Venezuelan Gov't Seeks Internet Content Bill

Ah, none is more coward! writes "Several local and international news outlets report that the overwhelmingly pro-Chávez Venezuelan National Assembly is considering a reform of their Social Responsibility law to include Internet content. Besides regulations on mature content and mandatory airing of government messages, the existing bill includes broad prohibitions against 'destabilizing' and 'disquieting' content. The Assembly also has a proposal for a single national Internet access point, 'with a view to handling outgoing and incoming traffic in Venezuela.'"

Comments

The final step.

[Requia]

And thus the last avenue of free speech in Venezuela dissapears.

Re:The final step.

[Lanteran]

I doubt anyone's actually surprised; this has been coming for quite some time.

Re:The final step.

[Timenerd]

It's coming in this country too.

Re:The final step.

[Requia]

I'm certainly not (really, the second they started taking state control of the local media this became only a matter of time), but maybe I can finally get the people who think that my anti Chavez attitude is somehow related to his economic policies to realize just how screwed up the Venezuelan government is.

Re:The final step.

[Nursie]

It seemed convenient for people to latch onto hate for him early one, what with him giving the finger to the US government and demanding profits from exploitation of natural resources remain in country.

But it turns out that he was an asshat, yep. I was one of those people, though haven't been for a little while now.

Re:The final step.

[jameskojiro]

But I though Hugo Chavez was a "man of the people" and a friend to the "average Jose" in his country.....

I thought it was a "Democratic Revolution" that happened in Venezuela when Chavez took over.

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's al bullshit (I'm venezuelan). He's just another bullshitter.

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though I know that this is a common opinion on the internet, and though our freedom has been plummeting exponentially over the past 10 years, it is a LOT harder to deal the "final blow" to freedom of speech in a country with numerous large regions, 300 million people, and a relatively rich, freedom-loving populace with guns than it is in a small country of impoverished worker class people from Venezuela.

Re:The final step.

[MightyMartian]

And lucky for you, you probably won't be able to post that post from within Venezuela soon enough.

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's al bullshit (I'm venezuelan). He's just another bullshitter.

How the fuck did he take over your country? Why is he allowed to stay in power?

You now have a dictatorship in all but name. WTF are you people thinking?!?

Re:The final step.

[Brafil]

They said the same in China. They didn't follow this motto. Don't listen to what they say, look at what they do before judging them. Venezuela has been quite undemocratic for a long while, in spite of what Chavez et al claimed.

Re:The final step.

[Kelzar]

'Democratic' doesn't necessarily mean liberal. Maybe the average Jose is more interested in stability, social justice, or some other such thing. Not saying that Venezuelans are or are not getting those things from the Chavez admin, just saying that "the people" rarely place liberal ideals on the top of the list, especially in the developing world. Look at Russia (and lots of other places). Lots of people there are more interested in prosperity and order than in liberalism.

Re:The final step.

[bky1701]

Why oppress the people when they oppress themselves? Practically everything we do today is controlled by corporations, either on their own accord (profit) or "self regulating" in order to avoid the government. Just look at the Wikileaks donation fiasco to know how much freedom you really have.

The best kind of oppression (for a government) is the kind that the citizens don't notice.

Re:The final step.

[davester666]

Good thing you didn't specify which country, as it seems that all of them have a problem with the freedom the Internet gives to individuals.

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am glad it isn't coming to the United States.

Re:The final step.

[LainTouko]

What's interesting is the question of whether this was inevitable, or whether he could have been a genuine backer of freedom if he didn't have to defend himself against most of the capitalist world.

The West's habit of trying to destroy any system of strong socialism, resulting in a "fight mode" becoming inevitable, makes it impossible to assess the true practicality of it.

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem in the US is not the communists or socialists. The problem here is the corporatists.

Government is only following the corporate masters, moving us not in the direction of socialism but in the direction of fascism.

The "reset" that needs to happen is in the direction of a government that acts in the best interest of the people, and I'm not sure that's possible at this point. It's moving away from it almost everywhere else in the world, we're just doing it faster than most.

And we're getting so incredibly far from the ideal system at this point - a combination of individual freedom and guaranteed rights, and a socialized economic system with very tight government controls on big business is what we really should aspire to.

Re:The final step.

[vegetasaiyajin]

Government is only following the corporate masters, moving us not in the direction of socialism but in the direction of fascism.

That is not fascism. That is called mercantilism or reverse-mercantilism by some, which has many similarities to socialism as corporations and the government look like a larger colluding entity similar to what government is in regular socialism.

Americans often misunderstand fascism because it used the term corporatism, but what Mussolini called corporations have nothing to do with what Americans call corporations. Fascism was another form of socialism in the sense that it implied state control of the economy, but unlike traditional socialists it did not promote class struggle.

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

How did the phrase "pro-Chávez Venezuelan National Assembly is considering a reform of their Social Responsibility law" become "OMFG Venezuela censoring the 'net!" ?

Re:The final step.

[rumblin'rabbit]

Democracy can come to resemble two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

That's why democracy must be balanced by individual freedoms that the government can not easily override. Thus the term "liberal democracy".

Unfortunately Chavez has most (but not all) Venezuelan judges in his pocket.

Re:The final step.

[Lanteran]

this country being the united states I assume? If so, then most likely.

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's astonishing the mental gymnastics some people will perform to defend socialism. Honestly you sound like Chavez, who blames everything that goes wrong, even the recent floods in Venezuela, on the U.S.

The reason that socialism has yet to produce a single example of a free and productive society -- despite many attempts -- is that the system simply doesn't work. I don't know how many more have to die at the hands of socialist government to convince people of that.

Re:The final step.

[SteveFoerster]

Evidently, not enough people there watched Babylon 5. Sadly, the same seems to be true in the U.S.

Re:The final step.

[DurendalMac]

He only needed to get legitimately elected once, and even then that "legitimate" title is debatable.

Re:The final step.

[DurendalMac]

Wow, why don't you just start sucking on Chavez's nutsack? Right, there are always justifications for grotesque restrictions of the freedom of speech...oh, wait, THERE AREN'T. Chavez is doing this to keep his power, plain and simple. No dissent! No criticism! You will embrace our glorious leader! And yeah, it's just because of those dogs in the West! We have to do it to shut them up! Would you say the same if Bush and co did something like this post-911? And don't quote me the Patriot Act. Ugly as that was, it was nothing compared to what Chavez has done.

Rot in hell, you apologist fuck.

Re:The final step.

[Jeremy Erwin]

Perhaps the Average Jose doesn't have regular internet access.

Re:The final step.

[Jeremy Erwin]

How the fuck did he take over your country

Lots of poor people.

Re:The final step.

[Jeremy Erwin]

Didn't the "local media" agitate for the 2002 coup?

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's full of crap. Its about the people as long as the people are cowering and meek. The same shit is true in all countries now, few are willing to die for freedom any more. That reality sets in motion the idea that complacency breeds slavery (mind and body, soul and otherwise).

Re:The final step.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Blah, blah, whatever. I can choose not to do business with a corporation. If I choose not to do business with the government, men with guns come and take me away.

I'll never understand where all the neo-statist rhetoric seen on forums like Slashdot and Reddit these days is coming from. Is there some frustrated poli-sci professor back east who's indoctrinating his students by awarding extra points for posting this tripe?

Re:The final step.

[niftymitch]

"prohibitions against 'destabilizing' and 'disquieting' content"

Clearly they should not talk about the exhaustion of ipv4 addresses or the end of the linux epoch when 32bit dates roll over.

Re:The final step.

[belmolis]

One hint is the fact that Chavez is a virulent anti-Semite. That has nothing to do with US pressure for free enterprise. He's an opportunistic authoritarian demagogue of a type we've seen many times before.

Re:The final step.

[singingjim1]

I'm surprised it took this long. Chavez appears to be stupid as well as crazy.

Re:The final step.

[singingjim1]

Actually, you can choose not to do business with the government if you go completely off the grid and live a subsistence life off the land that you rent. But who the hell wants to do that? Just bite the bullet and understand there is no such thing as privacy anymore and in this age of terrorism potential we give up certain freedoms. Thankfully freedom of speech and the press are still very much alive and well in "this country". You wouldn't have been able to make your initial post with impunity if that was not the case.

Re:The final step.

[shutdown -p now]

But I though Hugo Chavez was a "man of the people" and a friend to the "average Jose" in his country.....

He may well be. It's not unknown in history to have de facto dictatorships run by people who have broad popular support, and use that support to suppress the minority. Sometimes such support is created by state propaganda, as it was with Stalin. Sometimes it arises more or less spontaneously due to major dissatisfaction with the existing political system, such as it was with Hitler, and, more recently, Lukashenko and Putin. I wouldn't be surprised if Chavez falls into the latter category as well - most news from Venezuela seem to be consistent with that.

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's coming in this country too.

And thus the last avenue of free speech in Venezuela dissapears.

I take it you live in Canada as well. It's good to know that at least some people are educated about what our government is up to!

It's good that people point out the evil that is happening in all types of democracy, whether they be socialist democracies (like in Venezuela) or Right Wing democracies like in Canada.

Re:The final step.

[dskzero]

Venezuela isn't a socialist democracy, it's borderline comunism.

Re:The final step.

[dskzero]

Hate, and a general populacy which is asking to be handed the money instead of working for it. Common venezuelans are amongst the worst people i've met. They are lazy, arrogant, and careless. The funny part is that, while all that demagogy worked when he was elected, now public opinion is against him. Yes, finally, eleven years later. They just let him take over with fake promises and ignoring all the signs of the incoming catastrophe. Thank you venezuela. Good thing I'm uruguayan and free to leave when i'm ready.

Re:The final step.

[dskzero]

Which is funny because in venezuela the ammount of blackberries surpases, for example, spain.

Re:The final step.

[Jeremy Erwin]

According to this, the Internet is used by 22% of Venezuelans, and 49% of Spaniards.

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you work out that he is crazy?

He was democratically elected and yet the US of A tried to overthrow his government by military means. if you mean that he's paranoid then i would say he is pretty well justified.

As America gets used to the fact that it's fast disappearing down the toilet and has to comes to terms with the reality that large parts of the world are no longer prepared to tolerate its attempts to dominate them, it really comes as no surprise that Chavez is unpopular to a lot of people (US.)

You see america is like a turd that the world has badly needed to flush for at least half a century now.

The big question for me is how the hell yanks expect anyone to feel sorry for them as their country slips down the pan. the world doesn't really need a corporate war machine trying to enforce its will all over the place thank you very much. especially one that is peopled by fat, uncultured and very stupid evil people. At least you can comfort yourselves with your religion X)

Re:The final step.

[bky1701]

It seems we can only have two options (because the others didn't work out): either the government controls something, or a corporation controls something.

Your claim that you can simply not do business with a corporation is entirely and provably false.
Example 1: ISPs. At best, you'll have 3 choices for an ISP, if you live in very high population density. One of these will be the cable company, one will be the phone company, ie local (maybe national) monopolies. The third might be an actual choice, but is probably too expensive/slow to be an option. How are you going to decide not to do business with corporations here?
Example 2: Money exchange. The true makeup of these businesses is easily seen with Wikileaks. There are only certain accepted avenues of monetary exchange, most of which are controlled by the same corporations. You have the option of using one, or mailing letters full of cash/checks around. How are you going to decide not to do business with corporations here?
Example 3: Media. Movie and music companies have essentially merged into two monolithic groups, the MPAA and RIAA, which act like companies in their own rights. Copyright more or less ensures you only have these companies as options. How are you going to decide not to do business with corporations here?
Example 4: Software. Somehow, Microsoft (and possibly Apple) products have become required for many functions. You have the option of poor compatibility or buying from one or both of these companies. How are you going to decide not to do business with corporations here?

