Slashdot Mirror

In a corporatist system of government, corporate censorship is state censorship. When there's no meaningful space between corporate power and government power, it doesn't make much difference whether the guy silencing your dissent is Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Sessions. America most definitely has such a system.

That entire paragraph is plagiarism.

And when independent candidates run for office and can't get their message out for being shadow banned, and the corporatist candidates are always the number one trending subject, you'll be there to finger wag for not bothering to set up their own world-class content distribution system first.

So is this one.

Any time you try to talk about how internet censorship threatens our ability to get the jackboot of oligarchy off our necks you'll always get some guy in your face who's read one Ayn Rand book and thinks he knows everything, saying things like âoeFacebook is a private company! It can do whatever it wants!â Is it now? Has not Facebook been inviting US government-funded groups to help regulate its operations, vowing on the Senate floor to do more to facilitate the interests of the US government, deleting accounts at the direction of the US and Israeli governments, and handing the guidance of its censorship behavior over to the Atlantic Council, which receives funding from the US government, the EU, NATO and Gulf states? How "private" is that? Facebook is a deeply government-entrenched corporation, and Facebook censorship is just what government censorship looks like in a corporatist system of government.

Well that sure looks familiar too.

What takes random paragraphs from internet sources based on key words, with a time span ranging in years, and cobbles them together to make forum posts?

In a corporatist system of government, corporate censorship is state censorship. When there's no meaningful space between corporate power and government power, it doesn't make much difference whether the guy silencing your dissent is Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Sessions. America most definitely has such a system.

And when independent candidates run for office and can't get their message out for being shadow banned, and the corporatist candidates are always the number one trending subject, you'll be there to finger wag for not bothering to set up their own world-class content distribution system first.

Any time you try to talk about how internet censorship threatens our ability to get the jackboot of oligarchy off our necks you'll always get some guy in your face who's read one Ayn Rand book and thinks he knows everything, saying things like âoeFacebook is a private company! It can do whatever it wants!â Is it now? Has not Facebook been inviting US government-funded groups to help regulate its operations, vowing on the Senate floor to do more to facilitate the interests of the US government, deleting accounts at the direction of the US and Israeli governments, and handing the guidance of its censorship behavior over to the Atlantic Council, which receives funding from the US government, the EU, NATO and Gulf states? How "private" is that? Facebook is a deeply government-entrenched corporation, and Facebook censorship is just what government censorship looks like in a corporatist system of government.

Correct; you could google it yourself, instead of asking me to.

And I would find one misleading news story. How is that evidence of a large-scale, government-controlled desinformation campaign?.

About 258,000 results (0.49 seconds), according to Google over here. Doesn't Google work over there?

Here's the first page, with sources ranging from The New York Times to The Guardian to Der Spiegel::
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org...
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
http://khpg.org/en/index.php?i...
http://www.dw.com/en/german-me...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08...
http://uaposition.com/kharkiv-...

You made a claim, you have flimsy evidence to back it up.

Since you're unwilling to look at any of the 258,000 results, I doubt that anything I can post is likely to affect your position.

For those interested, here is a link to the video for the full presentation which was made at the Atlantic Council on Thursday.

The blimps are deployed to protect Washington, D.C. against the Nuclear cruise missile armed Russian submarines that Putin has redeployed near the US coast - presumably as a stop-gap measure till they can build and test a new generation of ballistic missile submarines (the first of which was launched recently.) The system is designed to detect cruise missiles coming in at supersonic or high subsonic velocities; weapons with very unique and well-known sensor signatures. A system that picks up one asshole riding an autogyro will also pick up bird flocks, ultra-lights and other things, and generate so many false positives that it will be useless. Filtering out extraneous data is a crucial component of any early warning system. Leave it to a journalist to criticize a crash-program implemented to counter a real and present danger for doing exactly what it's supposed to do.

The conventional wisdom that it's political suicide in Florida to support normalization of relations with Cuba just isn't true any longer. 56% of Americans in general support it. That number increases to 62% if you focus only on responses from the Hispanic/Latino community, and it increases to 63% if you just ask people from Florida.

Here's the poll.

The "angry Scarface extra" demographic in Florida is dying (both metaphorically and literally.) The times, they are a-changing.

First, there is a lot of information pointing to the rebel scum really early in this happening. It's almost as if it was prepared in advance in order to hand out once the rebel scum shot it down.

Second, who benefits the most from this?

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org...

Finally, can we trust anyone who has an axe to grind this early in the game? It seems like everyone pointing fingers is in a position to want someone else to look bad. The Danes are going to investigate so I think I will wait until they report before I believe anything concrete. I'm not saying they are not corruptible, I just don't see anything they would gain right at the moment.

Well, how does your possibilities look considering this?

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org...

I cannot say there is a connection or not, but as long as we are speculating, we might as well speculate.