Another Facebook change, another privacy uproar. Read the headlines and you might have thought the social network was planning to open the books on private cellphone numbers and home addresses to any advertiser willing to slip them some cash, rather than adding some more sharing options along with the usual granular control over who gets to see what of your digital details. Unsurprisingly Facebook froze its plans pending a reassessment of its privacy controls; unfortunately, nobody is taking Facebook users – and the online community in general – to task over taking some responsibility for what they share.
If you haven’t been following the story, here’s the situation in a nutshell. Facebook announced on Friday that it was planning to add address and mobile number to the personal information that could be shared with applications, websites and advertisers. As with other personal details, the degree to which that data was accessible would be managed under each user’s permissions settings: everything from a come-and-get-me open pipe to a complete block on anything being revealed. Facebook billed it as a way to “easily share your address and mobile phone with a shopping site to streamline the checkout process, or sign up for up-to-the-minute alerts on special deals directly to your mobile phone.”
Don’t get me wrong; I’m under no illusion that Facebook is doing this for altruistic reasons. Making online purchases quicker is undoubtedly handy to those who actually click through Facebook adverts, but for the social network itself it’s all about making money from its most valuable asset: its millions of registered users. Just like with a free newspaper, Facebook makes its money by showing you adverts, and it can use your personal information to tailor those ads more appropriately. Access to personal contact details, meanwhile, is even more valuable.
However, just because there’s profit to be made for Facebook, it doesn’t mean this is either bad for the user or a sign of Evil Big Business taking advantage of the general public. We manage the degrees to which we disclose personal information all the time, long before Facebook arrived and gave us a simple privacy settings page to work with. Every time you avoid giving your phone number to a door-to-door charity worker, tick the no-junk-mail box on a bank form or refuse to give your address to someone you just met at a bar, you’re exercising your own, personal privacy filter.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. After all, it only takes a quick glance at sites like Lamebook (often NSFW) to see that many Facebook users have problems with over-sharing, accidentally making public posts out of what were meant to be private messages, and generally forgetting who out of their friends and family can read what they’re saying. Maybe Facebook does have some intrinsic responsibility to shepherd its members through the difficult journey that is online life; perhaps the privacy pages really won’t be complete until there’s color coding, pop-up warnings and a virtual cash register showing just how much you’ve lined Mark Zuckerberg’s pocket.
This constant push-me-pull-me with Facebook does users no favours. Every time the privacy patrol scream, and Facebook backtracks, it reinforces the idea that the site itself is solely responsible – should be responsible – for making safe use of the information we share online. Don’t get me wrong, if Facebook was looking to sneak in a “we can sell your identify” clause into the T&Cs, that’s something worth shouting about. When, though, we muster the same amount of vitriol for sharing options that already have safeguards – safeguards that satisfactorily protect our email address and other details – it looks more like abdication of responsibility. We want to trust Facebook do “do the right thing” – based on our own interpretation of what “the right thing” is, exactly – so that we won’t have to. We can spend our time looking up old crushes, posting photos of ourselves looking fierce in clubs, and commenting on videos of cats.
Privacy is important, but the responsibility begins at the individual level. Just as you don’t hand out your address to strangers in the street, maybe giving it to every website that asks isn’t all that sensible either. Relying on other people, or companies, to protect us universally is a naivety we abandon before adulthood in the real world, yet something many seem determined to cling to online. That’s before you get to the thorny issue of lost or stolen data. In the end, it’s your life, your number, your face: it’s up to you whether it’s an open book.
In an interview with conservative pundit SE Cupp, former Senator (and possible presidential hopeful/wishful) Rick Santorum ticked off several reasons why he believes GOP supernova Sarah Palin is skipping this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), chiefly citing “financial benefit,” but also that she’s “the mother to all these kids.”
Is this a shot across Palin’s bow for 2012? Either way, it’s an unfair, sexist premise that has no basis in fact.