I know you really, REALLY believe that the government is the worst thing in the world, but the facts simply don't support that position. Private interests are every bit as oppressive and corrupt as the Soviet Union, and waving your hands around claiming everyone saying something you don't like is being bribed doesn't make you look any better.

Really, the problem with both government and corporations is that the people in general have to care enough to rebuke them when they do evil, rather than simply provide excuses for their cowardice in remaining quiet. The only way that freedom can be preserved in the modern world is if both the government and corporations are constantly watched.

As a patriotic American, it is your duty to stand up to all oppression, not just that from the government. The question is, are you really a patriot, or are you a cowardly little pleb repeating what you are told?

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

its one thing for chavez to tell anti democratic maracon like you people to shut up - but what i admire him for is his not putting a hole in the chests of bastards like the gp.

those that represent the tiny rich minority in my country and the foreign interests cannot be allowed to succeed. the great thing is that they won't - and the same goes for much of the rest of the south american continent. things aren't what they used to be for america and the world is a better place for it.

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

wow - what kind of a disease ridden prick did you drop off from?

the fact that chavez pisses you off is 'a good thing'. he is the complete opposite of vile scum like your self and is prepared to do something about it. good for him!!

Re:The final step.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Private interests are every bit as oppressive and corrupt as the Soviet Union

You seriously need to read more history.

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

So now people here on Slashdot are so fucked up that even Right Wing dictatorships are called "socialism", and you get +5 for stating this!!

Re:The final step.

[singingjim1]

You're quite delusional. But thanks for playing.

Re:The final step.

[singingjim1]

And just for the shits and giggles. Here's a first hand account of how loopy Chavez really is. http://www.slate.com/id/2262520/

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you really, REALLY believe that the government is the worst thing in the world, but the facts simply don't support that position. Private interests are every bit as oppressive and corrupt as the Soviet Union, and waving your hands around claiming everyone saying something you don't like is being bribed doesn't make you look any better.

Let's see. On the one hand you have 50,000,000 Soviet citizens, dead at the hand of their own government.

On the other hand you're 'forced' to buy your iPhone apps from Apple and turn in your homework as a Word document. That, and I guess occasionally someone falls asleep at the switch and accidentally floods a village with toxic sludge.

Truly you have a gift for analytical thinking.

Re:The final step.

[bky1701]

I would suggest you do as well. Take a look at the causes of the Great Depression. You probably should do so before going off about how government is the greatest evil again.

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to stop digging, bro.

Re:The final step.

[Anonymous Coward]

shits and giggles indeed.

wasn't hitchens the one that reckoned the invasion of iraq was a great idea, and still does to this day?

and i'm supposed to be the delusional one! good luck with finding those wmds bro...

like a lot of people around here you need to wake the fuck up.

Re:The final step.

[will_die]

Could not agree more, but you are missing the new definition of fascism.
From what I have been told from various people who use the term fascism to describe people they hate you are a fascist if you
1) Love your country and 2) Have a problem with communism.

Re:The final step.

[daem0n1x]

That's utter bullshit. He's been democratically elected every single time. It's not me saying, it's all the organisations that watch every Venezuelan elections with thousands of observers.

Re:The final step.

[daem0n1x]

Get a clue. Chavez was always democratically elected. The elections were closely watched by every organisation you can think of and always declared fair and balanced.

All the development indicators for Venezuela have skyrocketed since he got power. Looks like all the "true democrats" you love so much couldn't do better in 150 years than keep the vast majority of the population in hopeless poverty. Even with all the oil money coming in.

If he's such an evil dictator, why are the Venezuelan media (owned by pro-USA big money corporations) in a permanent campaign against him, publishing lies after lies, claiming for his assassination, etc.? These are things that, in any First World democracy would be criminally persecuted.

Re:The final step.

[singingjim1]

Invading Iraq actually was a good idea, but what does that actually have to do with the original topic and the article? You discount his first-hand account of a situation just because you disagree with his politics? Hmmm...that's predictable and damning. WMDs don't even enter into the good reasons for regime change in Iraq. I think you are the one who may need to be pinched to be wrested from your delusional fog. We were talking about Chavez. He's obviously insane. You ignore detailed, factual accounts of his insanity. You wake the fuck up.

Re:The final step.

[vegetasaiyajin]

It is socialists who insist on saying the former National Socialist Party of Germany was right wing.

Socialism never disappoints

[Anonymous Coward]

No government that relies on keeping information from the people is going to last.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[Anonymous Coward]

how's that whole secret prisony tortury thing working out for ya?

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[Magada]

Tell that to the Chinese.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[Requia]

It has nothing to do with socialism, it's a standard political power grab. What it has to do with is idiots like you who make it into an economic issue, thus distracting everybody from the real point.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[JonySuede]

No government that relies on keeping information from the people is going to last.

This is not a socialist government characteristic, it is a behavior shared by any authoritarian organization. You should read about the whole wikileaks thing for more details

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

One could argue socialism is just a memetic narrative justification in the mind that engenders actual, real-world behavior to spread itself, including forcing itself on people through "oooh, democratic legislation!"

It doesn't have to wear a black hat and twist its mustache while heaving a girl onto the railroad tracks to have a net effect of evil, in an ever-ratcheting, bloated obesity of an existence sitting atop the shoulders of people trying to move society forward.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[DesScorp]

It has nothing to do with socialism, it's a standard political power grab. What it has to do with is idiots like you who make it into an economic issue, thus distracting everybody from the real point.

Socialism isn't just an economic philosophy. It's an all-encompassing political theory that de-emphasizes the individual and emphasizes the collective. The problem with socialism... demonstrated through the history of socialist governments... is that since we're not insects with a hive mind, individuals are going to rule that collective. And they've always been at the very least too nannying, and at worst, absolutely tyrannical. So this has everything to do with socialism, because the very philosophy is about a power grab... for the good of the people, of course.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[interval1066]

Your sig is idiotic.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[Requia]

Yes, because no non socialist government has ever tried to make it illegal to criticize the government.

Except of course for all that censorship that took place before the concept of socialism even existed, in pretty much every country that ever existed (I defy you to find one single country that did not have at least one year in its history where speech was totally and utterly repressed de jure, prior to Marx being born).

Ultimately, civil liberties are a totally and utterly separate question from every other part of politics, with the small exception that it is slightly easier to maintain them in democracies than other forms of government, assuming the majority of people actually want to have liberty.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[mrsteveman1]

We know all about it, doing something with that information is another issue.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[machinegunhand]

It may have nothing to do with socialism, but the behavior isn't uncommon amongst authoritarian (and often delusional) socialist leaders. As for your point about distracting from the "real point" by mentioning economics: It is most certainly related to economics in the sense that the marketplace is always subjected to a very high level of government control in a socialist market economy.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[mangu]

It has nothing to do with socialism ... it has to do with is idiots like you who make it into an economic issue

Sorry, but it's socialists who always try to make everything into an economic issue.

We, the libertarians, are always ready to accept whatever motivation an individual person chooses, but socialists always reduce everything to the economic level.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[Zouden]

Which is why the Scandinavian countries are oppressive hell-holes ruled by tyrannical dictators...

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[voss]

And the North Koreans and Cubans too....well we would tell them but most of them aren't allowed to read slashdot anyway.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[Requia]

You make it into an economic issue every time you say the words 'socialist' and 'libertarian'.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[Anonymous Coward]

and yet places like Norway manage to not mess with the internet...

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[vegetasaiyajin]

Scandinavian countries are largely capitalist welfare states. Most means of production are in private hands, although governments usually have partial or total ownership of some industries, so you can call them mixed economies, but almost every country in the world is a mixed economy.
Under Chavez, Venezuela can be considered a socialist country as most means of productions are owned by the government. This trend was not started by Chavez, but by previous socialist parties that took control of the country in 1958 and nationalized many industries. Chavez just expanded the already extensive government ownership of means of production.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[vegetasaiyajin]

Norway is not a socialist country. Private property of means of production is strongly protected.
The Venezuelan government, on the other hand, is seeking to abolish such private property through nationalizations, confiscations and even political persecution. They are pretty advanced.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh absolutely because great capitalist governments wouldn't try and grab power. Look at the great capitalist US, it's not like they're doing anything like trying to suppress anything they disagree with on the internet...

Insightful, my ass.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[Anonymous Coward]

You make the insular error of assuming that the common definition of socialism in the US is the same as the definition used else where. It is certainly not the same thing and it leads you to very wrong conclusions when talking to people or reading news items from outside the US.

The US's definition of socialism has been conflated with (or at least tainted with) "authoritarian communism" (a wonderful oxymoron as that is) in common usage, where as in most of the rest of the world, including most countries and societies which consider themselves with that label or with those leanings, it more means "government owns and runs the post office, drinking water, and public health option." No scary take over of capitalist manufacturing base. Scandinavia is not the same as Cuba, and yet you apply the same label for both.

Thus the mention of socialized medicine somehow becomes sold as a commie scare issue in the US. Very strange.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[rumblin'rabbit]

I use the conventional definition of socialism, which is where the means of production are in the hands of the government. By this definition the Scandinavian countries are not particularly socialist (although highly distributive). Venezuela is fast becoming a socialist country, particularly as the rate of expropriation seems to be increasing.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[Anonymous Coward]

No true Scotsman would confuse European countries with socialism. Or maybe you are confusing socialism with communism.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[vegetasaiyajin]

And what's your point?

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[gerddie]

I use the conventional definition of socialism, which is where the means of production are in the hands of the government.

For this constellation, one should use the term state socialism and rightfully oppose it. But that doesn't mean a libertarian socialism isn't possible.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[shutdown -p now]

There was no communist country in the world, ever. Not even self-identifying as such. All the "commie" states declared themselves socialist.

So, no, it's not GP who is confusing things.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[shutdown -p now]

Socialism in its broadest sense is purely an economic philosophy. The one that claims to be all-encompassing is Marxism and various offshoots (Marxism-Leninism, Troskyism, Maoism etc). They do not represent the entire socialist movement.

Also, when appealing to historical examples of socialist countries, I would like to note that all of them came from the same root, that being Marxism-Leninism - because that was the only socialist revolution that succeeded at the time. All others were either suppressed by paramilitaries (like Luxembourgism in Germany), or lost the civil war stage of the revolution. Once Soviet Russia established itself, it, of course, only supported those revolutionaries abroad which it considered to be in line with its political dogmas, and hence all following successful revolutions were also, at least initially, pro-Soviet. They all subscribed to "dictatorship of the proletariat", "class warfare" and other ideas which inevitably lead to a totalitarian, oppressive state. That does not mean that those ideas are integral to other socialist strains, however.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialism isn't just an economic philosophy. It's an all-encompassing political theory that de-emphasizes the individual and emphasizes the collective.

You mean like the Right Wing implementation of the Nanny State with emphasis on police and government control, a strong military and the bogus concept of "intellectual property" for the benefit of the society? You mean like the many laws that favour corporate monopolistic and bad behavior for the perceived benefit of society (i.e. if you keep our corporate taxes low and diminish workers rights then we, the Corporation, won't decide to shit on your country by moving to a corrupt 3rd world country).

Too bad people here often get Moderated for their political stance (and the prejudice and ignorance their ideologies usually encompass) instead of for their logic.

Postscript:
As I'm waiting for the slow-down-cowboy script to give me a chance to say something again (it's been over 2 hours already), I've had a glance at your journal, and I can see you are a person who references books about "Liberal Fascism". I am not surprised!

