    Oh, if they looked at content instead of just where it was coming from very much so.  And there are things that are set up to filter in that way, but you have to know about them to say "filter using this" rather than "block this site".


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    @locallunatic said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    Yet tdwtf forums aren't blocked?

    "Block this site" policies generally come from non-technical people, so something like these forums isn't going to come up.

    I would imagine that the amount of vulgarity that shows up in these forums would be enough to get it one some sort of corporate block list.
    It will block single HTTP requests if the vulgarity exceeds a certain threshold. When I check my "spam" email account (email I give to untrusted parties) on webmail, I have to turn the page size way down or I trip that threshold.


  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    It will block single HTTP requests if the vulgarity exceeds a certain threshold. When I check my "spam" email account (email I give to untrusted parties) on webmail, I have to turn the page size way down or I trip that threshold.
     

    What webmail do you use that doesn't have an HTTPS interface?



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    It will block single HTTP requests if the vulgarity exceeds a certain threshold. When I check my "spam" email account (email I give to untrusted parties) on webmail, I have to turn the page size way down or I trip that threshold.
     

    What webmail do you use that doesn't have an HTTPS interface?

    I keep https disabled on gmail, it really speeds it up on most devices I use it from.  He might have a similar setup.

     



  • @drurowin said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    It will block single HTTP requests if the vulgarity exceeds a certain threshold. When I check my "spam" email account (email I give to untrusted parties) on webmail, I have to turn the page size way down or I trip that threshold.
     

    What webmail do you use that doesn't have an HTTPS interface?

    I keep https disabled on gmail, it really speeds it up on most devices I use it from.  He might have a similar setup.

    But you are also the wackjob that wants his email to be open to anyone with the username, most don't share that viewpoint.



  • @locallunatic said:

    @drurowin said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    It will block single HTTP requests if the vulgarity exceeds a certain threshold. When I check my "spam" email account (email I give to untrusted parties) on webmail, I have to turn the page size way down or I trip that threshold.
     

    What webmail do you use that doesn't have an HTTPS interface?

    I keep https disabled on gmail, it really speeds it up on most devices I use it from.  He might have a similar setup.

    But you are also the wackjob that wants his email to be open to anyone with the username, most don't share that viewpoint.

    You don't want to hear about what I think about SSL/TLS...

     


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @drurowin said:

    You don't want to hear about what I think about SSL/TLS...

    Correct.
    @drurowin said:
    But you are also the wackjob that wants his email to be open to anyone with the username, most don't share that viewpoint.

    Everyone I give this account to has phony information about me anyway, so it's not really going to matter if anyone reads it.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @drurowin said:
    You don't want to hear about what I think about SSL/TLS...

    Correct.
    Well now you're going to, fucker. 

    It makes things LESS secure by instilling a false sense of security in the end-user.  Once you train them to look for "the little padlock icon in the bottom-right corner of their browser", they'll think any time they "see the padlock", that no harm can come to them.  Also, TLS 1.0 is broken in many different and wonderful ways.  It's like the bicycle fucking lock of the Internet.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @drurowin said:

    Once you train them to look for "the little padlock icon in the bottom-right corner of their browser", they'll think any time they "see the padlock", that no harm can come to them.

    Users are slightly less intelligent than seals. This is about the most we could expect of them. At the very least, it gives them a reasonable expectation that the site they're communicating with is owned by or affiliated with the party it claims to be; or it would, if users didn't actively slap down every security warning without reading it, no matter how big and scary.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @drurowin said:

    It makes things LESS secure by instilling a false sense of security in the end-user.
    You better hope you never end up on a network where people actively use packet sniffers.



  • @drurowin said:

    Once you train them to look for "the little padlock icon in the bottom-right corner of their browser"

    Don't be silly. Users are satisfied with a padlock icon anywhere on the screen, as long as it clearly states that the site is, indeed, secure.


    This comment was sent securely using TLS Technologies™ 512-bit encryption.
    <!--How do I get these on the right I forgot how to HTML You know what, nevermind-->


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @spamcourt said:


    I had a friend who ran a website deceptively similar to (but not actually impersonating) Verisign, and he linked to it with a click-to-verify popup.