Here’s a clip of the interview, from GlennBeck.com:
Let’s just break that down for a second. He’s essentially saying that Palin turned down the CPAC keynote slot because she’s too busy gettin’ paid (Palin does command hefty speaking fees), but that he wouldn’t have turned it down because he’s not “the mother to all these kids.” Palin has five children. Santorum has seven, so the implication is that there’s something about being a mom that necessitates whoring yourself out for speaking fees, while dude parents can freewheelingly stick to their principles.
Now, I’m certainly not afraid to criticize Sarah Palin when she deserves it, but Santorum’s remarks are not only unfair and offensive, they’re also completely unfounded.
First of all, despite her ability to collect hefty speaking fees, Sarah Palin actually does manage to do things for which she is not being paid. I’m not that familiar with her datebook, but even I noticed her December trip to Haiti. The only payment Palin received for that trip was a heap of inexplicably bad press. There’s no comparison between visiting Haitian cholera clinics and keynoting at CPAC, but it definitely shows that time and money are not the issue.
Some others have wondered if Palin skipped out as part of a wider boycott centered around the inclusion of gay conservative group GOProud. Palin put that notion to rest in a recent interview, defending the group’s inclusion (while also casting them as adversaries by comparing them to liberals).
The fact is, Palin has now turned down four CPAC invitations, and while she’s never given an explicit reason, there’s a pretty obvious one, at least for the last two. American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene, the organizer behind CPAC, had Palin booster John Ziegler ejected from Western CPAC in 2009 after Ziegler grilled Keene about comments he’d made that Sarah Palin “whined” about media coverage, and that she “bailed” on her post as Alaska Governor.
Ironically, Ziegler also confronted Keene about allegations that his organization would do anything for money, offering him $20 to write a pro-Palin op-ed.
Aside from Keene’s attacks on Palin, there’s also a lot of dissatisfaction with Keene and the ACU among conservatives, in general. Most won’t speak about it publicly, but the FedEx scandal, the perceived coddling of fringe elements at that Western CPAC, and other issues have dimmed some of the group’s luster among conservatives. While CPAC is still the best game in town for most conservatives to meet, greet, and share influence with others, Palin stands apart. CPAC needs her far more than she needs CPAC.
That actually points up the biggest fallacy in Santorum’s argument. Palin is a money-making machine, which i s all the more reason why she could afford to take a weekend off to keynote CPAC.
If there’s really no such thing as bad publicity, then Santorum will likely get a huge bang for the buck with this interview. Something tells me, though, that it won’t be a net gain for his already dim presidential hopes.
Follow us on Twitter.
Sign up for Mediaite’s daily newsletter.
In a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
NBC's coverage came out 1.471 million viewers ahead of ABC "World News" and 3.944 million viewers ahead of CBS "Evening News" -- which isn't that much of a surprise, considering "Nightly News" has come out ahead of those two for the ...
bench craft company Another Facebook change, another privacy uproar. Read the headlines and you might have thought the social network was planning to open the books on private cellphone numbers and home addresses to any advertiser willing to slip them some cash, rather than adding some more sharing options along with the usual granular control over who gets to see what of your digital details. Unsurprisingly Facebook froze its plans pending a reassessment of its privacy controls; unfortunately, nobody is taking Facebook users – and the online community in general – to task over taking some responsibility for what they share.
If you haven’t been following the story, here’s the situation in a nutshell. Facebook announced on Friday that it was planning to add address and mobile number to the personal information that could be shared with applications, websites and advertisers. As with other personal details, the degree to which that data was accessible would be managed under each user’s permissions settings: everything from a come-and-get-me open pipe to a complete block on anything being revealed. Facebook billed it as a way to “easily share your address and mobile phone with a shopping site to streamline the checkout process, or sign up for up-to-the-minute alerts on special deals directly to your mobile phone.”
Don’t get me wrong; I’m under no illusion that Facebook is doing this for altruistic reasons. Making online purchases quicker is undoubtedly handy to those who actually click through Facebook adverts, but for the social network itself it’s all about making money from its most valuable asset: its millions of registered users. Just like with a free newspaper, Facebook makes its money by showing you adverts, and it can use your personal information to tailor those ads more appropriately. Access to personal contact details, meanwhile, is even more valuable.