Reference Liberal Facism journal

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[ultranova]

We, the libertarians, are always ready to accept whatever motivation an individual person chooses, but socialists always reduce everything to the economic level.

You the libertarians are always ready to defend everyone's right to do what the rich and powerful tell them or starve. Us the socialists wish to derail this Feudalism 2.0 project by distributing enough wealth to everyone that they can at the very least survive without becoming your serfs. This wealth must be generated somehow, so we either tax the aristocracy or have the state own at least some means of production.

I hope that the whole issue becomes moot with the advance of nanotechnology and personal manufacturing. I wonder what excuses the rich and powerful will use to try to squash them and keep people in dependency? And I wonder what side the libertarians will take in such a situation?

In any case, almost all social questions reduce to the economic level, because once political dictatorship and religious tyranny have been undone, economic bondage is the next - and hopefully last - thing creating abusive power hierarchies. Libertarians never seem to acknowledge that such a thing as economic tyranny exists, which I'm finding increasingly difficult to accept as a position held in good faith. One cannot possibly be that ignorant about both history and current situation in Western countries.

But hey, you keep on telling yourself that you're defending freedom while helping modern nobility put an ever tighter leash on us all.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[Anonymous Coward]

If you count taxes as oppression of the free disposition of the fruits of one's labour, they are.

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Scandinavian countries are largely capitalist welfare states. Most means of production are in private hands, although governments usually have partial or total ownership of some industries, so you can call them mixed economies, but almost every country in the world is a mixed economy. Under Chavez, Venezuela can be considered a socialist country as most means of productions are owned by the government.

Yeah, unlike e.g. Norway where the government has nothing to do with the biggest Norwegian industry bar none (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil)...

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[vegetasaiyajin]

Statoil is not the only player in the Norwegian oil industry. And you can buy Statoil shares whenever you want (NYSE: STO).

Re:Socialism never disappoints

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Statoil's the biggest offshore oil company in the world, they're pretty f-ing dominating in the Norwegian oil industry. That's not to say that Shell, BP etc. are non-existant. But the government calls the shots, and have their own business available to take their ball and go home if foreign/private interests should start to obstruct. (So no Anglo Iranian oil company black mail is possible like the Iranians had to put up with in the fifties.)

And while you can buy shares in Statoil the company was founded by an act of law by the Norwegian government and they still to this day maintain majority ownership (note, not just a controlling interest, they're the majority owner). So however many shares you buy, you still won't have a say unless the Norwegian government happens to agree with you.

The construct isn't that uncommon in the Nordic countries. There is a sliding scale from "a branch of government", via "a branch that does business", i.e. even though it's a part of government it isn't funded by taxes and have to show a surplus etc, through "a wholly/partly government owned company". That's where the "mix" in "mixed economy" comes from.

not like other countries would do that

[Anonymous Coward]

Such as censoring Wikileaks for being a "terrorist organization" and "subverting state power", say.

No sir. No first would nation would ever do that.

The chief difference is that people in USA continue to tell themselves they are "free", despite all evidence to contrary, despite people imprisoned and tortured for politics reasons.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[Third Position]

Well, free speech is protected in the US somewhat better than it is in most of the rest of the world. Not necessarily because our elites are any more virtuous, but because they've realized that they can let us rant and rave all we want, and there still isn't a damn thing we can do about them.

We may be free, but we're utterly powerless.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[Anonymous Coward]

Free unless you say something that someone is insulted by, then you get sued, or if you say something a religionist is offended by, then you get jailed for hate speech.
You're free to say anything you like as long as nobody disagrees with it.

Yay freedom!

Re:not like other countries would do that

[Wyatt Earp]

Where is Wikileaks being censored? The newspapers in the United States and abroad continue to publish the leaks they get, I've yet to see or hear about Federal agents going after the New York Times or anyone else.

Google - "Latest Wikileaks" and right now there are new headlines from 3 hours ago.

Is the US going after Wikileaks for distributing thousands of stolen documents? Yes but those documents were classified and stolen. Is the US going to put the guy who stole the documents, Bradley Manning, in a deep dark hole for a long time? Yes they are, he had a security clearance and knew what the rules were, he broke those rules.

As far as censoring and hunting Wikileaks down, the US Government is doing a pretty poor job of it.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[Wyatt Earp]

That really describes speech in Canada.

Exactly how many people in the United States can you say have been jailed for insulting the Catholic Church, Islam, Scientology or Mormonism in the last 50 years?

Re:not like other countries would do that

[z-j-y]

liberals have become docile on slashdot. usually they are all over the first 50 post justifying dictators.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[Anonymous Coward]

Those damn socialist and communists - umm wait a minute the U.S. is a capitalist republic - :o

Any form of government can be abused and controlled - unless your anarchist the question is do you want to be abused for the well being of the collective or abused for the private gain of an individual?

Re:not like other countries would do that

[Solandri]

Such as censoring Wikileaks for being a "terrorist organization" and "subverting state power", say.

This is what I've been trying to say about the whole Wikileaks thing. Cause and effect is not a one-way street here. Wikileaks and its supports say they're doing it to help make government more transparent and root out corruption, and done properly it can do that. The problem is that many people seem to have this implicit assumption that exposing corruption automatically means it'll be fixed, and thus release of information guarantees the overall amount of corruption is lessened, and thus it's always beneficial to release information. But that's not the only possible outcome. Another possibility is that closed governments will see what Wikileaks is doing as validation of their closedness, and open governments will "see the error of their ways" and become more closed. In other words, what Wikileaks is doing can cause the opposite of what they're trying to accomplish.

Release of secret documents needs to be done in a judicious and controlled manner. There has to be very little controversy that the documents released do in fact pertain to corruption (or alleged corruption). Most of the citizens have to agree that it's a good thing the documents were made public in order to generate the socio-political will to fix the corruption. If you fail to do that, like Wikileaks is doing by indiscriminately releasing almost the entirety of the State Dept. docs, all you've done is convinced governments that they need to work harder to keep their secrets, and given them the support of a large portion of their citizens in doing it.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[BeanThere]

Where is Wikileaks being censored?

I also posed that question in response to a similar comment in another thread and got hammered by moderators. Yet all you need to is post "US censoring Wikileaks" and you instantly get +5 insightful, for an evidence-free claim that flies in the face of existing evidence, common sense and rationality, just because it's the popular viewpoint here. Certainly the government's hands aren't clean and the fight for liberty is an ongoing one, but claiming the US has 'censored Wikileaks' is false, and it's not helpful to the cause to make highly emotional false claims.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[DarkVader]

Liberals do not justify dictators.

Liberals are strongly in favor of personal freedom.

And Chavez is not a dictator - yet. He's pushing in that direction, but he was popularly elected, and is still operating under a constitutional framework. He's done quite a few good things for Venezuela, but he's started turning down the dark path of too much power.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[vegetasaiyajin]

And Chavez is not a dictator - yet. He's pushing in that direction, but he was popularly elected, and is still operating under a constitutional framework. He's done quite a few good things for Venezuela, but he's started turning down the dark path of too much power.

Can you elaborate on the quite a few good things?

Re:not like other countries would do that

[toriver]

Not too aware of the "Liber" part of "Liberal" are you?

US conservatives are another bunch, though - even going so far as to support the arguments of the right-wing military junta of Argentina against its NATO ally the U.K. in the Falklands war.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[Chris Mattern]

Such as censoring Wikileaks for being a "terrorist organization" and "subverting state power", say.

Went to Google, pulled up Wikileaks. Total elapsed time: 10 seconds. Yep, that's some censoring, there.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[CrimsonAvenger]

US conservatives are another bunch, though - even going so far as to support the arguments of the right-wing military junta of Argentina against its NATO ally the U.K. in the Falklands war.

Citation?

I seem to remember that we ostensibly sat that one out (being allied to both parties), but provided intel to the Brits.

And it's not like we had a liberal government then - Reagan was in charge.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[DurendalMac]

Getting jailed for hate speech? That's FAR more likely to happen in many European countries than in the US. You have to do a LOT to get jailed for hate speech around here.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[Anonymous Coward]

"... and given them the support of a large portion of their citizens in doing it."

My god. It's almost as if a group of social engineers were assigned a task. The task of finding a way to convince people to support internet censorship. So they come up with WikiLeaks, an extreme opposite of "censorship". They make it look real for a while, and possibly get intel that not even they were aware of. Eventually they release documents that put a key informant in danger, and the informant is "killed". Or maybe release documents that detail a temporary weakness in some structure, and then the weakness is "leveraged". The public gets angry about the "deaths" of family oriented patriots serving the country, and a sizable portion of the population demands tighter control of the internet.

Nah, that would be perposterous. It would never work, and the world is too disorganized and crazy for people to sit around and plan something so long term. I think WikiLeaks will serve as a good check to help keep politicians and businessmen more honest.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[Anonymous Coward]

USA is a country of "pseudo-freedom" !!!

Re:not like other countries would do that

[makomk]

Where is Wikileaks being censored?

When the US Government put political pressure on their hosting and DNS providers and had the website shut down, I think that probably counted as consorship.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[mjwalshe]

well a lot of people even those of us on the left thought that the ghastly US ambassador to the UN was a traitor.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do not value this persons opinion. He is a full blown racist, check his sig.

Re:not like other countries would do that

[toriver]

Yeah, which was why I wrote "conservatives".

I read a report about it where Alexander Haig was the only cabinet member that wanted to take Britain's side in the conflict. However, if Wikipedia is correct, that is slightly inaccurate:

"The USA provided political support voting the UN resolution 502 requesting the departure of Argentine troops. They also discreetly provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles."

Re:not like other countries would do that

[DeVilla]

As soon as Michael Moore is in a US prison because of his movies and the things he's said and as soon as anyone who is considered his family or friends are in prison simply for being his friends and family, I'll give consideration to your position that the USA is as bad as Venezuela.

Censorship is in every country

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all about limiting Free Speech. After all, censorship is everywhere. The gov’t (and their big business cronies) censor free speech, shut down dissent and ban the book “America Deceived II”. Free speech for all.
Last link (before Google Books bans it also]:
http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000190526

Re:Censorship is in every country

[Requia]

Do you realize just how full of shit you are? It's available at B&N and Amazon, as is the supposedly banned first book.

Actually given that Amazon puts Atlas Shrugged as suggested reading material for anybody who likes the book, I'm guessing no, you don't realize.

Pfft

[Anonymous Coward]

News like these seem kind of tame these days. And the insinuations a bit hypocritical. I mean, how is this an outrage compared to the situation where USA shuts down websites without any law, court order or authority backing them ?

Great minds think alike Chavez and Lieberman

[Anonymous Coward]

US congress need to pay attention. Venezuela is finding the best solution for you. US must copy all this in order to preserve "democracy and the American way of life".
Venezuela practically stole sen. Joe Lieberman ideas of free internet.

Give the CIA a mulligan

[l0ungeb0y]

Who else is all for a "do over" on their 2002 screw up?

Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[unity100]

Lets see :

In countries which control free speech directly, such laws are created. Its blunt, direct, you know what it is and there is no mistaking what it is.

In countries like usa, you are told you have free speech. But your free speech is only as free as the money/means you have -> you can blabber to your friends, family, close circle, or people in your locale about everything. But, for your free speech to actually matter, you would need to reach millions of people. And, you cant do that unless you have enough money, or means. The moment you get the funds/means to actually talk to millions of people, you become a threat, unless what you say goes to the liking of the system. And then you are silenced, very much in the way wikileaks is being silenced -> with excuses, financial pressure, indirect pressure.