  • @drurowin said:

    It makes things LESS secure by instilling a false sense of security in the end-user.

    Bullshit.

    @drurowin said:

    Once you train them to look for "the little padlock icon in the bottom-right corner of their browser", they'll think any time they "see the padlock", that no harm can come to them.

    If you're teaching people this, then you're teaching them wrong.

    @drurowin said:

    Also, TLS 1.0 is broken in many different and wonderful ways.

    True, although it's still relatively really goddamn secure. Don't get me wrong, I have my own grips about TLS, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. Using HTTPS is substantially more secure than not.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @spamcourt said:

    I had a friend who ran a website deceptively similar to (but not actually impersonating) Verisign, and he linked to it with a click-to-verify popup.

    Those things are so fucking retarded. Obviously anyone running a scam site could stick one of those badges and pop-ups on their own server.

    It's just a waste of money for marketing purposes, like EV certs.



  • This happened at my workplace on Monday morning aswell. I do not work in a company with American-based offices, though.

    Linked
    in was put on a restrictive 5 minute rule (Which HR would burn through
    by 10am), Facebook, Twitter and a handful of other sites were banned
    outright. 

    Because I'm a helpdesk monkey, I'm taking the calls and
    logging this issue. HR cant look at LinkedIn for applications, another
    group has hired two users specifically for Facebook and Twitter. Many
    site workers (Who FIFO and go 2+ weeks without seeing their
    family/friends) call in to request if it was intended.

    I got told
    by the rest of Group IT that Websense must have rolled through a change
    and we had to apply to Websense to revert them for our company.

    An
    hour or two later, and a batch of emails to anyone remotely interested,
    I get informed that it was one power-hungry sys-admin who had just
    inherited the web filtering system. All social networking is evil
    apparently, and it's our job to restrict it. I haven't heard of any
    campaigns against social networking at work, and everyone has
    smartphones now so what's the point to outright ban them?

    His fix
    was even more rediculous: Take down the internet for an entire floor
    that Group HR (and another division) reside in (No warning or change
    request), then give the entire floor Social Networking access. Never
    mind the Recruiters not in Group HR, or the HR staff who work on site,
    who use LinkedIN for work. Or telling anyone about making a change that
    affects the entire company.



  • @Adanine said:

    His fix
    was even more rediculous: Take down the internet for an entire floor
    that Group HR (and another division) reside in (No warning or change
    request), then give the entire floor Social Networking access. Never
    mind the Recruiters not in Group HR, or the HR staff who work on site,
    who use LinkedIN for work. Or telling anyone about making a change that
    affects the entire company.

    LinkedIn isn't really even social networking. I mean, it's mostly for professional contacts, and I would consider it legitimate for employees to use. I could see banning Facebook if you have real problems with people using it on company time, but it would probably make more sense to just log who uses Facebook and crack down on any big offenders.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:
    Yet tdwtf forums aren't blocked?

    They only block sites that are needed to do my job.

    Seriously, a while back they wouldn't let me download the Oracle client, or IE9/10, but all the web comics seem available.

    Reminds me of my previous job. Various stuff was blocked. For me the biggest pain was the proxy didn't support WebDAV methods, so I couldn't (easily) get stuff from sourceforge and the like with subversion.

    Once I've been led, by apparently valid link in technical article, to some address that had "girl" in the host name. And got error saying that "porn is not allowed". So just for fun I've tried to open some real porn site off the top of my head. One that I've thought nobody could miss if they search the web for porn sites for a few minutes. Guess what, it loaded. So much for quality of these corporate filters.

    From the start I used ssh running on port 443 to get anywhere I needed. Trivial program that will do a HTTP CONNECT to a proxy and provide the resulting tunnel over stdin/stdout can be found on the net, ssh can use it via ProxyCommand setting and ssh can forward fixed port or act as SOCKS proxy on either end. On some projects they used the same setup to get to servers at customer site, because it was easier than getting an exception.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    LinkedIn isn't really even social networking. I mean, it's mostly for professional contacts, and I would consider it legitimate for employees to use. I could see banning Facebook if you have real problems with people using it on company time, but it would probably make more sense to just log who uses Facebook and crack down on any big offenders.
    I'm not against the changes in general, but they were semi-major restrictions that were implemented (Affecting more then just the sites I mentioned, including real-estate/office supplies/most tech forums except this one) with no communication across the team, and no thought into thinking that the changes may affect users who need these resources.