However, just because there’s profit to be made for Facebook, it doesn’t mean this is either bad for the user or a sign of Evil Big Business taking advantage of the general public. We manage the degrees to which we disclose personal information all the time, long before Facebook arrived and gave us a simple privacy settings page to work with. Every time you avoid giving your phone number to a door-to-door charity worker, tick the no-junk-mail box on a bank form or refuse to give your address to someone you just met at a bar, you’re exercising your own, personal privacy filter.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. After all, it only takes a quick glance at sites like Lamebook (often NSFW) to see that many Facebook users have problems with over-sharing, accidentally making public posts out of what were meant to be private messages, and generally forgetting who out of their friends and family can read what they’re saying. Maybe Facebook does have some intrinsic responsibility to shepherd its members through the difficult journey that is online life; perhaps the privacy pages really won’t be complete until there’s color coding, pop-up warnings and a virtual cash register showing just how much you’ve lined Mark Zuckerberg’s pocket.
This constant push-me-pull-me with Facebook does users no favours. Every time the privacy patrol scream, and Facebook backtracks, it reinforces the idea that the site itself is solely responsible – should be responsible – for making safe use of the information we share online. Don’t get me wrong, if Facebook was looking to sneak in a “we can sell your identify” clause into the T&Cs, that’s something worth shouting about. When, though, we muster the same amount of vitriol for sharing options that already have safeguards – safeguards that satisfactorily protect our email address and other details – it looks more like abdication of responsibility. We want to trust Facebook do “do the right thing” – based on our own interpretation of what “the right thing” is, exactly – so that we won’t have to. We can spend our time looking up old crushes, posting photos of ourselves looking fierce in clubs, and commenting on videos of cats.
Privacy is important, but the responsibility begins at the individual level. Just as you don’t hand out your address to strangers in the street, maybe giving it to every website that asks isn’t all that sensible either. Relying on other people, or companies, to protect us universally is a naivety we abandon before adulthood in the real world, yet something many seem determined to cling to online. That’s before you get to the thorny issue of lost or stolen data. In the end, it’s your life, your number, your face: it’s up to you whether it’s an open book.
In an interview with conservative pundit SE Cupp, former Senator (and possible presidential hopeful/wishful) Rick Santorum ticked off several reasons why he believes GOP supernova Sarah Palin is skipping this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), chiefly citing “financial benefit,” but also that she’s “the mother to all these kids.”
Is this a shot across Palin’s bow for 2012? Either way, it’s an unfair, sexist premise that has no basis in fact.
Here’s a clip of the interview, from GlennBeck.com:
Let’s just break that down for a second. He’s essentially saying that Palin turned down the CPAC keynote slot because she’s too busy gettin’ paid (Palin does command hefty speaking fees), but that he wouldn’t have turned it down because he’s not “the mother to all these kids.” Palin has five children. Santorum has seven, so the implication is that there’s something about being a mom that necessitates whoring yourself out for speaking fees, while dude parents can freewheelingly stick to their principles.
Now, I’m certainly not afraid to criticize Sarah Palin when she deserves it, but Santorum’s remarks are not only unfair and offensive, they’re also completely unfounded.
First of all, despite her ability to collect hefty speaking fees, Sarah Palin actually does manage to do things for which she is not being paid. I’m not that familiar with her datebook, but even I noticed her December trip to Haiti. The only payment Palin received for that trip was a heap of inexplicably bad press. There’s no comparison between visiting Haitian cholera clinics and keynoting at CPAC, but it definitely shows that time and money are not the issue.
Some others have wondered if Palin skipped out as part of a wider boycott centered around the inclusion of gay conservative group GOProud. Palin put that notion to rest in a recent interview, defending the group’s inclusion (while also casting them as adversaries by comparing them to liberals).
The fact is, Palin has now turned down four CPAC invitations, and while she’s never given an explicit reason, there’s a pretty obvious one, at least for the last two. American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene, the organizer behind CPAC, had Palin booster John Ziegler ejected from Western CPAC in 2009 after Ziegler grilled Keene about comments he’d made that Sarah Palin “whined” about media coverage, and that she “bailed” on her post as Alaska Governor.