Of course, even the above is a grand, grand assumption -> fat chance that you will actually be able to reach millions of people, even if you have the money. 3-4 corporations dominate news and 'opinion making', and if they dont give you airtime, you wont reach anyone. The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed. Since, one cannot become VERY rich, or, create a news channel that would cater to hundreds of millions without complying with the system and hierarchy, all threats become averted.

But, in countries like china, other places, your free speech DIRECTLY has an effect. everything hinges on opinions of people -> not the money people has to exercise their freedoms. You can reach anyone, and you can change minds, if you are let speak freely.

To sum it in short :

In usa, you are told you have freedom, but practicing them requires money. You are only free as much as you have money.

In the other way, you dont have freedom. But, practicing anything you have does not require money.

one might err in that, 'as long as you are free to earn money, you can practice your freedom'. that is incorrect.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

this is the recent data about situation in usa. 80% of population only get 15% of income. basically, 80% of 300 million, basically 240 million people, are not in a position to exercise their freedoms. had it been possible, there would be at least any kind of different political or social situation due to these people 'becoming rich' and practicing their freedoms.

if, the chances of someone making it from the bottom to even middle ranks, is lower than a medieval peasant making it to a measly knighthood, it means 'you are free to try it' means 'you are free to try it, but fat chance you will make it'.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that if you had said that in medieval time you would be imprisoned and tortured? And that today the most significant punishment you face today for exercising your free speech is that people like me think you're an asshole? And that you paid exactly $0 to exercise this free speech?

In America, we have the right to Free Speech. But we also have the right to not listen to other people's Free Speech if we think it's stupid. There is no right anywhere for your 'Free Speech' to extend to all of humanity, as you seem to think it does.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[wizardforce]

In the other way, you dont have freedom. But, practicing anything you have does not require money.

Please explain how that is the case outside of others subsidising such speech (eg. propeganda in this case) through the government. Unequal means of producing speech is another matter. The internet did a lot to level the playing field by significantly reducing the barriers to broadcasting various forms of speech. Youtube being a good example of this. Are the barriers to speech eliminated? Of course not. But they sure are a lot lower than in countries where government censorship is much more common.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[Anonymous Coward]

and how much did it cost you to post this?

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[ryants]

What utter rubbish. How many people do you think your moronic message will reach? How much did it cost you? How many people have WikiLeaks reached on a very shoestring budget? Sure, a lot of talk about silencing them, but it hasn't been very successful now, has it? How much do you suppose it cost Thomas Paine to publish Common Sense, whose message helped create America, and has been read by millions? In short, your theory that your rights are commensurate with your wealth in the US is absolutely crap.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[unity100]

You do realize that if you had said that in medieval time you would be imprisoned and tortured?

no. it was well within the possibility of a serf or peasant to become a knight, through any means. either by being bestowed a title and land, or, through acquiring small plots of land through incremental purchases or marriages to qualify for the minimum plot of land required for knighthood.

And that you paid exactly $0 to exercise this free speech?

most significant punishment i face today for exercising my free speech with $0 through a medium that corporations yet are not in full control of, are having to reply idiots like you who reply to a post without using their brain.

as you can see, internet is recounted as something yet out of control of the establishment. you CAN exercise free speech with $0 here. that is precisely why there are attacks on net neutrality to allow corporations to control content, acta, coica and others.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[unity100]

Unequal means of producing speech is another matter.

no it isnt. if you are not able to have the MEANS to produce free speech, it means that you dont have free speech. in the end result, you cant use it.

The internet did a lot to level the playing field by significantly reducing the barriers to broadcasting various forms of speech. Youtube being a good example of this. Are the barriers to speech eliminated?

i cant even begin to understand why the fuck you are posting the above block. have you not been able to comprehend what you have read in the parent you have been replying :

..... The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.

you have your free speech on the internet, YET. still, wikileaks incident shows you dont even have it, in case you start to make a big impact.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[unity100]

as much as it cost you to NOT read what you have been replying to.

The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[jameskojiro]

[ But, in countries like china, other places, your free speech DIRECTLY has an effect. everything hinges on opinions of people -> not the money people has to exercise their freedoms. You can reach anyone, and you can change minds, if you are let speak freely. ]

Good luck voicing your opinion in China....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704444304575628410670226430.html

The US is better than china, anyone can be free to twitter and tweet and post on facebook etc..., in china you bad mouth the government and you have to go to a "reeducation through hard labor camp".

http://worldjournalism.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/1-tweet-1-year-of-jail-time-in-china/

Here are two sites where people can bad mouth the government in the USA, not shut down yet...nor should they ever be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/
http://www.freerepublic.com/

As for your Money=Free Speech in America argument, are you talking about Talk Radio and TV?

Do you think anyone should be able to have their own talk radio station who has an opinion? I don't see any private or public talk radio stations in china airing anti-chinese government opinion, do you? Do you think everyone has a "right" to use a government provided photocopier so you can publish anti government flyers everywhere? Who pays for the toner, the paper?

The internet is a new vast and wild frontier where people can post their opinions to be picked up my Millions of citizens, be it either youtube, twitter, facebook or your own website.

Even the poorest individual in the USA can go into a public library and post things that can potentially be read by millions if not billions of internet citizens.

[this is the recent data about situation in usa. 80% of population only get 15% of income. basically, 80% of 300 million, basically 240 million people, are not in a position to exercise their freedoms. had it been possible, there would be at least any kind of different political or social situation due to these people 'becoming rich' and practicing their freedoms. ]

How many people in the above have internet access or easy access to it?

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/05/14/18-of-us-households-have-no-internet-access

Only 18% of households in the USA don't have internet, most of those are older people who don't care to have it in the first place. And last i heard you cannot be turned away from a public library for being "too poor".

What is the wealth distribution in China? China does have a growing Middle Class, but it is no where nearly as big percentage wise as the US.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[unity100]

as long as witless morons like you around, who cannot comprehend what they read, no message can reach anyone. explain me, fool, have you read and understood what was written in the parent post you have replied to, below :

The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.

moron. you have your freedom of speech, without having heaps of cash here on the internet. and that is the VERY thing the establishment is not liking, and therefore they are bringing acta, coica, and attacks on net neutrality to enable corporations to directly control content, and put a price on whatever you do on the internet.

you have your freedom, cheap, YET.

look at what happens to wikileaks still.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[Requia]

The difference is Obama hasn't taken state control of Fox News for spreading dissent about his presidency.

The US is chipping away at the edges of Free Speech, and constantly loses fights over it. Venezuela is putting the final nails in the coffin.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[unity100]

The difference is Obama hasn't taken state control of Fox News for spreading dissent about his presidency.

so ? obama isnt the one who is controlling the free speech. fox news et al, are.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[Requia]

No, Fox news is simply louder than the rest. Better at shouting from the rooftops. But Fox news may say whatever it likes, and that does not prevent me from saying whatever I like.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[Anonymous Coward]

In any large scale system, freedom of speech cannot include the right to compel others to listen. If every person in the US -- 300million+ -- had the right to make everyone else listen, there would not be enough seconds in the year (about 31.5 million) for each speaker to even have one second.

So what we do have is a series of open fora, including the Internet. You can say whatever you want. You can be heard all across the nation by anyone who chooses to tune in. Guess what? Your posting on slashdot is an example of this.

Some people will read what you have to say even though we're not in your immediate circle. [BTW: I have mod points, but didn't mod you down even though I disagree with you, because that's not how moderation here is supposed to work.] If what you have to say is sufficiently insightful, people here might share it with others offline, and they in turn might share it, and it could become a meme that spreads throughout the US. This sort of thing happens, and not just with meaningless youtube fluff. My favorite example is The Last Lecture. On a more political note, the Drudge Report and other political blogs have arisen without a whole lot of initial funding or corporate sponsorship, solely through word of mouth and referrals.

TV and other mass media tend to be in the hands of big corporations. But this is not because they control free speech, but because most people have learned through experimentation which sources they trust with their scarce time to provide somewhat relevant information. New media (i.e. magazines, books) arise all the time, and it's possible to break into print without a lot of money; it just takes a lot of insight, time, and effort before people are willing to hear what you have to say.

So free speech works. You can say what you want, and if you are one of the few people who is sufficiently insightful, people might actually care what you have to say. If you aren't being listened to, it's probably because you aren't relevant enough; sorry.

Meanwhile, your claim that free speech works in China seems -- odd at best. Could you provide some specific examples?

[I've already modded in this discussion, so posting AC.]

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[unity100]

according to recent data, 80% of news distribution in us is owned by the parent companies of 4 major movie studios. fox is one of them.

fox doesnt prevent you from saying whatever you like. and it doesnt care. because, you can only say whatever you want to your friends, family, and close social circle. people have been doing it for thousands of years.

what matters is, whether you can say it to 200 million people.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[unity100]

So what we do have is a series of open fora, including the Internet. You can say whatever you want. You can be heard all across the nation by anyone who chooses to tune in. Guess what? Your posting on slashdot is an example of this.

im tired of responding to the fools which have not read what they are replying to. internet is an abomination that the establishment wants to 'fix'. i have told that in my post you replied to. you seem to failed to understood it and bringing it as an argument.

ponder on why they are wanting to kill net neutrality, and charge cash from websites for traffic.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[Requia]

So what's your solution? To prevent Fox news from speaking at all? Television is a limited resource, one way or another only certain people will be allowed to speak on it.

In the meantime, I'm speaking to you, and you are certainly not a friend, family, or part of my social circle.

  I can (and do) print political posters and put them up, and distribute flyers. So my voice is heard even by people I have never spoken too, and if the people choose to listen, I can reach a million people with a blog or youtube videos, without spending a single dime.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[Rockoon]

I've read your post, and the replies to your post, and then your idiotic asshat replies to those responses...

You seem to equate Free Speech with Equal Media Power. Nobody can discuss things rationally with you because your idea of free speech isnt anyone elses, because while they have brains, you only have brainwash.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[unity100]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1906592&cid=34524632

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[Just Another Poster]

The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible.

The Internet in America is already under "corporate control", being almost entirely private, and as a result, it is one of the freest mediums on the planet.

Re:Difference from what u.s. doing ?

[Anonymous Coward]

im tired of responding to the fools which have not read what they are replying to

Maybe the reason all these people missed your point is that you did a piss-poor job of writing it? Your original post started off in present tense: "But your free speech is only as free as the money/means you have." You stayed in present tense through most of your post. But the US does have free speech, at least today, as many have pointed out. If your point is that free speech in the US is under attack and will be less free in the future, that's a much more defensible point. But you only used future tense a few times and didn't discuss the attacks until later paragraphs.

If you want people to listen to you, spend some time to do a good job of explicating your ideas. If you don't, you can expect people to misunderstand you.

[replying AC because I've spent mod points elsewhere in this discussion.]

Venezuela Like Always

[Anonymous Coward]

This is OLD news. Since around march of this year things got worse here. For example, from my city in Maracaibo i CAN NOT enter places like ytdb.ru where i work and learn mysql. This and many other sites are limited/restricted and sometimes CANTV (The main ISP of Venezuela) drops the connection without mentioning nothing about upgrades / maintenance service / takeovers, etc.. They NEVER admit they have a cable problem, network problem, isp problem, nothing. they are perfect. With this mention here they will NEVER admit they will block somebody, restrict a place, etc..

Re:Venezuela Like Always

[Anonymous Coward]

In the U.S., ISP's consider those features and are right now fighting to charge us for the privilege - and they are winning.

