Slashdot Mirror


Anti-TPP Website Being Blacklisted

so.dan writes: The CTO of Fight for the Future — the non-profit activism group behind Battle for the Net, Blackout Congress, and Stop Fast Track — Jeff Lyon, is seeking advice regarding a problem with facing the website they created — stopfasttrack.com — to fight the secret Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal.

The site been blacklisted by Twitter, Facebook, and major email providers as malicious/spam. Over the last week, nobody has been able to post the website on social networks, or send any emails with their URL. Lyon has posted a summary of the relevant details on Reddit in the hope of obtaining useful feedback regarding what the cause might be. However, none of the answers there right now seem particularly useful, so I'm hoping the Slashdot community can help him out by posting here.

Lyon indicates that the blackout has occurred at a particularly crucial point in the campaign to kill the TPP, as most members of the House of Representatives would likely vote against it were it brought to a vote now, and as pro-TPP interests have started to escalate their lobbying efforts on the House to counteract what would otherwise be a no vote.

180 comments

  1. Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is not guaranteed from private organizations.

    1. Re:Free Speech by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you run a messenger service, you aren't entitled to decide that select groups can't use your service. You can't decide that you will monitor the messages, and only deliver those messages that you approve of. You don't get to decide that you will deliver partisan messages that favor your position, and just lose messages that support the other side.

      As an email provider/carrier/whatever, Google has a responsibility to pass the messages on, unless and until they actually violate some law.

      How about if your phone company listens in to your conversations, and cuts you off when they disapprove of your conversation?

      Now - you can twist a pair of panties into any kind of a wad you like, but you cannot twist morality and ethics enough to justify censorship of private communications. Nor can you justify political communications. Can't even justify censorship of business communications, until those communications violate a valid law.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:Free Speech by Z00L00K · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Maybe it's time to revise that stance now that we have multinational huge organisations. They weren't a factor to count in when the First Amendment was written.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, but until that is done the rules still only apply to the government ( at least the US, YMMV depending on where you live )

    4. Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Morality is ultimately relative.

      Also, you really can't compare a phone company to google, one has "common carrier" status, one does not. Should they? that is a different debate. Google may have a 'moral' responsibility ( whatever that means ) but they dont have a legal one. Sure, they will lose customers if they started reading/blocking/etc, but its their legal option to do so.

    5. Re:Free Speech by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Might want to read their terms of service. Odds are you are wrong.

    6. Re:Free Speech by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      If you run a messenger service, you aren't entitled to decide that select groups can't use your service.

      LOLWUT?

      How would that ever be enforced, other than 'the market'? There's no laws being violated. Principles, perhaps, but that isn't the same level as what you're trying to say they CAN'T do.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    7. Re:Free Speech by laird · · Score: 5, Informative

      The site isn't claiming that they're being censored, or that it's a Constitutional free speech issue, just that they're being blocked. It's possible that some anti-spam rule triggered against their site for some reason - anti-spam systems use statistical models and rules, and aren't always right, which is why they all have some appeal mechanism to get human judgement involved. So right now they're trying to get enough public visibility to the issue, demonstrating that the site is legitimate and that many people care about it, which gives whoever's blocking the site to have an incentive to pay attention and fix it.

      If they don't raise a fuss, they'll almost certainly be ignored and stay blocked, which isn't a good outcome.

      If I had to guess, the site might have gotten flagged by one of the black-listing services, and since many people subscribe to those services the one flag could cause them to be blocked everywhere. So if they can get enough attention to get that service to un-block them, it'll get better everywhere.

    8. Re:Free Speech by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about if your phone company listens in to your conversations, and cuts you off when they disapprove of your conversation?

      The phone company isn't allowed to do that because it's legally defined as a "Common Carrier."

      Facebook et al., on the other hand, aren't. I'm not sure, but I doubt most email services are either.

      It may be arbitrary, unfair and anti-democratic, but that what happens when citizens can't be fucking bothered to pay attention and give the goddamn lobbyists free reign to write the laws!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:Free Speech by Anon-Admin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You may want to re-think your position.

      The FCC redefined common Carrier to INCLUDE ISP's.

      ISP's are defined as "an organization that provides services for accessing, using, or participating in the Internet."

      I am sure Google and Google mail qualify under that definition, as would Facebook and Twitter.

    10. Re:Free Speech by Bengie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ISPs, not services. FCC made a clear distinction between Internet Access Providers and Services on the Internet.

    11. Re:Free Speech by Bengie · · Score: 2

      My guess is something triggered a spam filter. Something akin to Occam's razor and Hanlon's razor combined.

    12. Re:Free Speech by Teun · · Score: 1

      Is not guaranteed from private organizations.

      In the Free World but not in the USofA.
      Around my ways we even have Freedom of Information!

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    13. Re:Free Speech by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If you run a messenger service, you aren't entitled to decide that select groups can't use your service. You can't decide that you will monitor the messages, and only deliver those messages that you approve of. You don't get to decide that you will deliver partisan messages that favor your position, and just lose messages that support the other side.

      Yes you can. This is different from the phone companies because the phone companies are not private corporations but a public utility and have a common carrier status which exempts them from any liability for unlawful use. They cannot monitor calls outside of monitoring network quality or legal pursuits lawfully justified.

      Now here is where the messenger services fall into trouble if they do this censoring for any reason. They now become liable for the content of their users because they already monitor and regulate it for their own purposes. They are private companies not public utilities and are not under the same regulations.

    14. Re:Free Speech by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      Huh? There were plenty of huge multinational organizations when the first amendment was created. Part of the revolutionary war was because of several and all but two of the original 13 colonies was sponsored/created by them. They largely operated under Proprietary charters and many of the state names are derived from them. Most of them were revoked and a royal charter was in place by the 1760s but even then, we have the Boston Tea Party which was a protest over taxes created to reward the failing East India Company.

    15. Re:Free Speech by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      If you run a messenger service, you aren't entitled to decide that select groups can't use your service. You can't decide that you will monitor the messages, and only deliver those messages that you approve of. You don't get to decide that you will deliver partisan messages that favor your position, and just lose messages that support the other side.

