Slashdot Mirror
EU Commission: CETA 'Totally Different From ACTA'
itwbennett writes "Slashdot readers will remember the hullaballoo that arose yesterday over a leaked version of CETA containing key clauses that were 'nearly identical to ones found in ACTA.' Now the European Commission is saying you shouldn't believe every leak you see and that the 'language being negotiated on CETA regarding Internet is now totally different from ACTA.' Well, maybe with the exception of language that appears in both CETA and ACTA but didn't 'originate' in ACTA and therefore doesn't count."
What a bunch of fucks. It seems that we won't get rid of attempts of pushing more or less fascist copyright regulation (with censorship attached) until we get rid of them.
1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
__
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum..
There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolled forum.'
Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.
Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING'
A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at www.abovetopsecret.com) is 'consensus cracking.' To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.'
Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quic
You must be mistaking the EU for a democracy.... the European Commissioners are not elected but appointed and things have to get pretty extreme before they can be held accountable
I never said it was a democracy. However, when one looks up an EU Commissioner, the first three pieces of information are State, Party, and Name. When you don't vote for the party, the individual has no power. And, when you have 5-7 parties/country, each really wants to keep their percentage of votes, so they'll keep "their" Commissioner in line or face the consequences at the polls. A protest just gets the message across in a more rapid manner.
You mean lik SOPA?
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Um, they rejected the first one.
No, they most certainly did not. That was the European Parliament and not the Commission.
I don't recall the USA rejecting anything the MAFIAA has proposed to them.
That appears to be true, and is unfortunately also more or less true for the European Commission. It's quite sad, really, to put it (very) mildly.
No no, this is completely wrong.
It does not matter how many votes the party has. The commissioner is in his/her seat and makes the decisions.
Each commissioner has a working field, so it is not that they are deciding together and outvoting eachother.
Commissioners are appointed in a "we from this country grant that country the commissioner for xxx when we can get the one for yyy" fashion,
and then internal to the country a suitable person is found in the circles of retired politicians.
These politicians usually have done everything during their political career to get the attention of big business.
The European Parliament have been pretty stubborn about such things before, e.g. refusing to accept the entire commission because of one or two unacceptable elements.
Are you kidding me? The problem with the EU Commission is that it's *too much* like the US government. You think the US 2-party system has ANY accountability to the voter whatsoever?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.