    A simple moment of reflection and communication (Ie, using the Change Management process that's mandatory for this sort of thing) would have prevented an hour-and-a-half internet outage for 80~ users and more stigma against Group IT for the users affected. I've been fairly fortunate in not experiencing corporate WTF's that shit all over me before, but this is just someone stroking their dick of power, and I had to deal with the users affected and cover his ass.

    And the outcome? I doubt even half the Recruiters still have access to LinkedIN still after the "fix". But it's "Fixed", so there's no point the sys-admin responsible will look into it further.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    LinkedIn isn't really even social networking. I mean, it's mostly for professional contacts, and I would consider it legitimate for employees to use.

    I bet the company is scared that employees are "surfing" the LinkedIns and looking for other jobs.  Funnily enough, they're probably right. But that's often because the company is a festering shithole from which they're trying to escape. And one of the biggest reasons an employee would think their company is a festering shithole? Overly restrictive Internet policies that treat them like children instead of professionals.

    It's all a beautiful, viscous circle.  Kind of like swallowing an extremely long length of twine, then tying the end to the start when it finally comes out the other side.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    LinkedIn isn't really even social networking. I mean, it's mostly for professional contacts, and I would consider it legitimate for employees to use.

    Fun fact: one of the departments in my company is pretty much all LinkedIn. It's like 90% of their job. And...we block nothing. At all. There's no filter. Just make sure you're using headphones if you're watching porn.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    Kind of like swallowing an extremely long length of twine, then tying the end to the start when it finally comes out the other side.
     

    Make it a really strong, thin wire, and give it a quick 50 tonne tug.



  • @dhromed said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    Kind of like swallowing an extremely long length of twine, then tying the end to the start when it finally comes out the other side.
     

    Make it a really strong, thin wire, and give it a quick 50 tonne tug.

    Ah, chainus.



  • @drurowin said:

    It's like the bicycle fucking lock of the Internet.

     

    And that is why I keep my bicycle unlocked, in a public place, with a big sign on it that says "steal this". Keeps all the self-resprecting hipsters away.

     



  • @fire2k said:

    @drurowin said:

    It's like the bicycle fucking lock of the Internet.

     

    And that is why I keep my bicycle unlocked, in a public place, with a big sign on it that says "steal this". Keeps all the self-resprecting hipsters away.

     

    Easier solution: remove the saddle and put a little bit of dry blood and shit on the top of the shaft. Thieves are usually scared of HIV.



  • @fire2k said:

    @drurowin said:

    It's like the bicycle fucking lock of the Internet.

     

    And that is why I keep my bicycle unlocked, in a public place, with a big sign on it that says "steal this". Keeps all the self-resprecting hipsters away.

     

    OK, fine, it's like the vaccines or car door locks of the Internet.  It makes white people feel safer, and more likely to part with their hard-earned, but really does nothing worthwhile.

     



  • @drurowin said:

    @fire2k said:

    @drurowin said:

    It's like the bicycle fucking lock of the Internet.

     

    And that is why I keep my bicycle unlocked, in a public place, with a big sign on it that says "steal this". Keeps all the self-resprecting hipsters away.

     

    OK, fine, it's like the vaccines or car door locks of the Internet.  It makes white people feel safer, and more likely to part with their hard-earned, but really does nothing worthwhile.

     

     

    You really think vaccines do nothing worthwhile?  I guess preventing people from being paralyzed by polio or preventing needless deaths/suffering from formerly common diseases isn't worthwhile then.  Not to mention that having a large part of the population innoculated against diseases protects the nutjobs/idiots who don't vaccinate due to herd immunity.

     



  • @DescentJS said:

    @drurowin said:

    @fire2k said:

    @drurowin said:

    It's like the bicycle fucking lock of the Internet.

     

    And that is why I keep my bicycle unlocked, in a public place, with a big sign on it that says "steal this". Keeps all the self-resprecting hipsters away.

     

    OK, fine, it's like the vaccines or car door locks of the Internet.  It makes white people feel safer, and more likely to part with their hard-earned, but really does nothing worthwhile.