      I'm fine with you doing all of these, as long as you're willing to take responsibility for every message sent on your service. Bomb threats, death threats, trade secrets, copyright infringement, all become your liability - if you're policing the content then you're responsible for it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re:Free Speech by Sibko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...but that what happens when citizens can't be fucking bothered to pay attention and give the goddamn lobbyists free reign to write the laws!

      Literally blaming the victim. Heh.

      Look, it's not simply a case of "We just weren't prepared enough for this, didn't take any precautions, and did nothing to stop it." this is systematic rot that has been eating away at our rights for decades. We've fought it all over the place. Our method of rooting it out has itself been rotted away. We live in "democracies" where our votes are meaningless now.

      There is no internal solution to this anymore. It's more than evident that our votes don't matter, and anyone voted into office will be bribed or worse. This is no longer a matter of voting the right person in. That doesn't mean 'give up'. It means 'start working outside the system'. You'll know it's effective when the government starts banning whatever method it is you've chosen for changing the system, the media starts demonizing you to destroy any popular/public support, and the intelligence agencies infiltrate your group to destroy it from within.

      In fact, we have two prime examples already of this taking place: Occupy Wall Street, and the Tea Party movement. Anyone who thinks we haven't been fighting the blatant corruption in our government hasn't been paying attention. We've been fighting plenty; it's just that we've also been losing.

      As I mentioned earlier - this is only going to get worse as time goes on. I'd honestly argue that many western nations are practical powderkegs right now. I don't think it's going to take much more for armed rebellion to start taking place. Another 2008 "recession", a sharp rise in the price of food, a couple more serious scandals like snowden, or CIA torture. People are getting fed up. People are noticing that their votes aren't changing anything.

      Pretty soon people are going to start changing things in their own ways - and that isn't going to be pretty. It's going to leave many people wondering if we weren't better off just being the cattle we're being treated as.

    17. Re: Free Speech by awilden · · Score: 1

      If they don't have common carrier status and their service is used for a crime then they are an accessory to the crime. Pretty sure they don't want that.

    18. Re: Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Car rental companies aren't "common carriers" but wouldn't be held as an accessory to a bank robbery if there car were used for one (unless the prosecution proves they knew it would be used for a bank robbery). So your understanding of "common carrier" and non-common carrier is highly flawed.

    19. Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... citizens can't be fucking bothered to pay attention and give the goddamn lobbyists free reign to write the laws!

      The citizens can't go chasing every mouth-piece in Washington DC, even with all the time in the world. The lobbyists certainly won't spend the time of day on a concerned citizen because a citizen can't block the laws he just wrote. Besides the citizen is paying someone called a politician to represent his best interests. So what every US person should be bitching about is legalized bribery, revolving doors, regulatory capture, and even dishonesty in advertising: Those things and more make a politician neglect his job. To that end, yes, a citizen should be bothered with not giving a politician free reign to piss on the voters who gave him the job and pay his wages.

    20. Re:Free Speech by zieroh · · Score: 1

      It may be arbitrary, unfair and anti-democratic, but that what happens when citizens can't be fucking bothered to pay attention and give the goddamn lobbyists free reign to write the laws!

      If you could be so kind, could you remind us all at what point businesses in the US were bound by the First Amendment? I can't seem to find it in my history book.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    21. Re:Free Speech by zieroh · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's going to take much more for armed rebellion to start taking place. Another 2008 "recession", a sharp rise in the price of food, a couple more serious scandals like snowden, or CIA torture.

      You need to stop smoking crack so early in the day. Wait until after 8:00pm, at least.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    22. Re:Free Speech by grcumb · · Score: 1

      Is not guaranteed from private organizations.

      No, but evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, being a private organisation doesn't require that you act like dick.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    23. Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so glad that I have this "freedom of speech" that I'll never get to use. */sarcasm*

    24. Re:Free Speech by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Umm... This was never a right? It was never even a liberty. You may have felt free to do so but that was with the consent of the owners of the service. You have options. Use them.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    25. Re:Free Speech by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Terms of Service usually cover various forms of objectionable content, and many of them describe them along the lines of "such as but not limited to racism, sexism, etc." They have the right to determine what goes over their servers if they don't have common carrier status.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    26. Re:Free Speech by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was thinking editing outside the TOS defined terms. However, in looking for a cite to the prodigy lawsuit, I noticed that the communications decency act of 96 pretty much gave service providers a lot of immunity to leeway to edit content so I guess my point is pointless anyways.

    27. Re:Free Speech by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid being infiltrated doesn't mean you're being effective. It just means you've been noticed, and the FBI thinks you're vaguely political.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    28. Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't the victim. You and people like you voted for the frauds in office. You are part of the god damn problem. This victim mentality won't fix anything.

    29. Re: Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just change the IP address of your email server.
      My server got spam blocked a whole back because a user's account was compromised and sending spam. A lot of the spam blocking agencies won't unblock for days or weeks, even though I explained the issue was fixed (and throttling of outgoing messages implemented).
      Anyway, I didnt want to wait, so just changed the server IP and the blocks were no longer active.

    30. Re: Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These days it almost seems to.

      Still, lots of people are getting sucked into the right wing/libertarian strawman argument. At no point are first amendment rights being claimed here, yet they haul off and try to make the debate about whether companies have the right to censor speech.

      The only thing being pointed out originally is that companies in favor of the TPP seem to be silencing critics of it. That may be due to technical and not political reasons, but it may not and if not that is news that needs to get out. Nobody's asking that anybody be forced to cash anything, but they have no right to censor things and not be called out on it in public IF that is what they're doing.

      Everybody needs to stop playing the game of the pro corporate shills around here.

    31. Re:Free Speech by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      Reading comprehension. It is patently obvious that they CAN censor the email that crosses their servers. I said that it is unethical and immoral. I said that they are not ENTITLED to censor the mail on a whim.

      In short, this goes a long way toward convincing me that the Google haters are right after all.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    32. Re:Free Speech by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Good post. Unfortunately, "we" are far to few. How long do you think it would take for congress to pass a law we wanted, if EVERY DAMNED REGISTERED VOTER IN THE COUNTRY were to write a letter, as well as send an email, in addition to making a phone call to each of their congress critters?

