Slashdot Mirror
Social Media Becomes the New Front In Mexico's Drug War
An anonymous reader writes "The drug cartels operating in Mexico have often been compared to large corporations, with their own codified leadership hierarchy, recruitment methods, and accounting practices. But part of any big corporation's playbook is a marketing/PR plan. The cartels have long operated a version of those, too, by threatening journalists and killing civilians who speak up. Like any corporation these days, the drug cartels have recognized the power of social media, and they're using it more and more to propagate their messages of intimidation and violence. Quoting: 'Six days after Beltran Leyva's death, gunmen murdered family members of the only Mexican marine killed in the apartment complex siege — including the marine's mother. That same day, a fire was set at a nearby school where a banner was flown, warning that more killings would follow if the federal government made any further attempts to interfere in cartel actions. Photos of the school were then tweeted and shared in status updates — a reply to images of Beltran Leyva's corpse being shared on social media.'"
What's the difference between the cartels and the CIA etc?
Sometimes good folks have something to hide. Their identities from bad folks.
.gif Hacking heads with chainsaws was enough for me.
I remember reading (I think here, on slashdot) that Youtube is flooded with Mexical Drug cartel videos.
I hope the local police / government doesn't give in to this intimidation. What's next?
and use the content as evidence for criminal intimidation and the etc. !!!! ..social media ?? pfft .. the firey banner seems more "cartely" ..
To think of it
These are issues that go back thousands of years to the ancient Greeks.
The concept of the citizen is that he/she has rights and responsibilities, this idea must have the full force of the law behind it. The idea of private armies and police forces must be ruthlessly stamped on by the forces of democracy.
Rule of law should be the King and Queen of public order.
The idea that things should be run by the likes of Al Capone, or corrupt law men like John Edgar Hoover, should be stamped on hard.
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
All it would take is a single strike of the pen to remove the cartels' entire purpose for existing, along with the massive societal benefits of no more overcrowding in prisons, no more lives being ruined because of absurd and unjust laws, the possible breakthroughs which can never happen so long as the research is illegal, and the reversal of the militarization of police forces around the country. Prohibition is a proven failure, and factually creates criminals out of innocent people and problems where there were none before.
There is absolutely no benefit to prohibition (and even if there were, they're negligible compared to all the problems it creates) - it should be repealed immediately.
I feel like the place where the bullets are flying through the air, and people are dying, is the real front.......
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This has been ongoing for at least a decade in Mexico. From the infamous blogdelnarco to twitter. I don't see how this is news today.
same year, BSD But with Netcraft how it was supposed
I have wondered how far the Cartels will push the government before they just decide to cut the military loose with a death list that includes anyone even remotely involved with the Cartels. At some point the society as a whole is going to get scared/angry and demand a harsh crackdown. When tanks start rolling your million dollar estates, all the AK-47s in the world aren't going to save you.
In any event, it is likely to get worse before it gets better.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The muzzies have been doing this for years, with their beheading videos, and the "look what you made me do when you drew a nasty picture" posts
The humans have been doing this for years, with their beheadings, and the "look what you made me do when you drew a nasty picture".
Also, chimpanzees, even without nasty pictures!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Police already don't bother going after the footsoldiers of these crime orgianisations. A requirement to use your 'real' name would be easily circumvented. Or they'd steal someone's identity to place messages. Or they'd force someone to place messages for them.
Social media are just a method of communication, you have to attack the comiting of crimes.
Didn't all this happen 5 years ago? Why bring it up now and call it "The dark side of social media"?
Just saw a talk about the Narcotweet project. The interesting part about Narcotweet is that it's documenting the emergence of a new kind of "journalism:" the "tweet curator" who aggregates local social media reporting. These people are routinely followed by bigger news media (CNN en Espanol) yet maintain extremely strong ties to the people witnessing these things first-hand. The power of this entire project is that it's a way of getting information from places where the conventional news sources have decided it's too risky / too expensive to send *actual* reporters.
Make drugs legal, collect taxes and this idiotic war is over. Addicts will use drugs no matter what.
1g of cocaine will cost 1 USD or less where it's made. Sell this shit at 10-50 USD a pop in local pharmacy and cartels will fall fast.
As long as our mainstream media keeps promoting illegal drugs as 'cool' to buy, and Americans continue to buy the illegal drugs ignoring the fact that those dollars pay for murders, the murders will continue.