Re:Venezuela Like Always

[janus01]

It's been some years since tech work (computer or otherwise) has been my priority, but my recollection is that this AC's problem is easily rectified: telnet into a friendly and trusted proxy in a country with rigorous protection of Free Speech (the United States and the countries of Western Europe usually being adequate for this purpose), open a secure shell in the proxy, and do all your work through that secure shell. The hard part being finding an appropriate friendly and trusted proxy. I assume someone here knows where to find a list of proxies friendly to residents of countries with restrictive speech policies (e.g., China and, so it sounds, Venezuela)?

My recollection is that Slashdot used to leap on problems like this with appropriate workarounds. Heck, I'm a lawyer; I shouldn't be the one who has to respond; I don't really have the know-how anymore. Hello?

Re:Venezuela Like Always

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep your self-loathing to yourself and focus on the topic being discussed. The fact that it can happen elsewhere doesn't make what's happening in Venezuela acceptable.

Re:Venezuela Like Always

[Anonymous Coward]

Now this is "weird". 24 hours after posting that i could not connect to ytdb.ru after many months. it JUST so happen i can connect now.

For any CANTV worker that likes to control the way i or any other venezuelan citizen uses the internet a big F U. I know you are reading this and soon the people will take the problems into their own hands because is goverments like this, us and others that "know better than the people OVER the people" that think they can do whatever they want without thinking they will get punished. I mean come on, it is at least 500.000 people vs 33 Million.

Venezuela, meet USA

[Adrian Lopez]

Good thing Venezuela doesn't have the power to arbitrarily take down infringing domains like the US does. There's no better way to highlight the fact the US has way too much power over the Internet than to look at what other governments would do given the powers the US assumes for itself.

Re:Venezuela, meet USA

[Dachannien]

Except, perhaps, for .ve domains?

Nice moral equivalence

[MikeRT]

In usa, you are told you have freedom, but practicing them requires money. You are only free as much as you have money.

What you failed to mention is that it is actually reasonably within the reach of most Americans because the media they need for speech is available in ways it isn't in China or Venezuela. There are thousands of companies that will sell you print supplies without fear that they'll face "reeducation through labor" for selling to you. There are dozens of video sharing sites. $200 buys you a Flip or something similar for making your own basic videos.

So, hopefully others will understand when I say "fuck you, you sniveling leftist brat."

Re:Nice moral equivalence

[flaming error]

> So, hopefully others will understand when I say "fuck you, you sniveling leftist brat."

I'm sure they will understand, if you find your target audience.

Perhaps you can distribute these affordable printed materials of yours at wrestling matches, or to tipsy concert-goers at the county fair.

Re:Nice moral equivalence

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

There are thousands of companies that will sell you print supplies without fear that they'll face "reeducation through labor" for selling to you. There are dozens of video sharing sites. $200 buys you a Flip or something similar for making your own basic videos.

Just like in 99% of the rest of the world. With one major difference: The US spends in intelligence and military more than the ten next countries combined. And you have more draconian laws than the rest of the world. Sure, you like comparing your country to China, Venezuela or Iraq. Well, compared to most of South America and Europe the US is a police state. I live in Argentina, and you can say all the deranged shit you want about us, most of that shit funded on the lack of information most people in the us have ... most of you think that most of south america looks like juarez city in mexico ... well, it doesn't.

In my country I can say whatever I want, I have free access to the internet, there is a place for independent media on national TV, and unlike the us, we don't allow the religious right to push for creationism on schools, we don't have anti-terrorism laws, we can't be wiretapped without a court order, or arrested without rights by some shadowy agency. And we don't spend most of our budget bombing other countries and funding CIAs, FBIs and DHSs. That is true for most of the world.

I know you have a hard time facing the truth, but most of the world has way more freedom than the states.

Re:Nice moral equivalence

[Attila Dimedici]

There is no point in arguing with unity100, he does not understand the categorical difference between Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany and the modern U.S.. He is incapable of understanding that if the U.S. was at all like the former two Julian Assange would either be dead by now or in captivity being tortured and that that is a significant, important difference.

Re:Nice moral equivalence

[Attila Dimedici]

In my country I can say whatever I want,...we don't allow the religious right to push for creationism on schools...

Well, which is it? Oh, sorry, I see, you can say whatever you want but the "religious right" is silenced. Yeah, that's real 'freedom of speech".

Re:Nice moral equivalence

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

I didn't say that they couldn't "say" what they wanted, I say they couldn't push their agenda. There is a huge difference between expressing your opinion, and brainwashing thousands of people into believing that a zombie-jew from outer space is the messiah, using that power to become powerful and rich, and then using that power to play the system into allowing your brainwashing techniques to be used in public education.

Freedom of speech should always be a first priority, but it stops at that. Brainwashing millions of people is not freedom of speech. Religion is not freedom of speech, it's a crime against humanity.

Re:Nice moral equivalence

[Attila Dimedici]

I say they couldn't push their agenda.

Right, only people who agree with your agenda are allowed to push their agenda. Since your public schools brainwash kids according to your agenda, everybody has "freedom". The whole purpose of public schools is brainwashing. It is only a question of whose agenda is being promoted.

Re:Nice moral equivalence

[Raenex]

I live in Argentina, and you can say all the deranged shit you want about us, most of that shit funded on the lack of information most people in the us have

Most Americans don't know anything or care about Argentina. Americans only know about Venezuela because our government likes to bash them, and Chavez makes for good news.

In my country I can say whatever I want

What can't you say in the United States that you can say in Argentina?

I have free access to the internet

We have public libraries with Internet access. You'll have to pay for utilities that go direct to your house.

there is a place for independent media on national TV

We have the Public Broadcasting Service.

unlike the us, we don't allow the religious right to push for creationism on schools

The issue of teaching Creationism in public schools has been debated in the Supreme Court and Creationism lost.

we don't have anti-terrorism laws

Good for you. I hope it stays that way.

we can't be wiretapped without a court order

Same here.

And we don't spend most of our budget bombing other countries and funding CIAs, FBIs and DHSs

Good for you.

I know you have a hard time facing the truth, but most of the world has way more freedom than the states.

I doubt it. You can't deny the Holocaust in many European countries. Name five countries that are freer than the United States, and I'm sure I can find plenty of non-free aspects to them. As for your "most of the world" remark, laughable.

Re:Nice moral equivalence

[andyr86]

Intelligent design isn't an issue of freedom of speech or its place in a school curriculum, it's its place in the biology and sciences curriculum where it should be placed in the religious education curriculum right next to the other creation myths.

Re:Nice moral equivalence

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

No, intelligent design should be thought in psychology class, because it's nothing but a mental disease.

From TFA

[presidenteloco]

When you read the details on what is proposed by the Venezuelan government, it doesn't sound that unreasonable.
Makes you wonder why it's being spun as totalitarian and evil.

"The bill proposes applying limits on content in "electronic media" according to the time of day, with adult content reserved for programing after midnight.

Such limitations already are in place for TV and radio programing. It was not clear how they would be applied to the Internet

The bill also proposes allowing the government to restrict access to websites if they are found to be distributing messages or information that incite violence against the president. Chavez frequently accuses the opposition of plotting to kill him."

Re:From TFA

[royallthefourth]

Haven't you heard? Hugo Chavez is an EVIL SOCIALIST DICTATOR; no more analysis needed

Re:From TFA

[MightyMartian]

The bill also proposes allowing the government to restrict access to websites if they are found to be distributing messages or information that incite violence against the president. Chavez frequently accuses the opposition of plotting to kill him.

And I wish they'd get on with it. He's a man in serious need of being put six feet under.

My favorite moment was when Juan Carlos of Spain told him to shut up.

Re:From TFA

[JaredOfEuropa]

From the same FA:

"Nowhere is the restriction of access to the Internet suggested. There should just exist protection of citizens' moral and ethical honor," said Villalba, who heads the National Assembly's media commission.

Doesn't that sound kind of contradictory? And doesn't seem the statement "protecting moral and ethical honour" just a tad on the broad side if it's just about porn and death threats? But it really doesn't matter why they implement this law, it's all about gaining a foothold, the stated reasons are just pretexts. For them it's porn and death threats. In the US, it's threats to national security. In my own country it's child pornography. Something a lot of citizens like yourself will approve of, thinking: "yes, we need to control that sort of thing". Something which it is hard to be against... hey, you are not in favour of getting the president shot, terruhrists, or kiddie porn, are you!?

And once the controls are in place, they are extended. In Venezuela it'll be anything opposing Chavez, for "destabilizing the country". In the US it's the DMCA. In the Netherlands, there was a proposal to extend the DA's power to take down kiddie porn sites with the power to remove sites "inciting violence" and then "inciting hatred". Another broad brush with which to tar undesirable opinions of a certain nature. Thankfully the proposal was shot down, but what struck me is that no one, not even the opponents of the bill, attacked the principle of such a law.

Re:From TFA

[Guy Harris]

When you read the details on what is proposed by the Venezuelan government, it doesn't sound that unreasonable.

It doesn't sound unreasonable to prohibit the dissemination of messages through radio, TV, and electronic media that "can represent media manipulation designed to promote uneasiness in the community or disturb public order."? (See the third paragraph of the El Universal article.) That's a rather broad statement; one could argue that something saying "public policy XXX could hurt the economy" is "[promoting] uneasiness in the community" about that policy.

Re:From TFA

[vegetasaiyajin]

When you read the details on what is proposed by the Venezuelan government, it doesn't sound that unreasonable.
Makes you wonder why it's being spun as totalitarian and evil.

Can you elaborate on what you consider reasonable about the people being to use a single government-supervised Internet access point, where the only content that can be accessed is what is approved by the government and where you can be sent to prison for posting things that offend the government?

The bill also proposes allowing the government to restrict access to websites if they are found to be distributing messages or information that incite violence against the president. Chavez frequently accuses the opposition of plotting to kill him."

You find this reasonable?

Re:From TFA

[presidenteloco]

Let me ask you this? What happens to me if I wander around Washington broadcasting over a loudspeaker (and upload it to Youtube for good measure)
messages inciting people to kill Barack Obama?

I think you are being a little hypocritical if you think that kind of free speech is just fine and dandy in Venezuela but not in the States.

In case you're wondering, I would be charged with a Federal Offense, and thrown in jail or the loonie bin, most likely.

Re:From TFA

[CrimsonAvenger]

Let me ask you this? What happens to me if I wander around Washington broadcasting over a loudspeaker (and upload it to Youtube for good measure) messages inciting people to kill Barack Obama?

I think you are being a little hypocritical if you think that kind of free speech is just fine and dandy in Venezuela but not in the States.

In case you're wondering, I would be charged with a Federal Offense, and thrown in jail or the loonie bin, most likely.

Of course, Venezuela isn't proposing a law forbidding the behaviour you describe...

I hate to say this, but posting on /. that you'd like to see Obama dead doesn't get you arrested in this country. It probably doesn't even get you investigated (the FBI doesn't have time to investigate everyone who says bad things about the President even if they were so inclined).

Re:From TFA

[dskzero]

You're missing the point. They are taking it to be their right to exercise arbitrary censorship on the internet, which is always a bad idea.

and

[unity100]

what you are missing is, the SELL part in the 'sell you print supplies'.

you need to have money to BUY those print supplies. if you dont, you wont have them.

the 'dozens of video sharing sites' are what has been bothering the establishment up till now, because, they have been providing the unwashed masses the ability to reach millions without having to pay heaps of cash. hence, the attacks on net neutrality to allow corporations to control content, hence acta, hence coica.

i see that you havent read the post you replied to. for, all your moot points were iterated in it.

Re:and

[Samantha Wright]

Nice backtracking. In your original post you said that to reach the multitudes, you would need to have enough money to buy off the media corporations—not to buy the supplies necessary to run a poster campaign, which is far cheaper. You're changing your position and it's sleazy as hell. Go troll somewhere else.