      Really - if your congress critter got all three forms of communication from each registered voter in his district, DEMANDING that he stop TPP, what are the chances that he would continue to pocket the bribes, and approve of Fast Track?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    33. Re: Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      citations required.

    34. Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-spam.. Yeah. Right.

      We've got hideous, lumbering, pus-dripping leviathans like google and facebook who are just aching to get their slave-labour fix. They desparately want this poisonous TPP bill to be passed, no matter what. There is no doubt in my mind they rigged up this little caper.

      Look at how TPP has been operated so far. Everything in secret, the public is not permitted to know what's in it. Back door deals and end-runs around established process in order to get it rammed through. Everything about it is dirty and reeks of corruption and payola. They want this so bad that they probably wouldn't be above bumping off a few "obstacles" that get in their way, so something as simple coordinating a blacklisting of a single website is basically a given.

    35. Re:Free Speech by turning+in+circles · · Score: 3, Informative

      The site isn't claiming that they're being censored, or that it's a Constitutional free speech issue, just that they're being blocked.

      So, I posted a link to the Stop Fast Track website on Facebook, to see if it would be blocked, and it wasn't. I can see the website link from Facebook, my friends can see the website and post on it. So, if it was a mistake to block it, it's fixed now. Get all fired up people.

      --
      Might as well face it I'm addicted to data.
    36. Re: Free Speech by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure if that were true then the Ford Motor Company have a lot to answer for.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    37. Re:Free Speech by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      since corporate entities were granted Personhood status in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819).

      Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    38. Re:Free Speech by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      HSBC
      the East India Tea Company
      Silk Road Trading

      The real point is that the First Amendment, to take the example, was written in terms of the speech not the speaker. The speaker could be an individual or it could be a corporation (per https://supreme.justia.com/cas... (link will likely kick up a warning, the site is safe)), both enjoy the guarantees of the US Constitution inside the jurisdiction, both also bear the responsibilities.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    39. Re:Free Speech by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I think you need to go look up what entitled means. It's closer to having a right than a morality.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    40. Re:Free Speech by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      Still not getting it, are you?

      Morality is a higher standard than legality. Anyone can buy a law, if they have enough money. You cannot buy a moral.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    41. Re:Free Speech by CBravo · · Score: 1

      Do you have some actual insight in these processes or are you just guessing?

      --
      nosig today
    42. Re: Free Speech by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      Some servers rely on whitelists and wont unblock a new server until a number of non-spammy weeks have passed.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    43. Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to stop smoking crack so early in the day. Wait until after 8:00pm, at least.

      What's that? All I can make out is the bleeting of a sheep.

    44. Re:Free Speech by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      facebook, gmail etc in most western countries aren't actually allowed to spy on your mail.

      how spam filters fit into that.. well.. i guess they argue that you're running them and not them.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    45. Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about every time a business tries to refuse service to a protected class (gay, black, pick one) and the government comes in and forces that business to serve them. I'm particularly thinking about that bakery who didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. If you consider their refusal to make the cake as an expression of their speech, then the government is very much forcing the first amendment on private business.

    46. Re:Free Speech by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      You don't need all the voters, you just need half to show up at his office. If half the registered voters (in a single riding) show up it means they will vote against him because of this single (fixable) issue, meaning the money (bribes) won't work (get him elected). People keep calling our elected reps stupid, but our actions keep proving they're not.

    47. Re:Free Speech by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      You are suggesting the East India company was small? How about the Hudsons bay corporation? As well the smaller multi-nationals were willing to work together for mutual benefit, example the corporations that staged the American war of independence to protest English taxes.

    48. Re:Free Speech by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Anyone can buy a law, if they have enough money. You cannot buy a moral.

      Of course you can buy morals. Just takes a big advertising budget, time and a message that resonates.. Examples include how drinking and driving has become immoral, throwing out litter, a bit further back, shitting in the river that we drink from or dumping your sewage in the gutter and in process, smoking tobacco.
      Doesn't always work 100%, eg illegal drugs but it is amazing how many people believe heroin is pure evil.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    49. Re:Free Speech by laird · · Score: 1

      I've run mail servers sending millions of emails (to people who requested them, not SPAM) and you run into these things fairly often. For a big site with tons of users, a request gets things fixed pretty quickly. For a tiny web site, it can take a long time since it doesn't affect many people so it's low priority. So raising a fuss like this is a reasonable thing to try.

      BTW, the issue resolved pretty quickly. From what I read, the site added some anti-SPAM headers to their emails and got things cleared up pretty quickly.

    50. Re:Free Speech by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      There were a few, but not to the same extend that we see today - most people weren't impacted by them, while today almost everyone is impacted by a multinational company.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    51. Re: Free Speech by terjeber · · Score: 1

      You need to learn the difference between "is" and "I think it should be". Morality has less value, overall, than the dog shit I just stepped in. Want the litmus test? If you were right, your understanding of moral would have equal value to the moral of the leadership of the ISIL.

    52. Re:Free Speech by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Their masters typed it, they thought it.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    53. Re:Free Speech by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the place the cattle are moving towards isn't a nice end. ..and they thought they were human...

      My answer is that its better to be a free human in hell than a slave in heaven.. If you want to see where we are going in 30 years it looks like Somalia crossed with Tibet crossed with North Korea.. Only they will still call it 'democracy' and 'freedom' and 'fighting the terrorists', and the heard will still believe them even as they are turned into steaks and burgers to feed the rich...

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    54. Re:Free Speech by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      You're a threat of bringing the danger of democracy - something the two party system was explicitly created to prevent.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    55. Re:Free Speech by Cyberdyne · · Score: 2

      If you run a messenger service, you aren't entitled to decide that select groups can't use your service. You can't decide that you will monitor the messages, and only deliver those messages that you approve of. You don't get to decide that you will deliver partisan messages that favor your position, and just lose messages that support the other side.

      As an email provider/carrier/whatever, Google has a responsibility to pass the messages on, unless and until they actually violate some law.

      How about if your phone company listens in to your conversations, and cuts you off when they disapprove of your conversation?

      Now - you can twist a pair of panties into any kind of a wad you like, but you cannot twist morality and ethics enough to justify censorship of private communications. Nor can you justify political communications. Can't even justify censorship of business communications, until those communications violate a valid law.