...was give it back to the Mexicans after the Mexican War.
I wonder, why the cartels can't think of anything positive to say? They can, for example, emphasize the fact, that their products are primarily targeting the rich, while providing well-paying jobs for the impoverished youth, funding ample charitable donations, and investment in local communities...
By poisoning the "1%" (also known as the "golden billion"), they are spreading the wealth and leveling the playing field — without even ever forcing anyone to participate...
Clearly, the PR-masters working for the thugs have a lot to learn yet.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Seriously, we need to legalize all drugs, BUT, require that NONE cross state borders. In addition, all production will obviously be limited to the state where it is consumed, and heavily regulated. Finally, we then focus on keeping the drugs our of those under age 21.
By doing this, it remove the money from the drug lords and the gangs. Right now, there is plenty of money for them to share. BUT, if we do the above, they will kill each other, rather than innocent bystanders.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
. . . and the addicts will still suffer. Only there will be more of them when dope is legal and marketed to the young and so on. "Feeling bad? Heroine makes you feel better. Bored? Cocaine makes you cool! LSD brings more color! Tired? Amphetamine fixes that!"
The rich might get some quality drugs with known strength and no nasty additives. The poor would still get stuff cut with rat poison, as rat poison is still cheaper than legal heroine. People will still die from overdoses and side effects. And instead of getting a prescription from a doctor, they will buy pharmaceuticals directly from a now legal pusher. It is so much cheaper - never mind that some drugs need carefully measured doses or have unexpected reactions with other drugs. Problems that your doctor will handle with care, and your cheaper pusher will not.
And would the crime gangs disappear? Nope. Legal drugs means you can compete legally with the mafia and the mexican drug lords. But do you think they will let you compete? From a legal standpoint, you don't really have to pay the mob 'protection money' either. They will keep competition out as they expand into the larger legal market. They don't need the government to create a high-price monopoly - they already have plenty of experience in burying competitors in nearby landfills.
The rationale amongst many who lack historical perspective is hopelessly simplistic. The "prohibition didn't work, so let's solve the problem of drugs the same way we solved the problem of alcohol" argument completely ignores the fact that we DIDN'T solve the problem of alcohol. Alcohol has become a massively abused drug that causes all kinds of harm. It destroys families, is highly addictive, results in self-destructive behaviour and is responsible for a surprisingly large number of hospital trauma cases. Yet we hand-wave away this as part of what it means to have freedom because it has become socially acceptable, and the harms associated natural part of human behaviour. I don't want to live in a world where we get so used to other drugs' deleterious effects that we consider heroin addiction, crack habits and meth death to be a natural part of human behaviour.
Making something legal just because our politicians lack the will to engage in a sincere effort to enforce laws regulating it is a poor, shortsighted and ultimately disastrous attitude to take.
I hate printers.
'Down by the River' and 'Murder City: Ciudad Juarez and the Global Economy's New Killing Fields' by Charles Bowden are good starting books on the topic. Journalist, Bowden has illuminating things to say about the topic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... He researched this topic for years, interviewing both the DEA and cartels.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
The problem with drugs is that addicts will do anything to get their next hit, and they're generally ignorant (or brain-damaged) enough to do things that are pretty horrifying.
Take, for example, meth addicts. Meth isn't that expensive. But given the entrepreneurial nature of Americans, and the effects of the drug itself, a substantial number of addicts start to cook their own to "save money," among other things. This almost inevitably results in a fire, and contamination of the neighborhood. Even if there isn't a fire, the home and often surrounding homes are contaminated, and need to be gutted. Insurance doesn't cover all of the damage, and that's only if it exists in the first place.
The grand fallacy of drug use is that it only affects the user negatively - a notion which is profoundly false.
The real opposition to drug cartels is the police? Oh god, that's a serious candidate for the most uninformed and/or naive comment of the year.
Although, I think it would be easier to bomb drug users rather than the cartels. Drug users are easier to find than cartel members. If we can jail and / or kill enough drug users then the cartels will not have enough people left to sell to and will give up and go away. In fact we can call the mass jailing and killing of drug users "The War on Drugs" and run it for like 40+ years. I mean if you keep it up long enough that approach will work for sure.
..another useless shitsack is detected.