Ironically, Ziegler also confronted Keene about allegations that his organization would do anything for money, offering him $20 to write a pro-Palin op-ed.
Aside from Keene’s attacks on Palin, there’s also a lot of dissatisfaction with Keene and the ACU among conservatives, in general. Most won’t speak about it publicly, but the FedEx scandal, the perceived coddling of fringe elements at that Western CPAC, and other issues have dimmed some of the group’s luster among conservatives. While CPAC is still the best game in town for most conservatives to meet, greet, and share influence with others, Palin stands apart. CPAC needs her far more than she needs CPAC.
That actually points up the biggest fallacy in Santorum’s argument. Palin is a money-making machine, which i s all the more reason why she could afford to take a weekend off to keynote CPAC.
If there’s really no such thing as bad publicity, then Santorum will likely get a huge bang for the buck with this interview. Something tells me, though, that it won’t be a net gain for his already dim presidential hopes.
Follow us on Twitter.
Sign up for Mediaite’s daily newsletter.
In a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
NBC's coverage came out 1.471 million viewers ahead of ABC "World News" and 3.944 million viewers ahead of CBS "Evening News" -- which isn't that much of a surprise, considering "Nightly News" has come out ahead of those two for the ...
bench craft company[reefeed]
bench craft company
bench craft companyIn a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
NBC's coverage came out 1.471 million viewers ahead of ABC "World News" and 3.944 million viewers ahead of CBS "Evening News" -- which isn't that much of a surprise, considering "Nightly News" has come out ahead of those two for the ...
bench craft company Another Facebook change, another privacy uproar. Read the headlines and you might have thought the social network was planning to open the books on private cellphone numbers and home addresses to any advertiser willing to slip them some cash, rather than adding some more sharing options along with the usual granular control over who gets to see what of your digital details. Unsurprisingly Facebook froze its plans pending a reassessment of its privacy controls; unfortunately, nobody is taking Facebook users – and the online community in general – to task over taking some responsibility for what they share.
If you haven’t been following the story, here’s the situation in a nutshell. Facebook announced on Friday that it was planning to add address and mobile number to the personal information that could be shared with applications, websites and advertisers. As with other personal details, the degree to which that data was accessible would be managed under each user’s permissions settings: everything from a come-and-get-me open pipe to a complete block on anything being revealed. Facebook billed it as a way to “easily share your address and mobile phone with a shopping site to streamline the checkout process, or sign up for up-to-the-minute alerts on special deals directly to your mobile phone.”
Don’t get me wrong; I’m under no illusion that Facebook is doing this for altruistic reasons. Making online purchases quicker is undoubtedly handy to those who actually click through Facebook adverts, but for the social network itself it’s all about making money from its most valuable asset: its millions of registered users. Just like with a free newspaper, Facebook makes its money by showing you adverts, and it can use your personal information to tailor those ads more appropriately. Access to personal contact details, meanwhile, is even more valuable.
However, just because there’s profit to be made for Facebook, it doesn’t mean this is either bad for the user or a sign of Evil Big Business taking advantage of the general public. We manage the degrees to which we disclose personal information all the time, long before Facebook arrived and gave us a simple privacy settings page to work with. Every time you avoid giving your phone number to a door-to-door charity worker, tick the no-junk-mail box on a bank form or refuse to give your address to someone you just met at a bar, you’re exercising your own, personal privacy filter.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. After all, it only takes a quick glance at sites like Lamebook (often NSFW) to see that many Facebook users have problems with over-sharing, accidentally making public posts out of what were meant to be private messages, and generally forgetting who out of their friends and family can read what they’re saying. Maybe Facebook does have some intrinsic responsibility to shepherd its members through the difficult journey that is online life; perhaps the privacy pages really won’t be complete until there’s color coding, pop-up warnings and a virtual cash register showing just how much you’ve lined Mark Zuckerberg’s pocket.