      Morally and ethically, you have a point - but legally, no. Telephone companies in the US have specific laws regulating what they can and can't do - but if Google decided that from now on, any email containing the word "viagra" would get blocked from Gmail, that's up to them. Probably not a useful choice (spammers already use workarounds like "\/iagra" anyway, and the occasional legitimate email would get caught) but it is theirs to make. Indeed, this very site has a few rules to reduce spam and misuse - so you can't post very long words without getting random whitespace added (to combat the old "page widening troll"), you can't post more than a certain number of messages in one period of time - all rules they are perfectly entitled to adopt and enforce, since it's their own site/service.

      Someone posted here earlier that the domain looks quite "spammy" on some of the heuristics Facebook and co probably use internally: it wouldn't exactly be the first time legitimate content got caught by a spam filter. More likely than a conspiracy theory about Twitter and Facebook being so determined to stifle criticism of TPP. As of right now, stopfasttrack.com is not listed in Spamhaus's database; probably someone got over-enthusiastic promoting it, and some of those messages got reported as spam. Nothing new there, either.

    56. Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to stop smoking crack so early in the day. Wait until after 8:00pm, at least.

      Or maybe you could leave your bubble and pay attention to what is actually taking place in the society around you.

  2. Censorship in the US by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Censorship in the US doesn't have to be about the first amendment as long as you can get Facebook, Twitter and Google to agree.

    1. Re:Censorship in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy fix too. stopfasttrack2.com/org/tv/whatever.

      Just buy a different domain put each in its own ipv6 realm and let them play wack a mole with trying to keep up with you.

    2. Re:Censorship in the US by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That or use URL shortening service.

      My bet is it is actually being spammed and appropriately being marked as such.

    3. Re:Censorship in the US by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you live in walled gardens, the owners control what you see.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Censorship in the US by Wain13001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I know after what seemed like my 5 millionth email from this group I marked it spam.

    5. Re:Censorship in the US by Teun · · Score: 2

      Exactly!
      That's why I carefully selected my ISP and mail provider, I can choose to receive all mail, including what is spam for others.
      Now the problem is that a very large part of the world's population has selected Google (gmail) for mail and Facebook and Twitter for their information, dumb, yes but that's the present situation. (for dumb people).
      It's similar to watching Fox News and declaring you're watching the news.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    6. Re:Censorship in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't work for Google. They explicitly follow all links, to determine final destination.

  3. Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... by daveime · · Score: 5, Informative

    So, he's using a domain without an SPF record (allowing it to be spoofed), and Cloudflare hosting which is notorius for spam and botnets. The same domain name with .RU extension is already associated with generating spam.

    Furthermore, his homepage is chocka-block with links, that anyone could mistake for a link-farm / spam page.

    There's no grand conspiracy here, just a webmaster who's not terribly savvy and some overzealous AI heuristics at Spamhaus, FB and Twitter playing it safe.

    Nothing more to see here, please move along.

    1. Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... by Ryanrule · · Score: 0

      i only see like 10 links on the page?

    2. Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... by freeze128 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That might explain SMTP email being blocked as spam, but how do you account for the fact that the URL is not able to be posted on Facebook? SMTP has nothing to do with HTTP.

    3. Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... by ckatko · · Score: 4, Informative

      Duh. A domain identified as malicious gets banned universally on Facebook. Not on a single protocol level.

      If you saw one IP address pelting your computer with spam, would you block a single port, or the whole damn thing?

    4. Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Does Facebook and Twitter and such scan for links to domains blocked by spam lists? Seems to me to be a pretty good way to stop them from becoming a spam riddled craphole.

    5. Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 2

      It's interesting to see current reactions to what is essentially the new SOPA/PIPA/CISPA (plus a boatload of other "free trade" inequities). It seems like the low profile TPP negotiations have succeeded in keeping down the public uproar.

      This is the same organization that ran the 2012 internet blackout to protest SOPA, yet somehow it seems that if people had been unable to post about the internet blackout in the very days leading up to it, there might have been a bit more indignation than we have today.

    6. Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CloudFlare is a CDN, not a host. His biggest issue is probably the SPF issue in all honesty.

    7. Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You're probably looking at the wrong page.....there are a lot of them in the summary. I believe this is the relevant page: https://www.stopfasttrack.com/.

      Note they've already added an SPF record.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... by Threni · · Score: 1

      "Cloudflare hosting which is notorius for spam and botnets"

      Huh? That's a powerfully stupid thing to say. It's what you use when you don't want script kiddies ddosing your site.

    9. Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No grand conspiracy is being alleged; just a relatively small one where the effect is well-defined as is the opponent's motive.

    10. Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uhhhh...they've been spamming the fuck out of their emails? I often sign petitions on sites like Change.org and I got hit with a shitload from this yahoo, I of course know how to find the unsubscribe button at the bottom but if the rest of the Change.org users got even half the emails that I did? Well its easier to just hit that big spam button at the top of the page than it is to find a teeny tiny unsubscribe at the bottom.

      So I'd say this isn't a conspiracy, just a classic example of a noob doing it wrong.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    11. Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook supported the later SOPA/PIPA bills so them blacklisting it is no surprise.

      I bet all it takes for them & Twitter to bury their heads in the sand is a 'promise' that they wouldn't get sued for any infringement that occurs on their sites.

    12. Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      I don't remember the domain, but a few months ago a friend and I were on FB chat, He was trying to send me a link to some redirector he set up for his minecraft server and FB chat wouldn't let either of us put the domain in the chat window. It kept giving some error, the error had a link about "highly abused URLS" or something. So yes, there is some kind of real time blocking lists going on.

    13. Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It is easy to see what happened. Fitzgibbon Media seems more than just a bit spammy in their marketing operations, not malicious more like loud gossipy 'er' women. So they tended to take that poor behaviour into political activism in a worthwhile cause. What is interesting is likely their other paid professional marketing schemes have never run into this problem before and that find it surprising this time around.