Re:and

[ryants]

you need to have money to BUY those print supplies. if you dont, you wont have them.

The costs are very modest and well within the means of the vast majority of the population in the US.

What, you think the means of publication should be free for all? Perhaps controlled, say, by a central bureaucracy? Who gets to decide who receives this limited resource? And where does that lead, I wonder?

Socialist nitwits are walking contradictions.

Re:and

[unity100]

its not backtracking. its your reading comprehension issues.

there is no difference in buying printing supplies to reach 200 million people, and buying fox news.

in case you have not noticed, what you speak of falls in the category of 'blabbering your opinion to people in your locale'. go buy $600 worth printing supplies, print flyers, and post around the town. or, go to a park, get on top of a barrel, and talk to 600 people.

the establishment doesnt give a zit whether you do that or not.

when you are rich enough to buy printing supplies and reach 200 million people, they do.

Re:and

[unity100]

The costs are very modest and well within the means of the vast majority of the population in the US.

yes. for printing out 600 flyers, and posting around the town. accomplishing nothing, or changing the opinion of people regarding where the new park should be built. everything else remains the same.

talk about buying printing supplies to reach 200 million people, idiot.

What, you think the means of publication should be free for all? Perhaps controlled, say, by a central bureaucracy? Who gets to decide who receives this limited resource? And where does that lead, I wonder? Socialist nitwits are walking contradictions.

where does it lead to, is definitely not a fake illusion of freedom, in which you believe you are free, but you see that you dont have the money to practice that freedom. instead, the means to practice any freedom, are owned PRIVATELY, by very big entities and rich personas. basically putting you in the position of an ordinary peasant in medieval times, subject to the will of the lord to do anything.

which is the current state.

right wing nutjobs, in the wake of this, are walking self-deceivers. 'hey i am free - i may never have the means to practice it, but i am free !!'

Re:and

[istartedi]

you need to have money to BUY those print supplies.

Any homeless guy in the USA can beg enough change or recycle enough cans to get a magic marker and write stuff on cardboard fished out of a dumpster. They can write "FUCK THE PRESIDENT" on the cardboard if they want. Usually though, they just write a brief, sad bio and a plea for more change.

All these arguments about needing money to carry out free speech in the USA just don't ring very true at all. Any starving college student can get a blog for nothing, and use free wi-fi to post stuff. They only need the computer, and you can get wifi capable stuff for $200. Heck, I bet even the homeless guys could swing that if they cared. They usually just want food and beer though.

Yeah, you need to "money" to carry out free speech; but it's such a pittance that it's virtually meaningless to even consider it a factor. Then, to add to that, if what you say is by any means compelling, people will give you money to say it. They'll even give you money to say that the USA is bad and ought to be more like Venezuela.

I'm from Washington DC. One memorable Saturday morning I rolled out of bed late, and heard a bullhorn. It was PRO-CASTRO demonstrators marching through the intersection of 18th and U St. NW. The police were there to PROTECT them. They must have had a permit. They marched peacefully down 18th, made a left on U, and marched off into the distance. My first thought was: Try having a pro-Bush march in the middle of Havana.

I bet most of the commies in that march hardly had a nickel to rub together. Yeah, it cost money for them to get the permit... probably very little money. They got their word out. Most people just didn't care. Wacko protestors blocking traffic again. Life goes on. The USA is still great, because nobody gets their undies in a bunch about shit like that.

Re:and

[DurendalMac]

I can remember a number of online "documentaries" such as Zeitgeist or Loose Change that did just fine without massive corporate backing. Zeitgeist has some valid points buried under paranoid crapola and Loose Change is 99% pure, uncut horseshit, but they are two big examples of how you do NOT have to spend tons of money to reach millions of people. Last I knew, the makers of Zeitgeist weren't being shipped off to Gitmo and Dylan Avery (who, Loose Change or not, is a staggeringly monstrous douche) wasn't thrown in a dark hole.

I agree with Mike and Samantha. You're an imbecile who desperately wants to believe things are that bad for your own pathetic self-importance and self-validation. It takes very little money to get something out there for millions of people to see. Money helps, but it's not a necessity.

Re:and

[weorthe]

If the people want to hear what you have to say, they will pay you to tell it to them. Or watch it for free on Youtube. In what country does every single citizen have the right to be heard by every other single citizen whether they want to listen to you or not? Maybe if your name is Castro, Kim, Chavez....

Re:and

[Archangel Michael]

To reach the world, all I need is less than $100 bucks and an internet access, which can be had for free if you're willing to troll Starbucks at a strip mall.

I can do the whole thing for free if given the inclination. It isn't reaching the hordes that is hard, it is getting them to listen. And to do that, you have to have a message that is coherent and persuasive, something YOU have failed to even mention.

To prove my point, Little Green Footballs broke the story that killed Dan Rather's career and left him embarrassed and looking every bit a fool that he turned out to be. Who was Little Green Footballs? Just a unheard of Blog trolling political news stories.

The Internet has changed the world in ways you fail to comprehend or worse, admit. It doesn't take a shitload of money to change the world. I print stuff everyday, just not on paper. I print stuff and reach thousands here on /. I get modded insightful and troll, often by the same people. My message though is consistent and exposes idiots like you who think the world is out to get them, and the only way to save it is collectivism, be it Corporatism or Socialism.

The ONLY way to secure your rights is for YOU to secure them for yourself, or die trying. Patrick Henry was right, "Give me Liberty or give me Death". Nobody is going to protect your rights better than you.

Re:and

[unity100]

read the discussion attentively next time. your non argument was already responded in the first post of this thread. if that is not enough :

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1906592&cid=34524632

Re:and

[Archangel Michael]

all other means to access millions of people, OUTSIDE internet

NO it isn't. Millions of people didn't know of "Little Green Footballs" before the story broke and was reported on NATIONAL TV NEWS programs. Millions of people who never seen it on the internet had the message re-broadcast to the TV viewing public.

Another Case in point WIKILEAKS and entirely Web/Internet based company has reached beyond the Internet, into all sorts of places that don't have internet.

Hell, if you want to be an idiot about it, a poor carpenter from a little known slice of desert from 2000 years ago, still has his message spread around the world (regardless of your view of him). Same can be said for Ghandi, Mohamed and many others who didn't have money, presses or otherwise "rich".

Your views are typical of class warfare socialist/communist types who think that only the rich can affect the world. Self limiting statements like you started out with are typical in the box thinking that limits people from their full potential.

Re:and

[Urkki]

what you are missing is, the SELL part in the 'sell you print supplies'.
you need to have money to BUY those print supplies. if you dont, you wont have them.

What's even worse, you have BUY food. People forced to buy food just to stay alive, now there's the American freedom for you!

Seriously, if you need to buy people, then it's expensive, but if you and your fellows are the people, and you need to just buy supplies, then really, money is not a big issue, because so relatively little of it is needed.

If there are people who want to be heard, there's nothing stopping them in so called "free world" and nothing to fear in it. That's why so called "free world" is actually is as free as it gets in today's world.

Re:and

[makomk]

To reach the world, all I need is less than $100 bucks and an internet access, which can be had for free if you're willing to troll Starbucks at a strip mall.

$100 will buy you your own data centre, power for it, and redundant transit to the Internet? I think not. It will buy you is the ability to reach the world - until the US Government pressures whoever does own the service you're using to shut your site down, just like they did with Wikileaks.

Re:and

[makomk]

Any starving college student can get a blog for nothing, and use free wi-fi to post stuff. They only need the computer, and you can get wifi capable stuff for $200.

Chances are, hardly anyone will hear about his or her blog. If it does start to make an impact, well, the US Government has good support from within the major blogging services and can just get in touch and convince them it taken down. As for more minor blogging sites, if they don't co-operate then their hosting provider will probably be quite happy to take the entire service offline.

Re:and

[Archangel Michael]

It will buy you is the ability to reach the world - until the US Government pressures whoever does own the service you're using to shut your site down, just like they did with Wikileaks.

Wikileaks wasn't taken down by the US government. Nice try though. Besides, can you still find the Wikileaks docutments online? I can, so nobody has taking anything down.

Barn/Door/Horse, Streisand Effect, Whack-a-Mole; whatever you want to call it. It is cheap, easy and fully fault tolerant, and my point remains.

Nice try though.

The dictator of Venezuela

[jonfr]

I do not know how Chavez is trying to fool. But it is clear that he is nothing short of a dictator. But he is moving in slowly in order to not get the people opposing.

Thankfully the Venezuelan people are soon going to oppose him and oust this evil presidency in Venezuela.

It is clear that Chavez is not worthy of being president of anything.

Re:The dictator of Venezuela

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is clear that he is nothing short of a dictator.

Is this something like the new defintion of fascist (="someone in politics who I think is an asshole")? Chávez is directly elected by the people (and don't give me the crap "just like Hitler" -- because that's not true).

I guess saying that makes me a raging Chavista (or is it "CHAFASCISTA!!11uno). If only there were some other words in the English language one could use for a more fitting critique of that populist...

Re:The dictator of Venezuela

[jonfr]

Often dictators gets elected. That is nothing to do with Hitler and never has.

Given his style of control over the past decade or so it is clear what path he has been taking. That path is no good and never is going too be good.

Re:The dictator of Venezuela

[Attila Dimedici]

No, it is more like Saddam Hussein. Those media outlets that support politicians who oppose Chavez either get shutdown or taken over by the government. Opposition politicians who gain any popular support are arrested and their property is confiscated.
However, Chavez is still not quite a complete totalitarian like Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam (at least not yet). On the other hand, Venezuela no longer works by rule of law (to whatever degree it ever did, and what I have read leads me to believe that Venezuela had a limited and improving rule of law before Chavez took power).

Re:The dictator of Venezuela

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, Venezuela no longer works by rule of law (to whatever degree it ever did

For anybody who thinks that the opposition parties are or ever were at some point better in that department, I suggest to look up the 2002 coup attempt against Hugo or the massacres in the late 80s called the Caracazo.

The main difference between the Chávez administration and those before are more (oil-financed) social programs.

Re:The dictator of Venezuela

[mbkennel]

He's like Vladimir Putin, except he's still dumb enough to believe in that commie crap.

At least they're honest

[airfoobar]

And they won't call it a copyright enforcement measure.

im speechless.

[unity100]

there is now 6 idiots, who havent comprehended what they have read and replied to.

The US is better than china, anyone can be free to twitter and tweet and post on facebook etc..., in china you bad mouth the government and you have to go to a "reeducation through hard labor camp".

have you not read whats below, in the post you replied to ?

The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.

that isnt too hard to comprehend.

Re:im speechless.

[Man On Pink Corner]

there is now 6 idiots, who havent comprehended what they have read and replied to.

"The system seems to be working here, sir. It sounds like the problem is on your end."

Re:im speechless.

[andyr86]

Actually he's right he is saying that the internet does provide freedom of speech to the masses, where other media does not have that low entry point. He is also saying that the freedom of speech on the internet is being attacked by corporations and governments. Others are attacking this point rather than the whole argument. What people should be saying is that in a free market capitalist society it is very easy to start a publishing company for a political magazine that can reach millions. If a society deems it worthy enough to purchase, the product will be successful and continue to be. Free market capitalism actively encourages such behaviour, it allows corporations to start, fuck each other over and lobby government to fuck its citizens over. I don't agree with his rhetoric but I understand what he is getting at.

Re:im speechless.

[Anonymous Coward]

What people should be saying is that in a free market capitalist society it is very easy to start a publishing company for a political magazine that can reach millions. If a society deems it worthy enough to purchase, the product will be successful and continue to be.

If I understand you correctly, the high cost of entry into the market means that the economic system in the West is not a free market capitalism.