     

     

    You really think vaccines do nothing worthwhile?  I guess preventing people from being paralyzed by polio or preventing needless deaths/suffering from formerly common diseases isn't worthwhile then.  Not to mention that having a large part of the population innoculated against diseases protects the nutjobs/idiots who don't vaccinate due to herd immunity.

     

    Polio and smallpox are gone.  Done.  Extinct.  Same with whooping-cough in the first world.  So why do we vaccinate against diseases that no longer exist?  They once served a purpose, but they're obsolete now, a victim of their own success.

     



  • @DescentJS said:

    You really think vaccines do nothing worthwhile?  I guess preventing people from being paralyzed by polio or preventing needless deaths/suffering from formerly common diseases isn't worthwhile then.  Not to mention that having a large part of the population innoculated against diseases protects the nutjobs/idiots who don't vaccinate due to herd immunity.

     

    If you're the one who gets autism and I'm still protected because your herd is stupid, it's win-win!



  • @drurowin said:

    @DescentJS said:

    @drurowin said:

    @fire2k said:

    @drurowin said:

    It's like the bicycle fucking lock of the Internet.

     

    And that is why I keep my bicycle unlocked, in a public place, with a big sign on it that says "steal this". Keeps all the self-resprecting hipsters away.

     

    OK, fine, it's like the vaccines or car door locks of the Internet.  It makes white people feel safer, and more likely to part with their hard-earned, but really does nothing worthwhile.

     

     

    You really think vaccines do nothing worthwhile?  I guess preventing people from being paralyzed by polio or preventing needless deaths/suffering from formerly common diseases isn't worthwhile then.  Not to mention that having a large part of the population innoculated against diseases protects the nutjobs/idiots who don't vaccinate due to herd immunity.

     

    Polio and smallpox are gone.  Done.  Extinct.  Same with whooping-cough in the first world.  So why do we vaccinate against diseases that no longer exist?  They once served a purpose, but they're obsolete now, a victim of their own success.

     

     

    You realize that smallpox vaccinations aren't really done anymore, right?  And that polio still exists, right?  Also that just because a disease isn't present in one country that doesn't allow for you to stop protecting against it until the disease is actually eradicated?  Amaziningly, people actually travel outside the first world on occasion, and those people would like to not bring back a disease like whooping cough to all their friends just because morons like you thought that we could stop vaccinating against it.  

     



  • @Ronald said:

    @DescentJS said:
    You really think vaccines do nothing worthwhile?  I guess preventing people from being paralyzed by polio or preventing needless deaths/suffering from formerly common diseases isn't worthwhile then.  Not to mention that having a large part of the population innoculated against diseases protects the nutjobs/idiots who don't vaccinate due to herd immunity.

     

     

    If you're the one who gets autism and I'm still protected because your herd is stupid, it's win-win!

     

    Andrew Wakefield's fradulent study has probably caused more suffering and death than even Morbs has been able to achieve.

     



  • @DescentJS said:

    @drurowin said:

    @DescentJS said:

    @drurowin said:

    @fire2k said:

    @drurowin said:

    It's like the bicycle fucking lock of the Internet.

     

    And that is why I keep my bicycle unlocked, in a public place, with a big sign on it that says "steal this". Keeps all the self-resprecting hipsters away.

     

    OK, fine, it's like the vaccines or car door locks of the Internet.  It makes white people feel safer, and more likely to part with their hard-earned, but really does nothing worthwhile.

     

     

    You really think vaccines do nothing worthwhile?  I guess preventing people from being paralyzed by polio or preventing needless deaths/suffering from formerly common diseases isn't worthwhile then.  Not to mention that having a large part of the population innoculated against diseases protects the nutjobs/idiots who don't vaccinate due to herd immunity.

     

    Polio and smallpox are gone.  Done.  Extinct.  Same with whooping-cough in the first world.  So why do we vaccinate against diseases that no longer exist?  They once served a purpose, but they're obsolete now, a victim of their own success.

     

     

    You realize that smallpox vaccinations aren't really done anymore, right?  And that polio still exists, right?  Also that just because a disease isn't present in one country that doesn't allow for you to stop protecting against it until the disease is actually eradicated?  Amaziningly, people actually travel outside the first world on occasion, and those people would like to not bring back a disease like whooping cough to all their friends just because morons like you thought that we could stop vaccinating against it.  