      So yeah, very likely specific individuals strove to shut it down early because they have been paid to do so. Yes, there is a main stream media conspiracy to silence protest with regard to the Toilet, Paper, Protocol (so named for what it does to countries constitutions) and that conspiracy extends to PR Agencies and their trolls in various other organisations. Goal of the TPP, enslave the world to the totally corrupt US Federal Reserve and the funny money it produces, which of course is used to enrich and empower those that control it and that is a straight up global criminally corrupt conspiracy which should be investigated and prosecuted not bloody fast tracked.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:Never attribute to maliciousness etc etc ... by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're probably looking at the wrong page.....there are a lot of them in the summary. I believe this is the relevant page: https://www.stopfasttrack.com/. Note they've already added an SPF record.

      Except any old SPF record isn't the same as a correct one.

      for i in fightforthefuture.org blackoutcongress.org stopfasttrack.com;do dig -t ANY $i|grep '$i\|spf';done fightforthefuture.org. 299 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:mailgun.org include:spf.dynect.net ~all" fightforthefuture.org. 299 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:sendgrid.net include:spf.dynect.net include:_spf.google.com include:salsalabs.net ~all"

      stopfasttrack.com does not have an SPF record.

      The SPF record for fightforthefuture is wrong

      No DKIM, no DMARC, no fucking idea what they are doing - 'cause email administration is not counter-intuitive. Right? (sigh)

      And it's not like the top response to his Reddit whine didn't point out why Google dumps his email - or how to check the SPF record.

      But WTF, you don't need to be competent to lead a revolution (good intentions is all that counts when you're paving the road to a better world, right?)

      Note also that in some (enlightened?) parts of the world unsolicited commercial (you want money?) that is not opt-in IS spam.

  4. "Nobody has been able to..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "nobody has been able to post the website on social networks, or send any emails with their URL" You mean spam the url to people you don't normally email, right?

    1. Re:"Nobody has been able to..." by Svartalf · · Score: 0

      No, and we can see the reason you posted that anon...the title fits you very much.

      They mean anybody putting it on their damn wall, you ass.  But hey, it IS /.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    2. Re: "Nobody has been able to..." by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      Paid shill slime.

    3. Re:"Nobody has been able to..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Facebook is not the internet. Facebook is its own cryptic walled garden of bullshit that you've adopted as your medium of self expression. It's not public property.

  5. Really? by nyet · · Score: 1

    Hanlon's Razor.

    The guy is utterly clueless.

    1. Re:Really? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Not really. It's a good way to get free press. And this issue could use a little more. Unless we can 'sunset' these treaties, we shouldn't be so hasty to pass them.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Really? by Svartalf · · Score: 2

      Unless they abide by the Constitution, they shouldn't be signing them because they lack authority to do so (Some have taken to believing that Treaty is a convenient way to "Amend" the Constitution as a "loophole" which would be wrong. Doesn't mean they won't keep trying...)

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    3. Re:Really? by nyet · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting he intentionally neglected to add an SPF record just so he could make a big stink about getting blacklisted by spamhaus?

    4. Re:Really? by DavidLeeLambert7357 · · Score: 1

      So on that site I see a long list of organizations that are nominally nonpartisan but would typically be classified as "liberal" (a lot of unions, "Code Pink", UfA, MoveOn), a few with technical issue-specific interest (EFF, FSF), a few corporations, and two Pirate Parties. But, the page answers the question "who opposes" with "In a word, everyone. Democrats, Republicans, ...". Is any organization on that list arguably Republican, or Conservative, in more than the sense that "a few members may have voted in a republican primary or argued with a republican politician some time during their lives"?

      --
      Somehow I have three Slashdot UIDs, lowest is "lamber45" (658956)
    5. Re:Really? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Nope, but when you see an opportunity... I have no idea what his intentions are, just taking what little we have at face value with total abandonment of empirical method.

      Now, we're not ones to go 'round spreadin' rumors,
      Why, really we're just not the gossipy kind,
      No, you'll never hear one of us repeating gossip,
      So you'd better be sure and listen close the first time!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it doesn't violate the Constitution, it can give "new" powers to Congress. Congress has the constitutional power to pass laws to enforce treaties, even if they didn't have those powers before. It can't violate the Constitution directly (take away free speech), but it can increase the power of the federal government (in a violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments, which have no meaning, under the current interpretations of them).

  6. some simple ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    create mirrors, use a tiny url, post images insted of links on social media.

  7. I just fired off three emails by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    One to my congressman and one to each senator.

    Don't really know what else to do.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:I just fired off three emails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send an actual letter.

    2. Re:I just fired off three emails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One to my congressman and one to each senator.

      Don't really know what else to do.

      A better thing to do would be to teach this guy to set up his site in a less clueless way, not tripping every spam filter alarm possible.

    3. Re:I just fired off three emails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the other guy said. Congress people and politicians very much ignore email. If you write a letter, especially send it registered, then this gets much more attention. Even better call them and ask about their views.

    4. Re:I just fired off three emails by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I've done that for years and have never had to deal with anything at airport security that everyone doesn't deal with...

      Fun fact for you, I actually legally skip most security check points.

      So... I'm not only not getting subjected to more, I'm subjected to less.

      I had to pay about 50 bucks for the ID and go through all the forms etc... but then they leave you alone.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:I just fired off three emails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this agreement really something bad?

    6. Re:I just fired off three emails by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First, we don't know everything about it because it is being kept secret to a large extent and debate is being officially suppressed.

      Second, yeah there are a lot of problems we've gotten out of it via leaks.

      1. There is some sort of committee being set up to settle a wide array of disputes that the US will have to submit itself to whether or not it wants to. The committee will be made up of unelected officials from many nations and their decisions will be binding on the US. That all by itself is unacceptable. Its like wishing for infinite wishes. You write into the agreement that some group can obligate you to abide by new regulations that some other committee comes up with whenever they want? No.

      2. There is a lot of information security stuff in there. Basically they're exporting a lot of the NSA wire tap stuff to the rest of the world and they're forcing the US to continue to spy on its own people to comply in turn.

      3. There are a lot of regulations on labor unions that shouldn't be involved in a trade agreement.

      4. There are an almost endless list of ticky tacky regulations that they're requiring on everything including paying private hospitals money if you open a public hospital near them to compensate them for POTENTIAL losses to their profits. But really there are an almost endless list of these.

      5. Basically no one in government has read the thing and yet they want to have a vote on it when no one has read it. They will let congressman go in there and read it. But they can't take it with them, they can't take notes out of the room with it in there, and they can't tell people what is in the thing.

