Slashdot Mirror


Kim Dotcom Calls Hillary Clinton an "Adversary" of Internet Freedom

An anonymous reader writes: CNET reports that Kim Dotcom views Hillary Clinton as "an enemy of online freedom." Hilary's candidacy came up when Kim was asked about a tweet he made in which he called himself "Hillary's worse nightmare in 2016." He says now that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange would probably be a bigger headache for Clinton. "I'm aware of some of the things that are going to be roadblocks for her," he added. Dotcom said he hoped to expand the influence of the Internet Party and provide some transparency. Brietbart adds that a conflict between Assange and Clinton may have personal motivations, but it also seems inevitable. Hillary is obsessive about maintaining control of information. She created a personal server in her home to handle her emails as Secretary of State and then deleted all the contents after self-selecting the emails she believed were work-related. Assange is famous for parceling out secret information."

12 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Is this sarcasm? what say you captcha?

    Sadly, no. This is one of the horde of Hilary voters that will be out in full force in November 2016--and this is one of the most intelligent ones.

  2. Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica by dale.furno · · Score: 2, Interesting

    LOL Wut? Republicans Absolutely do not control the media.

  3. Re: Well... by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hate morons who don't know the meaning of the world "liberal" more.

    Hilary is not a liberal.

  4. Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    we cant afford to elect either

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  5. Re: Well... by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bernie Sanders is what was once called 'Liberal'

    It is still what Liberal means in Europe. but it has been scandalized as "Socialism" in the USA by the gop

    Libertarian has been hijacked as some small government laissez faire concept which allows for complete control by the wealthy be convincing the masses that there is no benefit to cooperative efforts like Unions to support their common causes

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  6. Re: Well... by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Bernie Sanders is a self described socialist. It means the same as in Europe. Political parties in Europe use the world socialist.

    Your claim about Libertarian is nonsense. Perhaps you are too busy. You might want to slow down long enough to at least get some of the facts straight.

    2.7 Labor Markets

    Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union....

    Is There a Libertarian Case for Organized Labor?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  7. Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica by Kohath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unless Democrats cross over and vote Bush in the primaries to help Hillary out. That's how we got McCain.

  8. Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, no. Reporters are only part of the equation. What about owners and editors? How do they vote? How about representation on sunday news shows? Shouldn't they be in church rather than in front of a camera if they're trying to be holier than thou?

    At best, the media is neither liberal nor conservative. It's driven by getting eyeballs. Conservatives have used this to their advantage for years while playing the ref and screaming 'liberal media' whenever things don't go their way.

    Ever seen Network? The problem is that 'liberal agendas' tend to be a lot more photogenic and easier to communicate--for example, it's super-easy to show a sobbing hungry child, but not terribly easy to show in a single, dramatic picture that the chain of events that led to the kid's state is due to the long-term effects of the welfare system's perverse incentives upon the social fabric.

    This is also why these problems get to be long-term, because it's very effective to promise to help those people to get yourself votes, but that in and of itself serves as a perverse incentive to make sure the problem doesn't actually get fixed... Just pick an acceptable lot of scapegoats to 'thank' for it!

  9. Re:When Nixon did that... by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are no left parties in the US.

    You are one of the ignorant majority I see.

    There seem to be one or more gaps between what you believe and what actually is. Unpopularity and non-existence are not the same.

    "Left" parties do in fact exist in the US, more than one in fact. Here are a couple:

    Communist Party USA
    Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

    And they work hard to move their agendas forward.

    Communist Party USA: 'Working with the Democratic Party' is key

    Thankfully there are few Americans that are given to this ideology which has proven so murderous over the last century.

    The Black Book of Communism

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  10. Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, not quite. See there is the primary where the base chooses what they'd like from amongst their own party and then there is the general election where each base robotically chooses its own candiates and then tries to convince some portion of the sleepy middle to go join their side.

    I think if the democrats permitted anyone to run against hillary in the primary... seriously... then she'd probably be screwed before the general election. I don't see her getting a primary nod if there is really anyone else on the ticket. I don't see that happening though.

    The establishment has really railled around hillary and unlike the republicans that are dealing with that whole revolt against the establishment thing... there is no revolt against the establishment in the DNC. So I think it is quite likely that hillery will get nominated.