     

    Then vaccinate the traveller, not the general population at large, and hold them in quarantine upon return from the wilds of northeast Borneo.  I bet you reach for the ciprofloxacin every time you get a sniffo too...?

     



  • @drurowin said:

    Then vaccinate the traveller, not the general population at large, and hold them in quarantine upon return from the wilds of northeast Borneo. 

     So your suggestion is that travellers should have to go to far more hassle just to avoid putting some harmless* needles in the arms of the general populace?  You don't seem to understand the concept of herd immunity or of sensible reactions.

    @drurowin said:

    I bet you reach for the ciprofloxacin every time you get a sniffo too...?

     

     

    No?  Because that would be retarded (I have never had a disease that would have actually been helped by antibiotics and have thus never taken them). You really don't see a difference between something that is actually useful (i.e. vaccinating the general populace against diseases that still exist and cause significant harm) and something that is not only useless but actually harmful (i.e. taking antibiotics for things that are not bacterial infections thus contributing to the creation of diseases that are resistant to antibiotics).

     



  • @drurowin said:

    @fire2k said:

    @drurowin said:

    It's like the bicycle fucking lock of the Internet.

     

    And that is why I keep my bicycle unlocked, in a public place, with a big sign on it that says "steal this". Keeps all the self-resprecting hipsters away.

     

    OK, fine, it's like the vaccines or car door locks of the Internet.  It makes white people feel safer, and more likely to part with their hard-earned, but really does nothing worthwhile.

     


    Thread successfully derailed!



  • @DescentJS said:

    Andrew Wakefield's fradulent study has probably caused more suffering and death than even Morbs has been able to achieve.

    Goddammit, I try my best, okay?? snif



  • @drurowin said:

    Then vaccinate the traveller, not the general population at large, and hold them in quarantine upon return from the wilds of northeast Borneo.  I bet you reach for the ciprofloxacin every time you get a sniffo too...?

    So a sissy British furfag who doesn't lock his doors and who we now find has a witch doctor's view of science. Fantastic!



  • @drurowin said:

    Polio and smallpox are gone.  Done.  Extinct.  Same with whooping-cough in the first world.  So why do we vaccinate against diseases that no longer exist?  They once served a purpose, but they're obsolete now, a victim of their own success.

     

    Whooping cough (pertussis) is NOT gone, even in the first world.

    I believe the US is still considered part of the first world. Pertussis in WA state, where I live, is running about 20 reported cases per week. 363 cases have been reported so far this year. Last year there was an epidemic; at its peak, over 200 cases per week were being reported, with 2733 cases reported for the year. http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Pubs/348-254-PertussisUpdate.pdf



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    Whooping cough (pertussis) is NOT gone, even in the first world.

    I believe the US is still considered part of the first world. Pertussis in WA state, where I live, is running about 20 reported cases per week. 363 cases have been reported so far this year. Last year there was an epidemic; at its peak, over 200 cases per week were being reported, with 2733 cases reported for the year. http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Pubs/348-254-PertussisUpdate.pdf

    Health-related information I learned from TDWTF:

    • No such thing as a diet.
    • Vaccines r dum.
    • You can't catch HIV from a fursuit.


    You guys are batting about the same average as the Christian Scientists, I want you to know.



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    @drurowin said:

    Polio and smallpox are gone.  Done.  Extinct.  Same with whooping-cough in the first world.  So why do we vaccinate against diseases that no longer exist?  They once served a purpose, but they're obsolete now, a victim of their own success.

     

    Whooping cough (pertussis) is NOT gone, even in the first world.

    I believe the US is still considered part of the first world. Pertussis in WA state, where I live, is running about 20 reported cases per week. 363 cases have been reported so far this year. Last year there was an epidemic; at its peak, over 200 cases per week were being reported, with 2733 cases reported for the year. http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Pubs/348-254-PertussisUpdate.pdf

    And those are probably lower-income situations, where the proper solution would be quarantine and decontamination, not putting children at risk of getting autism and chlamidya from "the jabs".

     


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.