      6. THat it is secret is a bad sign in and of itself. If it isn't going against US interests then there is no reason to suppress knowledge of it or suppress debate. The argument is being made that if more people knew about it, then it would make negociations harder. However, that isn't rational because you can use the US congress as defacto bad cop in the negociations. Where in the administration could say "well, I'd like to do that but I'd never get that through congress". Suppressing information means our bargaining position is weakened and it is more likely that bad legislation or bad regulations will get through congress because no one will have read them before they were signed into law.

      Congressman rarely read all these bills. They're too long. They use staffers and interest groups and the media to do the heavy lifting. And by denying congress the ability to use those features, they're basically forbidding congress from reading the law. Has Obama read the whole thing? Of course not. He's used his own staffers, interest groups, etc to read it for him and distill it to what he's going to care about.

      Congressman do the same thing. You can't deny their staffers and interest groups and the media access to the legislation and expect them to know what was in the bill.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:I just fired off three emails by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      You can't deny their staffers and interest groups and the media access to the legislation and expect them to know what was in the bill.

      Sure you can, they can just pass the Bill/Treaty and then they can find out what's in the Bill/Treaty. Didn't Nancy Pelosi teach us anything?

      It's the "New Normal".

      But don't let the wrong lizard get in!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    8. Re:I just fired off three emails by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Exactly... whatever anyone thinks of the ACA it shouldn't have passed the way it did. It just pissed people off.

      Anyone that says they need to subvert the democratic process doesn't value the democratic process.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:I just fired off three emails by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Is this agreement really something bad?

      It's an innocuous chess move. It doesn't look dangerous but the conspiracy theorists and those that are predilected towards paranoia are probably right.

      the US Trade Rep is negotiating TPP as if fast track authority is in place, acting as if it has the unilateral authority to further a one-sided agenda.

      https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
      A small part of this goes back to an almost secret international agreement in the 80s to control and command the development of nations by trade. That's why 3rd world is still 3rd world: Command and Control.
      You can't really blame the politicians of the signatory countries because this C&C operates under various trade agreements that on the surface seem to have nothing to do with world encompassing conspiracy, but there is enough circumstantial evidence for world wide social justice to pay attention to it.
      So this pawn move doesn't directly implicate this agreement, it just makes it a little bit easier to manage.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    10. Re:I just fired off three emails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      politicians don't read emails. Politicians will read well constructed typed or neatly handwritten letters.

      source: MANY years of experience writing and getting non-form responses from over three hundred Members of Parliament.

      [ihtoit posting AC because reasons]

  8. Nothing to see... move along. by denbesten · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the comments below the article....

    1) Site was on spamhaus's blacklist.
    2) Someone with more exerience than the poster suggested he add SPF records.
    3) Poster added SPF records and thanked the other person.
    4) Site is no longer on spamhaus's blacklist.

    I got tired of reading comments before I figured out if this resolved all the poster's complaints.

  9. Re:Obama and his administration would NEVER do thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell that to the man in the mirror, rightwingnutbar.

  10. Remember NAFTA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember NAFTA was supposed to save American jobs and not long after that was signed manufacturing began disappearing out of the US. I think anything our government does should be open for public input. After all its "We the people" who vote in all of our legislative and Presidential people to represent us. I never like any government that purposely does deals without the public knowledge. But it does go to show how business and special interests have now controlled our government and the people as a whole simply live with whatever is decided.

    1. Re:Remember NAFTA? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I remember NAFTA was supposed to save American jobs and not long after that was signed manufacturing began disappearing out of the US.

      Manufacturing started disappearing from the U.S. decades before NAFTA was signed.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Remember NAFTA? by laird · · Score: 4, Informative

      True, but that accelerated after NAFTA. In part because the promised protections used to get the votes to pass NAFTA were not delivered on. That history of lying to get profitable deals passed is why it's important not to agree to TPP, etc., without knowing what's actually in it, and not to believe promises about the future.

    3. Re:Remember NAFTA? by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Interesting link with some info about that: http://www.independent.co.uk/v...

      (It's about TTIP, which seems the same as TPP but aimed at the EU). The article claims NAFTA caused the loss of around 1 million US jobs, as opposed to the promised gain of hundreds of thousands of extra jobs.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    4. Re:Remember NAFTA? by laird · · Score: 1

      Good article. Thanks for posting!

    5. Re:Remember NAFTA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You act like we have a say.

  11. facebook link no problem by quonsar · · Score: 1

    Does Facebook and Twitter and such scan for links to domains blocked by spam lists?

    i just posted a link on facebook no problem.

    1. Re:facebook link no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, tested it myself temporarily. I call bullshit on this one. Probably a trick to get people to post it.

    2. Re: facebook link no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He added a SPF record now. It works because he is off the spamhaus list.

  12. Surprising TPP Opposition List by BECoole · · Score: 1, Interesting

    All the opponents of TPP listed on that web site are left wing. Usually, such groups applaud statist economic and personal intervention, especially with such things as the TPP which is rumored to include some very strict AGW rules.

    1. Re:Surprising TPP Opposition List by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      generalize much? me and all my lefty friends are pretty upset about the fact that these corrupt governments
      get to negotiate our future in secret

      in fact, we blame the rabidly pro-corporate righties for the whole setup

    2. Re:Surprising TPP Opposition List by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...which is rumored to include..."

      There's the real problem. Just trust us, plebs, this deal is in your best interests. Why no, of course we're not threatening anyone who tells you what's in it before it's already officially the law with prison because you'd revolt if you knew. Go back to work, work is important, work is good, work will set you free.

      That and the fact that we (meaning everything not USSR-space) have had free trade in goods for fifty years now and we've all benefited from it. We don't need any more of what you're thinking when you hear "free trade" because we already have it. What's now being pushed under the same banner (that everyone loves, because free trade in goods is great) is free trade in _capital_. As the Americans learned at the turn of the 20th century, that way lies plutocracy, the race to the bottom, and the people's misery.

  13. Re:Obama and his administration would NEVER do thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL that's right you go gurl. Cheer Hilary and Bill on, They feel your pain.