Free market capitalism actively encourages such behaviour, it allows corporations to start, fuck each other over and lobby government to fuck its citizens over.

Capitalism does encourage competition, but subverting the government quells competition, and is therefore the end of any free market if there ever was one to begin with; it is perfectly possible to do in a non-free market.

Re:im speechless.

[makomk]

What people should be saying is that in a free market capitalist society it is very easy to start a publishing company for a political magazine that can reach millions.

That requires printing companies to be willing to print the magazine, and retailers to be willing to sell it, and transporters to be willing to help distribute it. If you're missing any of those three, the capital costs of doing it yourself make publishing the magazine impossible. (Technically you can do without retailers, but that just increases your dependence on the banking and postal systems instead.)

weird how you can take any story ...

[Punctuated_Equilibri]

and turn it into an opportunity to vent against the USA. How about discussing the Venezuela story on its own merits? Single internet access point for the whole country, controlled by the government, good idea or no?

Re:weird how you can take any story ...

[grcumb]

and turn it into an opportunity to vent against the USA. How about discussing the Venezuela story on its own merits? Single internet access point for the whole country, controlled by the government, good idea or no?

I think limiting them to a single place on the Internets is a great idea. The noise from those things totally ruined the World Cup for me. Call me anti-democracy if you want - I never hear another frickin' Venezuela again, it's too soon!

...

... What?

Dont err in thinking you will be free on Internet

[unity100]

all other means to access millions of people, OUTSIDE internet, requires huge capital or means. you need heaps of cash to buy 'printing supplies', as some commenter put it, to reach a hundred million people. you need heaps of cash to get your adverts on news channels. (that is if they accept your ad, even). you nead heaps of cash to get airtime. in short, your freedom is limited totally with your finances, and those who have finances determine who talks and who not.

at this point a lot of people err in thinking that 'you have internet !'... it is a mistake :

Internet is just a temporary 'abomination' establishment wants to fix.

in the current situation, an upstart like you and me can get up a site, and reach millions of people through it. actually, even doing that currently requires advertising capital or other means, however, lets say that it is much easier to exercise your freedom of speech on the internet than anywhere else. lets say, at least there are sites like this slashdot, this, that, already big traffic mediums in where you can reach people. so, we are dangerous.

that is precisely why they have come up with endless schemes to bring internet under control and make it like a private cable network, or publishing mediums, in which only the richest will be able to reach noticeable amount of people in a nation:

anti network neutrality : aims to allow backbone providers and isps to charge websites for the traffic - the more traffic, the more charge you will have -> so, if you happen to reach hundreds of millions of people perchance, with your free speech, you will need to have the heaps of cash to pay for it. if you dont, youre cut off from millions of people with every major isp that censors you. and it will be legal, and compatible with first amendment too !

acta : supposedly anti counterfeiting treaty, it gives censorship in the hands of a privately appointed commission from private industries, and gives the ability to shut down sites on dubious grounds, without court order.

coica : you know what it is. this is the government version of controlling.

there are a few more in the works.

so, as you can see, it would be an utter folly to think that 'we are free' on the internet. we are TEMPORARILY free, and the system is trying to fix that. once it 'fixes' that, you will need precisely similar amounts of finances in order to be able to be 'dangerous' with the power of your free speech. in that state, what will happen will be precisely be the same with the outside-internet life ; just like you are free to blabber to your friends, family, coworkers, people in your bar and post a few flyers around the town, you will be free to blabber in this or that forum, put up a small blog to see 50 people a day read your views and so on. but, you wont be able to set up a blog with $20 cost to you yearly, and reach millions, if your views get popular, or you have the finances to engage in medium amount of internet advertising. internet advertising also requires considerable money, and that is also a similarity with the outside-internet situation, but, it is still accessible for at least the middle class in regard to the amount required.

so, if the private interests reach their goal in ANY of the ways above, your freedom will be as limited on internet as it is limited outside internet : free in proportion to the amount of money in your bank. judging from the wikileaks incident, one can easily say that if you really become dangerous to the system, you will be 'taken care of'.

inspired by USA government actions ...

[Anonymous Coward]

against Wikileaks, no doubt.

Solidarity begins at home!

Sorry to hear about this...

[steeleyeball]

My condolences to the people of Venezuela.

Re:Sorry to hear about this...

[shutdown -p now]

Chavez was democratically elected, and the election was recognized by international observers as free and fair. Furthermore, by 2006, it was already quite clear what Chavez ideology and policies are. So the citizens of that country have no-one to blame for this but themselves - it's precisely what they voted for. Come 2012, maybe they'll get a clue.

Re:Sorry to hear about this...

[dskzero]

Do you realize the international observers were from OEA? And that the OEA and Chavez are buddies? But yeah, that's to blame on general population.

Disquieting Content

[handy_vandal]

"Disquieting content" is code for 4chan.org, right?

Re:Disquieting Content

[arielCo]

more like Twitter and local message boards with their "insidious rumours"

Re:Dont err in thinking you will be free on Intern

[Wyatt Earp]

Completely wrong on that it takes huge capital to reach the masses without the Internet.

Humans invented something called a "book" and one can write a book without capital and one can find a publisher to publish said book without the author having to spend huge capital.

Of course your book or manifesto has to say something coherent and interesting enough that anyone out there would be interested in reading it. Of course even the neo-luddite writings of the Unibomber were published. Hitler did a good job at getting his book written, Barak Obama wasn't all that well known or wealthy when he started getting his books published.

The US has something similar NetNeutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Subject says it all :)

Re:The US has something similar NetNeutrality

[Guy Harris]

Subject says it all :)

Including saying how net neutrality is similar? Or do you mean that the lack of net neutrality is similar?

No free speech without capitalism

[mangu]

your free speech is only as free as the money/means you have -> you can blabber to your friends, family, close circle, or people in your locale about everything. But, for your free speech to actually matter, you would need to reach millions of people

That's why no society can be truly free unless they have a capitalistic economic system.

When all the press is under the economic control of the state, no dissenting opinion will have a chance of being heard by a significant percentage of the people.

Re:No free speech without capitalism

[unity100]

and when the press is under control of 4 corporations to a 80% extent, no dissenting opinion will have a chance of being heard by a significant percentage of people either. like news in us.

Re:Dont err in thinking you will be free on Intern

[unity100]

Humans invented something called a "book" and one can write a book without capital and one can find a publisher to publish said book without the author having to spend huge capital.

yees. isnt it. its that easy. pray, tell, how many people had reached to a hundred million people like that in the past year, from your own social circle ? neighborhood ? your town ?

Scandanavian countries are not socialist

[voss]

They are social-democratic welfare states quite wealthy social democratic welfare states.
  Yes there is a difference between a social democratic system and a socialist one.

Of course for the right saying your political enemies are wealthy social democrats who want you
to be able to drive greener cars and eat more healthy food isnt quite as effective as calling them all marxist commies.

Re:Scandanavian countries are not socialist

[vegetasaiyajin]

You can't call them socialist because private property is strongly protected. Socialism, on the other hand, seeks to abolish private property of the means of production, which is what is happening in Venezuela.

Re:Dont err in thinking you will be free on Intern

[Wyatt Earp]

Sarah Palin for one. She's from Wasilla but shopped at my Costco, that close enough for you?

Explain though how exactly books and widely published manifestos aren't capable of distributing ideas without huge capital?

no such thing as a good government

[hherb]

I think this just illustrates one thing - there is no such thing as a "good government". Regardless of political colour or country, politicians remain politicians - ruthless people drunk on power with the single objective of staying in power no matter at what human cost. I acknowledge that there are some major benefits in having a good administration and an independent arbitrator, but the way governments of all colours are usurping "total power" nowadays is not acceptable and should be fought by all means. I'd like to see the UN enforce freedom of war, freedom of speech, and freedom to move - if needs must with military power (but not to have any power in any other regard).

Re:no such thing as a good government

[hherb]

oops, meant of course freedom FROM war - English is my 5th language and I am still struggling with it.
The UN should protect people from the shenanigans of various governments that would lead to war (I'd be all for putting the politicians into a cage and let them slug it out to their hearts content) or step in immediately once war breaks out

oh geee

[unity100]

sarah palin. a splendid example.

someone who had already been a governor before, and who have, by chance and the machinations of an old man's mind, been nominated as vice president, and then gathered enough fame and reputation by being a controversial figure, to be known.

basically, ALL the expenses for her advertisement, has been paid by gop and mccain, both with finances and with political capital. (much to the detriment of them).

so, she sells millions. great.

ah - also, serial murderers sell millions too. add that to your list too.

so, the way to practice one's freedoms without having to have funds, passes from these. or, one needs to lower one's pants and take a dump at the lincoln memorial or something in front of tv cameras etc.

Re:oh geee

[andyr86]

Sarah Palin, Daniel Dennet, Jacquline Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Tony Benn and serial murderers have all done or said something worth reading about. You haven't. That's why you are lacking funds my friend. Kill someone and you'll get your soapbox...probably for free too.

Many Flavors of Socialism

[handy_vandal]

There are as many flavors of socialism as there are socialists.

You've identified one form of socialism: de-emphasing the individual, emphasizing the collective.

Then there are people like me, who declare that mankind has a duty to look after all members of the species, and that we have a moral responsibility to foster peace and goodwill, and that we we ought to feed the hungry, cloth and house the homeless, and heal the sick. I don't call myself a socialist or anything else; I'm not advocating, nor do I place much faith in, government action to remedy social ills. I'm just saying that we have a responsibility to each other, as individuals, if we want to make the world a better place.

Careful

[presidenteloco]

In my country what you just wrote constitutes the criminal code offense called incitement to murder.

- Who is the lower form, one who takes a strong principled political stand that protects
the poor in his country, or one who thinks murder is a justifiable means to win a political
argument?

Re:Careful

[MightyMartian]

"Principled political stand" my ass. He's a coward terrified of opposition. Principled people accept that others have a right to their opinions and to broadcast them. Pathetic cowards try to silence opposition.

Re:Careful

[presidenteloco]

If I had the US government, intelligence agencies, and multi-national corporate might aligned against my policies, I'd probably be terrified too.

Here let me google that for you

[presidenteloco]

http://digg.com/news/world_news/Calif_man_arrested_after_threatening_Obama_on_message_board

http://www.alien-earth.org/news/item.php?keyid=2257&category=12

Talking to yourself

[tepples]

Any starving college student can get a blog for nothing, and use free wi-fi to post stuff. They only need the computer, and you can get wifi capable stuff for $200.

So how does the college student make millions of people aware of his blog?

Re:Talking to yourself

[istartedi]

So how does the college student make millions of people aware of his blog?

The answer? You're soaking in it. Slashdot was started in college. Read the history of Slashdot. Not all blogs can reach millions. It's just not possible. Every person in America would have to read millions of blogs everyday. There are winners and losers, and although you have to have a certain level of proficiency, luck probably plays a part too.

Re:Talking to yourself

[tepples]

There are winners and losers

But the established media have far more power to pick winners, and over the past few U.S. election cycles, they've been using this power to keep the public from learning more about, for example, copyright policy debates.

Re:Talking to yourself

[istartedi]

That's your perception. If you only watch the "MSM" then it looks like they pick the winners. If you pick your own media sources, the world looks different. In fact, it looks different enough that we now have expressions like "MSM", and we have the MSM being forced to at least acknowledge some unconventional sources.

Yes. As long as you watch the MSM, it looks like they control things because within their world they do. The thing is, their world is getting smaller. The demographic for something like NBC Nightly News increasingly skews towards the geriatric set.