This constant push-me-pull-me with Facebook does users no favours. Every time the privacy patrol scream, and Facebook backtracks, it reinforces the idea that the site itself is solely responsible – should be responsible – for making safe use of the information we share online. Don’t get me wrong, if Facebook was looking to sneak in a “we can sell your identify” clause into the T&Cs, that’s something worth shouting about. When, though, we muster the same amount of vitriol for sharing options that already have safeguards – safeguards that satisfactorily protect our email address and other details – it looks more like abdication of responsibility. We want to trust Facebook do “do the right thing” – based on our own interpretation of what “the right thing” is, exactly – so that we won’t have to. We can spend our time looking up old crushes, posting photos of ourselves looking fierce in clubs, and commenting on videos of cats.
Privacy is important, but the responsibility begins at the individual level. Just as you don’t hand out your address to strangers in the street, maybe giving it to every website that asks isn’t all that sensible either. Relying on other people, or companies, to protect us universally is a naivety we abandon before adulthood in the real world, yet something many seem determined to cling to online. That’s before you get to the thorny issue of lost or stolen data. In the end, it’s your life, your number, your face: it’s up to you whether it’s an open book.
In an interview with conservative pundit SE Cupp, former Senator (and possible presidential hopeful/wishful) Rick Santorum ticked off several reasons why he believes GOP supernova Sarah Palin is skipping this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), chiefly citing “financial benefit,” but also that she’s “the mother to all these kids.”
Is this a shot across Palin’s bow for 2012? Either way, it’s an unfair, sexist premise that has no basis in fact.
Here’s a clip of the interview, from GlennBeck.com:
Let’s just break that down for a second. He’s essentially saying that Palin turned down the CPAC keynote slot because she’s too busy gettin’ paid (Palin does command hefty speaking fees), but that he wouldn’t have turned it down because he’s not “the mother to all these kids.” Palin has five children. Santorum has seven, so the implication is that there’s something about being a mom that necessitates whoring yourself out for speaking fees, while dude parents can freewheelingly stick to their principles.
Now, I’m certainly not afraid to criticize Sarah Palin when she deserves it, but Santorum’s remarks are not only unfair and offensive, they’re also completely unfounded.
First of all, despite her ability to collect hefty speaking fees, Sarah Palin actually does manage to do things for which she is not being paid. I’m not that familiar with her datebook, but even I noticed her December trip to Haiti. The only payment Palin received for that trip was a heap of inexplicably bad press. There’s no comparison between visiting Haitian cholera clinics and keynoting at CPAC, but it definitely shows that time and money are not the issue.
Some others have wondered if Palin skipped out as part of a wider boycott centered around the inclusion of gay conservative group GOProud. Palin put that notion to rest in a recent interview, defending the group’s inclusion (while also casting them as adversaries by comparing them to liberals).
The fact is, Palin has now turned down four CPAC invitations, and while she’s never given an explicit reason, there’s a pretty obvious one, at least for the last two. American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene, the organizer behind CPAC, had Palin booster John Ziegler ejected from Western CPAC in 2009 after Ziegler grilled Keene about comments he’d made that Sarah Palin “whined” about media coverage, and that she “bailed” on her post as Alaska Governor.
Ironically, Ziegler also confronted Keene about allegations that his organization would do anything for money, offering him $20 to write a pro-Palin op-ed.
Aside from Keene’s attacks on Palin, there’s also a lot of dissatisfaction with Keene and the ACU among conservatives, in general. Most won’t speak about it publicly, but the FedEx scandal, the perceived coddling of fringe elements at that Western CPAC, and other issues have dimmed some of the group’s luster among conservatives. While CPAC is still the best game in town for most conservatives to meet, greet, and share influence with others, Palin stands apart. CPAC needs her far more than she needs CPAC.
That actually points up the biggest fallacy in Santorum’s argument. Palin is a money-making machine, which i s all the more reason why she could afford to take a weekend off to keynote CPAC.
If there’s really no such thing as bad publicity, then Santorum will likely get a huge bang for the buck with this interview. Something tells me, though, that it won’t be a net gain for his already dim presidential hopes.
Follow us on Twitter.