  14. obvious questions by Spazmania · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. Were you in fact spamming? If you injected your message lots of places where it was off topic, then you were spamming and earned your ban. If you failed to follow email best practices (this means *confirmed* opt-in prior to receiving any list content) then you were spamming and earned your ban.

    2. Has the web site been hacked with malicious code? Assume yes until you can get a clean bill of health by bona fide security expert.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:obvious questions by CBravo · · Score: 2

      And, for some background for the non-email-experts: The 'free speech'/censor arguments are often used by spammers. And many non-profit/political orgs do care less about such trivial things as 'optin' ('who could be against saving whales' etc).

      --
      nosig today
    2. Re:obvious questions by Spazmania · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's the "imediately unsubscribe anyone who wishes to unsubscribe" comment that sent up a red flag for me. That's opt-out. Spammer language.

      Best practices are that after you receive a request to subscribe to the mailing list you send a single email requesting confirmation, typically with a link or a code. Only after the recipient enters the code or clicks the link is he subscribed to the list.

      This protects individuals from having unauthorized third parties subscribe them to the mailing list, as is often attempted especially with political mailing lists.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    3. Re:obvious questions by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 2

      Also, UIs for popular email clients may be to blame. Sometimes it's easier to hit the big friendly Mark as Spam button to get the functionality of unsubscribing. If enough people do this, then all your mail is going to be blocked as spam, even if it was legitimately subscribed to.

      --
      ...
    4. Re:obvious questions by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      I periodically hear that claim. One variant is that when someone posts spam on the list a lot of folks supposedly mark it as spam, causing the list itself to lose reputation instead of the spammer.

      I've not seen data to either support or refute the claim, though I have to concede it's possible. On the other hand, I'm a bit jaded about it since I most heard the claim in connection with a particular single-opt-in political list that I knew to have bogus addresses due to the lack of confirmation.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  15. Out of date ratings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fortinet shows the domain was classified as spam between 2011 and 2014 and was then changed to "advocacy organisation". Maybe other rating services just haven't updated their ratings?

    http://www.fortiguard.com/ip_rep/index.php?data=stopfasttrack.com

  16. Kind of half-assed... by Lord+Duran · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Apart from the pretty colors, it's pretty badly designed. There's only the one video explaining why it's bad, no text, no in-depth analysis, no outside opinions, no nothing. There isn't even (that I could find) a link to the text of the TPP. This might be a seriously important cause, but the website's not making a very good case against it.

    Anyone know and want to elaborate on what this TPP is?

    1. Re:Kind of half-assed... by barakn · · Score: 1

      Half-assed. Oh, the irony.

      Here you go http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tpp

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    2. Re:Kind of half-assed... by davidwr · · Score: 2

      Apart from the pretty colors, it's pretty badly designed.

      Excess use of pretty colors is frequently a sign of bad design.

      Note - I didn't visit the site so I'm not saying that this site has a problem with excess use of pretty colors. I'm just saying that "apart from pretty colors" shouldn't imply that using pretty colors is always a good idea.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    3. Re:Kind of half-assed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The text is probably unavailable because so much of it is secret. Can't let the plebs know what previously rejected laws they'll be saddled with, can we, then they might object again.

    4. Re:Kind of half-assed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason that there's no link to the text of the TPP is because there is no official text that's publicly available. There are only leaked copies that are months/years out of date.

    5. Re:Kind of half-assed... by Halo1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apart from the pretty colors, it's pretty badly designed. There's only the one video explaining why it's bad, no text, no in-depth analysis, no outside opinions, no nothing. There isn't even (that I could find) a link to the text of the TPP.

      Even members of the US Congress only get extremely limited access to the text of the TPP:

      Only members of the House and Senate are currently allowed to view the text of the deal, and even they are forbidden from discussing what it contains. As a new report from Politico published Monday details, "If you’re a member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving."

      You basically have to be a negotiator or a representative of large business interests to get full access. Some chapters (5 out of 31) of the text have been made available via Wikileaks until now.

      Anyone know and want to elaborate on what this TPP is?

      The best, and definitely the most enjoyable, primer on the potential for abuse of the TPP (based on abuse of previously negotiated similar trade agreements) and the underhanded way it's being negotiated, is probably John Oliver's segment on it.

      --
      Donate free food here
    6. Re:Kind of half-assed... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Nice site. Didn't know it but I can see it will get a lot of use here on slashdot :)

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    7. Re:Kind of half-assed... by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Now I wish I had mod points!

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    8. Re:Kind of half-assed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not merely a case of so much of it being secret, it's classified compartmentalised eyes only, in its entirety. All we know about it is contained in a few supposedly leaked sections and rumours based on existing extralegislative agreements such as TTIP.

      [ihtoit posting AC because reasons]

    9. Re:Kind of half-assed... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "The best, and definitely the most enjoyable, primer on the potential for abuse of the TPP (based on abuse of previously negotiated similar trade agreements) and the underhanded way it's being negotiated, is probably John Oliver's segment on it."

      That link now goes to a video of Oliver's discussing Big Tobacco.

      Doing a search on YouTube for "John Oliver t" auto-fills with "John Oliver Trans Pacific Partnership" as third, leading me to the conclusion that quite a few people are searching for that video--which is now GONE, from what I can tell.

      Google moves fast!

    10. Re:Kind of half-assed... by fnj · · Score: 1

      Is it also nice what they do to the back navigation button?

    11. Re:Kind of half-assed... by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      Just watch that episode, it is a.o. about big tobacco (ab)using similar "free trade" agreements. I don't remember if he explicitly mentions TPP, but I believe he does.

      --
      Donate free food here
  17. I just did it by BoFo · · Score: 1

    I just posted the URL stopfasttrack.com to my Facebook timeline. I was immediately going to cancel my Facebook account (for the second time) but thought I'd check first.

    1. Re:I just did it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So did thousands of other people. On Twitter, Facebook, etc.

      Congratulations, you just advertised for their movement.

      If you search Twitter for stopfasttrack.com, you'll find that it's not blocked at all. Telling people that it's blocked, however, is a sure way of getting people to test it out by tweeting it. When people are told something is being censored, whether it's true or not, their first knee-jerk reaction is to shout it out and resist the Man, which gives you a chorus of voices shouting out your slogan, website, meme, or whatever. And you go viral. That's great advertising. Don Draper would be proud.