MPAA news

[tepples]

and when the press is under control of 4 corporations to a 80% extent, no dissenting opinion will have a chance of being heard by a significant percentage of people either. like news in us.

Is it true that the MPAA controls the news?

Vuvu...

[Anonymous Coward]

At first I thought it said Vuvuzela Gov't....and I thought omg finally someone is gonna silence them...
then I read it
yeah this is pretty terrible

Its not all so simple

[bussdriver]

Its likely far beyond your comprehension; as many highly complex social systems the size of governments are even to the people within them. Its a distributed system with tons of fractal like emergent behaviors on top the tons of other stuff all running on human brains.

I'm an outsider, but from what I've read about your situation in Venezuela, I'd say it wouldn't matter a whole lot. The perfect man getting to that position and staying alive during the climb would be difficult but to keep the position and make things better for the majority (who are poor) its nearly impossible. It takes a bit of an asshat to play dirty with the powerful; problem is that human nature causes the environment to rub off so that perfect leader can not remain that way over the long term. You've had a less than perfect man at the beginning who is going against decades of corruption and a corporate empire (made in the USA) engaging in an info/propaganda war.

Personally, I think the power of modern psychology is great enough that concentrated powers are unstoppable and can at times get working control or even open control of a nation. I wonder just how long democracy will be possible and if it has not already been overtaken.

The only solution going forward would be a religious level adherence to the separation of powers to prevent any individual or group from obtaining dangerous levels of power. At present, attempts at this type of solution is highly improbable - the people only like the idea of separating government powers a little bit; separating private powers is still too new a concept. This is an idealistic solution; no real foolproof solutions exist.

We are all in for a ride as all nations fall into similar control schemes; and we have squabbles between the various controlling groups -- even well intentioned ones will have to play the game because counter measures are not really well known and while truth works really well, it takes too much effort and you only have a short window before even the truth is ineffective (if not strengthens the belief in the lies.) Therefore, the successful have to play by similar tactics to get anywhere - educating people to THINK isn't effective enough. Yes, it looks bleak-- but don't worry, at some point you'll fall into the trance like everybody else or your children will.

Brainwashing is te purpose of religion

[Kyusaku Natsume]

The public school system purpose is to set a mínimum level of knowledge among the population of a given area/state and, on a secular democracy that means that religious dogma has no place in it, but you are free to put your sunday religious school and let the children study there if they and their parents choose it. If you let religious dogma creep in the public school system you will end with México or Chile in the best case scenario or Saudi Arabia, Iran or Taliban Afganistán at worst.

Re:Brainwashing is te purpose of religion

[Attila Dimedici]

No, what you listed is the justification for the public school system, but if you look at the writings and opinions of the seminal thinkers who pushed for public school systems, you will discover that their goal was to brainwash the kids to disagree with their parents.

Re:Brainwashing is te purpose of religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed. Strike that, I found it:

Matt 10:21
Matt 10:34-37
Matt 23:9
Luke 12:51-53
Luke 14:26
John 21:16

Re:Brainwashing is te purpose of religion

[Kyusaku Natsume]

Thats' a ratter original view, but without a good general public education system you end without a modern state since education is the basis for a responsible citizenship, a working public health system and the existence of a middle class. The main tension between the public school system and religion comes from its almost inherent secularism and the divergence from religious/custom based knowledge and scientific knowledge. About kids disagreeing with parents and disrespecting gods, thats what kids have been doing at least since ancient summerian times if we trust the oldest written records by humankind.

I'm from Mexico and in my case, thanks to the public education system is that I afforded an education than let me work in IT instead of cleaning up windshields at crossroads. That system was painfully built by heroic teachers that faced execution at the hands of ignorant mobs. Close to the town where I was born is Tabasco, Zacatecas where in 1935 was violently raped, murdered and carved up the teacher Maria Murillo by an extremist catholic gang of Cristeros. Around 200 teachers were murdered in those years, and many more had their noses and ears cut out in the name of God. Despite that they succeeded and thanks to them Mexico made the "mexican economic miracle" of the 1950's-1960's years; if not were by the incredibly corrupt, inept politicians and mexican elite of the last 35 years Mexico could have been like South Korea is today instead of the bloodly mess that currently it is.

Re:Dont err in thinking you will be free on Intern

[makomk]

Humans invented something called a "book" and one can write a book without capital and one can find a publisher to publish said book without the author having to spend huge capital.

On the other hand, the publisher of said book has to have a huge amount of capital. Pretty much all of the distributors and retailers of books are even bigger corporations which have little competition because their massive access to capital allows them to out-compete smaller companies.

You can write a book, but whether or not it gets published and whether it reaches the masses is again controlled by the owners of lots and lots of capital.

Soory Re:Nice moral equivalence

[mjwalshe]

Argentina! just how many thousands of people did the junta kill in that dirty war? let alone sending those half trained conscript kids to die in the Falklands whilst the elite units where pulled back to protect the dictatorship. The USA does have a lot more freedoms than some other country's Some of the more fringe political types Phelps etc would probably be in jail in the UK or the USA. Say what you like about the USA but they have never had a coup - arnaged some in other countries though :-)

Re:Soory Re:Nice moral equivalence

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

arnaged some in other countries though :-)

Like most in Latin America during the 70's. It was called Operation Condor by the CIA.

So, what, that makes you proud or something?

And, since you were wondering, between '73 and '82 around 30.000 people where killed ... well, "disappeared".

Now, explain how does changes our freedoms almost 40 years later? The people responsible for those massacres are in jail. Well, not all of them, Nixon and Ford, as well as many CIA jackals are outside our jurisdiction.

Re:Soory Re:Nice moral equivalence

[migla]

You know why there hasn't been a coup in the US?

There's no US embassy there to orchestrate it.

Big difference

[Quila]

Here you need money to buy print supplies, but if you can get it, then you can publish, anonymously if you'd like.

In Cuba for example, you still need money to publish, but it is illegal to publish anything without identifying the printer, so that the publisher can be tracked down if he wrote anything illegal (i.e., anything the government doesn't like).

The question is can you be jailed for merely being critical of the government. In Venezuela, Cuba and others, the answer is most definitely yes.

Re:Dont err in thinking you will be free on Intern

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, it's possible for your message to reach millions of people even if you don't have vast financial resources.

Equally obviously, it is much, much, much more likely your message will reach millions of people if you do. That's why political candidates spend so much time raising money.

Why are socialist dictators and communists prudish

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never understood why this is? Is having workers distracted a problem when trying to beat capitalist countries?

I can see why they would want to censor the lies from the right-wing groups, and the complainers that only point out problems and don't do anything to fix the problems. But blocking mature content isn't in line with becoming a worker's paradise with short work weeks, lots of time to have sex, and help your fellow neighbors have a good time. Or at least that is my idea of a perfect society...

On dealing with social hurricanes like the US CIA

[Paul Fernhout]

http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html#On_dealing_with_the_social_hurricane_of_the_CIA

Part of a movie that echoes your point...

[Paul Fernhout]

Human Resources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-4Hv9pDicA
A big issue is, in the USA, it's hard to seperate the government from the companies at this point...

Future alternatives for making social progress:
http://knol.google.com/k/paul-d-fernhout/beyond-a-jobless-recovery#Four_long(2D)term_heterodox_alternatives

Deaths from US corporations...

[Paul Fernhout]

probably number in the tens of millions between health care, advertising, and agriculture.
Consider how easily deaths are preventable by good diet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPiR9VcuVWw
And then look at what is subsidized:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/debunking-diet-myths-the-food-pyramid-of-the-insane.html
http://www.alternativeratreatments.com/eat-to-live.html

Sector by sector one could go through the US economy and look at the suffering and deaths caused by corporate-friendly profit-oriented social policies (mercury poisoning anyone?). It may well add up to fifty million US Americans killed at least twenty to thirty years early. It's just someone dying in a car accident from lack of sensible land use policies, or someone dying from cancer from industrial toxins, or someone dying from heart disease from eating too much subsidized meat and processed wheat is not normally seen in the USA as a victim of government policy shaped by corporate interests. But they are just as dead as if someone had shot them. And it is not a good rebuttal to say other countries do as bad in other ways when the USA could have done a lot better with all its advantages...

What about the millions of people in the US prison system? What about the tens of millions who seek out illegal drugs to escape for a time from the USA?

And the risk still remains that we will all perish in a nuclear war or bioengineered plague, driven by a competitive war racket.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html

Re:Deaths from US corporations...

[Man On Pink Corner]

God. Where do these kids come from?

The need to eat and pay mortgages...

[Paul Fernhout]

... keeps most people in line. See the new online (free) movie "Human Resources" where that is mentioned in passing. Daniel Quinn has suggested they key factor of "civilization" is that all food is under lock and key.

Sure people can express their opinions, and then they can try to find jobs, which they then maybe won't...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/columbia-alum-castigates-_n_794380.html

A basic income might change things for the better:
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/
The USA already gives out US$800 a month per person on avergae for social security, schooling, and welfare -- why not just give every citizen a check for that amoutn every month. Seems fairer to me than a "needs" based or "age" based criterion for public assistance.

There is not true freedom without economic security. A lot of farmers had that basic security 200 years ago in the USA. Few people have economic security now in the USA where most people are living paycheck to paycheck, and the young are being imprisoned in school and made to fear stepping out of line or they won't get a "good" job. Other ideas:
http://idlenest.freehostia.com/mirror/www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html

Re:The need to eat and pay mortgages...

[Urkki]

The USA already gives out US$800 a month per person on avergae for social security, schooling, and welfare -- why not just give every citizen a check for that amoutn every month. Seems fairer to me than a "needs" based or "age" based criterion for public assistance.

I'm all for fixed "basic income" or however you might call it, combined with flat tax rate. Even if in theory, "aid to everybody only according to their need" is an excellent principle, it breaks as soon as there is a human or a set of rules made by humans, which determines the need. And same applies to taxation and all kinds of tax breaks. And only way to fix it without leaving fellow humans to suffer hunger (and risk civil unrest) is flat rate support for everybody (probalby increasing by age for young, possibly again increasing for the elderly after certain age, who have presumably "served their time" and now need more support than most people), flat rate tax on everybody on every income received (either including or excluding the "basic income", which ever produces least bureaucracy, with flat rate tax there's difference only for accountants pushing money bits around), no questions asked.

(Of course there are still special cases, such as genuinely handicapped people, real world is never that ideal, but if a special rule applies to, say, over 5% of the people, it should apply to everybody.)

Making a world work better for everyone

[Paul Fernhout]

Great point.
Related section of "Human Resources": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-4Hv9pDicA

Solutions (my suggestions building mostly on what others have said):
http://knol.google.com/k/paul-d-fernhout/beyond-a-jobless-recovery#Four_long(2D)term_heterodox_alternatives
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html#On_dealing_with_the_social_hurricane_of_the_CIA
http://pcast.ideascale.com/a/dtd/76207-8319

MSNBC is still NBC

[tepples]

If you only watch the "MSM" then it looks like they pick the winners.

And guess what the majority of the electorate watch.

The demographic for something like NBC Nightly News increasingly skews towards the geriatric set.

But don't NBC's cable news shows like Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show and its web site (MSNBC.com, a joint venture with Microsoft) draw younger viewers?

Re:Why are socialist dictators and communists prud

[DigiShaman]

It's broader in scope than you think. Communist regimes are not just prudish (among other things). Any activity or institution that diverts personal attention from the "State" is considered a danger to the nation. That is to say, in communism, you eat, sleep, think, and work for this Marxist ideology in some form of capacity or another. You life is mandated by law to revolve around it. Nothing else comes before. By definition, it's your surrogate mother, father, religion, and source of education.