Sign up for Mediaite’s daily newsletter.
bench craft companyIn a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
NBC's coverage came out 1.471 million viewers ahead of ABC "World News" and 3.944 million viewers ahead of CBS "Evening News" -- which isn't that much of a surprise, considering "Nightly News" has come out ahead of those two for the ...
bench craft company
bench craft companyIn a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
NBC's coverage came out 1.471 million viewers ahead of ABC "World News" and 3.944 million viewers ahead of CBS "Evening News" -- which isn't that much of a surprise, considering "Nightly News" has come out ahead of those two for the ...
bench craft companyIn a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
NBC's coverage came out 1.471 million viewers ahead of ABC "World News" and 3.944 million viewers ahead of CBS "Evening News" -- which isn't that much of a surprise, considering "Nightly News" has come out ahead of those two for the ...
bench craft companyIn a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
NBC's coverage came out 1.471 million viewers ahead of ABC "World News" and 3.944 million viewers ahead of CBS "Evening News" -- which isn't that much of a surprise, considering "Nightly News" has come out ahead of those two for the ...
bench craft company bench craft company bench craft company
bench craft company bench craft companyIn a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
NBC's coverage came out 1.471 million viewers ahead of ABC "World News" and 3.944 million viewers ahead of CBS "Evening News" -- which isn't that much of a surprise, considering "Nightly News" has come out ahead of those two for the ...
bench craft company Amazon MTurk is one of many Amazon sites out there that is categorized as an "Amazon Web Services" site. The goal of the site is to be a marketplace that enable computer programs and people to hardness and use human intelligence. Sold to many in advertisements and statements as "the first Human Intelligence API", this site is a great example of a current trend in information services - "crowd sourcing". Requesting a "unit of work" or HIT (Human Intelligence Task) to be done, such as writing an article or sorting image files, many of the most frequent users of MTurk use software that do the majority of the requesting for them. Using Amazon payments to create a funds source to pay their workers, after the initial payment, this too can be automated so that payments are automatically taken from the card or account. This makes it unique and also make it a valuable and fit very well with the theme of "computerized marketplace harnessing human intelligence".
My experience with the site is not limited to using it as someone who has completed "HITs" on the site also known as a "MTurk Worker" but also as one of those asking for some of the work to be done -a "MTurk Requester". I've been using this site to complete web sites by asking for MTurk workers to create images and write very specific content and also get feedback on my sites, blog and software.
The workers must reside either in the United States or India, or at the very least have an address in India or the US. Other than that and meeting the qualifications for each "HIT" which vary and can come in the form of percent of "HITs" accepted or skills tests, all that needs to be done is to complete each task and then wait for review and or acceptance and then the amount paid for the "HIT" will be paid to the balance of your Amazon Payments account.
I find MTurk to be a refreshing option for making money. Many of the jobs are very unique "work" that you won't find in a full or part-time employment position and that you definitely won't be asked to work on from home anywhere else. Payments are easy and the MTurk pay-outs, while usually not huge are easy to appreciate and initiate. anyone with an Amazon Payments account can direct deposit the funds in it to their bank account or request pay-out in the form of an Amazon.com gift card. Amazon receives a ten percent commission and so far as I've experienced, the work never dies out so it's keeping itself afloat providing work done by the Workers to the Requesters.
Starting out on the site is simple . All that is require is a PC/Mac, you and an internet connection. Firing up your web browser and pointing it to the MTurk site (Mturk.com), click the Worker link at the upper right hand corner of the page, register for the site and make sure your Amazon Payments account was created as well. Your pay will vary with what is offered from day to day and what you can get done in done day.
There aren't many simple ways of making money online and this is likely one of the most straightforward and highly reputable -coming from the Amazon.com family of sites. Look for my other Making Money Online guides, because more valuable (literally) information can be found in them. A very useful measure of what you'll be getting paid is to do the same short (the length of time it takes to complete any "HIT" varies with your skills and experience). "HITs" for one hour and measure that as a standard for what your pay will be based upon how many hours per day you are able to invest on the site. Whether working from home or in your spare time at the office, this site is great. It will not only keep your attention with it's standard and unique tasks to complete but the time investment requirement range from the casual to serious and it will defeinitely earn you money.