    Jeb has almost no chance of getting nominated. Ben Carson who likewise has no hope has about as much chance of pulling it off... or huckabee or some other hapless candidate that just has zero chance.

    The carson issue is kind of annoying because the republicans NEED black candidates but they need to go through at LEAST the kind of vetting that Obama had... I mean, Obama was a senator for like a year or something. So... clearly presidential material. Ben has no political history. Jack. You don't do that... come out of no where and say "hey guys, why not elect me president!"... I mean... come on. Serve in the senate for at least a year first or SOMETHING. I mean... try your hand at mayor somewhere... ideally governor. Governors are generally better presidents because they have some executive experience.

    Generals also do really well for some reason. Don't know why... but go through the list... not a lot of duds there.

    Anyway, hillary will likely be the democrat nominee. God knows what the republicans are going to do... it is a god damn three ring circus in the GOP field. Most people figure it is one of three guys but who knows.

    Point is, whomever it is will hammer hillary on all the stupid shit she refuses to talk about... and that isn't going to go well in the debates. The debates are meaningless for the base. The base has already decided at that point. They're voting for the person with a D after their name or an R. But the debates matter for the people in the sleepy middle that could go either way. And refusing to answer questions is likely to not go down very well in those settings.

    So... as long as the republicans don't field a complete asshat... they should be able to win.

    The big problem hillary has that Obama didn't have... is that she's not black. Look, I voted for Obama and I didn't even like his politics. I just thought "hey wouldn't it be nice if we had a black president for once... and maybe we can heal the racial divides and hands across America :D"... Literally my thinking at the time. Which Obama has since gone out of his way to make me feel stupid for by doing everything he can run salt in every racial issue he can find and then call anyone that disagrees with him about anything a racist. And he's remarkably gotten away with that. Hillary is unlikely to be able to do the same thing. She's not black. She does have a vagina... but I rather suspect that isn't going to get her as far in the whole identity politics game. There are after all lots of republicans with vaginas... not so many black republicans.

    Anyway... it will be interesting. The identity politics will be everywhere. I'd just like to see Hillary deal with the latest round of embarressing details to come out about her conduct... the whole Uranium mine thing is pretty fucking pathetic.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  11. Re:Christ by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Interesting

    >A little over a decade ago the first human genome was sequenced at a cost of 3 billion dollars. Now, you can spit in a tube, FedEx it to a sequencing facility (at room temperature - no ice required), and a few weeks later FedEx will deliver a USB drive with your genome sequence on it - all for just a bit over a $1000 dollars

    Bad example - because the human genome didn't need to cost that back then. It was one of science's greatest mistakes, and it's correction was the biggest breakthrough in genetics since the discovery of DNA. Long before we sequenced the human genome we had sequenced a bunch of "simpler" animals like frogs and newts and things - and they were coming in at around 80-billion genes.
    So naturally we assumed that a much more complicated being like a human would have a much longer genome - many orders of magnitude more. So we built a super-computer for the kind of load we were expecting: that's where the 3 billion dollars went.
    Except when we were done - it turns out the human genome was much, much shorter. In fact it only had about 32-billion genes. Figuring out why and how a more complicated creature can have much simpler genes completely changed our ideas of how genes worked. The entire science of genetics was turned on it's head - it was an expensive mistake but it paid off - it also made all the ideas that linked racism, sexism or classism to genetic inheritance thoroughly disproven - it's literally not POSSIBLE for them to be true, in order to BE true - human genes would have to contain significant brain structure encoding which they definitely do not and cannot because there aren't even enough of them to program 1% of our brains. The genetic contribution to human brains consist of "suck nipple when inserted" - that's about it.

    That said - they never needed that 3-billion dollar computer, which is why this is a bad example.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  12. Re:Christ by ULTROS · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a very right winger, I would like to mention that we hold even those in our party accountable. Lefties seem to look the other way grit their teeth and vote anyways due to perceived hate toward the right. If anyone in my party deleted a server that was about to be subpoenaed, I would want his head on a silver platter because it hurts my party more than help. Louis Lerner laptop crashed and there are no backups? Two years now and no supply of FOI answered? The left looks like it has a rampant lack of a moral compass. The leaders of the right capitulate time after time and look no better to me.