      I can't wait to see Coke and Pepsi co-opt this tactic. Hey, I heard that the Man is censoring the hardworking Americans who produce natural, pleasurable tobacco products from the Earth's own bountiful goodness, and that Twitter will block you if you post the following link: http://rjrt.com .

    2. Re:I just did it by BoFo · · Score: 1

      I've been posting, advocating, and hassling legislators via phone and email over Trade Promotion Authority for months. I would have posted it earlier had I known about it. That was not my point. My point was that I almost believed this post and canceled Facebook (just because I use it doesn't mean I have to like it) without having verified the claim. I have no problem with the underlying message and if this is what it takes to get more hits -- I cannot argue with it.

    3. Re:I just did it by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You will accept lies from the people who are claiming to have the moral high ground?

      Actually, you are safe. They were blacklisted because they had no SPF record. They are not listed now. That is why you could post the URL it seems. But, still, really?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:I just did it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need mod points - lying about censorship is NOT the way to combat censorship.

  18. Link working for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've posted it on Facebook and asked everyone to try it out and they all say it's all good.

  19. When will we be done with useless acronyms? by Phoinix · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here at the Nigerian Research Agency (NRA) we are also developing TPP:
    Tele-Portation Protocol (TPP).

    Your contributions will be refunded in full. Send us you cash or wire transfer and we will Teleport it back to you in only few days after we receive it; the time required to incorporate the space-time continuum into the protocol.

    Also please inform the smart-ass Slashdot editor that placing an acronym (TPP) in the hope that the readers will click to find out is not much different than the cheap dim-witted Internet advertising methods.

    Best Regards
    Your friends from the "Nigerian Scammers Association" (NSA)

  20. And Americans say that countries like China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    are full of censorship and oppression. Your country is equally bad, just in a different way.

  21. If only ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... we could get Facebook and Twitter blocked as malicious/spam.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  22. White House asking for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you know this really doesn't look good, is the WhiteHouse telling these tech companies to please blacklist this site? it seems suspicious, why are they being blacklisted if they're just some activist group hoping to prevent the controversial TPP, whats next, MSNBC fires Ed Schultz per Obama request? alot of people don't want this thing, it's very suspicious to see these social media sites blacklisting this group if it indeed isn't some farce with malware or something like that

    I'm a democrat but this just doesn't look good to me, I don't see why this group's site deserves to be blocked for, according to this article, basically no reason.

    What the hell is in this trade deal that they have to keep so secret and have to shut down all opposition?

    1. Re:White House asking for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually more likely that the tech companies want the TPP because it will probably lead to cheaper overseas expansion and workforces, and they can probably import more H1B workers here, maybe that's the reasoning for the blacklisting

      seems pretty underhanded

  23. URL works fine on G+ by GNious · · Score: 1

    Just tested it on G+ - not seeing any issue there

    (cue people saying no-one uses G+ because none of THEIR 3 friends uses it)

  24. I just posted the site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... on Facebook

  25. Re:Obama and his administration would NEVER do thi by sumdumass · · Score: 2

    I would say quite a few of them do. They invade slashdot quite heavily any time there is an election or some protest we are supposed to be behind because it's the social justice warrior thing to do or something. Some have accounts and some post anon.

  26. Only part of the problem by lennier1 · · Score: 1

    Don't forget that where TPP covers the Pacific there's also TTIP for the Atlantic and because this shit always comes in threes there's TISA as well,

  27. Seems simple to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It makes a lot of sense when you realize that the TPP was written by Corporations in order to make excessive profits for the rich, and both Facebook and Twitter are owned by greedy billionaires.

  28. Works fine on Facebook by De_Boswachter · · Score: 1

    FTFA

    The site been blacklisted by Twitter, Facebook, and major email providers as malicious/spam.

    I shared the site on my timeline of FB. Works fine.

  29. The site been blacklisted by Twitter, Facebook by koan · · Score: 1

    If you use those "social" media sites you're giving them the power to screw us over, stop using them.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  30. admit they are right? by johnwerneken · · Score: 0

    Although political, and by tradition it is supposed that even stupid ideas are sort of equal, because we all are in some sense equal, the site IS malicious, spam, unwelcome to most users of the ones denying this mistaken lunatic the use of THEIR megaphone.

  31. Seems to be working now by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    I was just able to post a link to https://www.stopfasttrack.com/... public, it also allowed me to save the link. So...very weird.

  32. ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Armed rebellion? You are a loon. American culture is nowhere near anything like that.

    The reason your vote doesn't matter is very simple: you aren't casting it. I'm not talking about showing up and checking the box, plenty of people do that, and then feel smug about how they are being good Americans and making a difference. That isn't voting. That is the dog-and-pony show that we use to distract attention from actual voting.

    How do you vote? It is easy as pie. Take your cold hard cash, and use it to lobby (either donate to a lobby, or start one of your own). Real money is real economic power, and you can use yours to effect positive political change.

    American civilians resent this. This is because they don't care enough to make real sacrifices. Checking a box costs them a few hours out of their day once ever few years. That is nothing. They will happily do that, and blather on and on about how that is how the world should work. But they are wrong.

    We attain power by being useful to others. That is what earns us the right to exercise that power over others. But exercising it is expending it. If that is too much for you to take, then keep on spouting nonsense about the revolution that will never come, while those of us who are in the know jump in the game as it is actually played.

    1. Re:ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are sick. Poll taxes were outlawed a while ago.

    2. Re:ROFL by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      He's talking about engaging in the pay-for-play that is the reality of much of politics. Pony up a few thousand dollars, and you get someone's attention. If you don't have it, get together a group of people who can collectively do so, and you might get some attention from politicians.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    3. Re:ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason your vote doesn't matter is very simple: you aren't casting it. I'm not talking about showing up and checking the box, plenty of people do that, and then feel smug about how they are being good Americans and making a difference. That isn't voting.

      Bull, in the last election of congress 16% of the eligible votes voted. When 84% of the people do not show up for the election of congress and Governors then you really are not casting your vote. I guarantee you if 84% of the people did vote in those elections money would mean a lot less in politics.

    4. Re:ROFL by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "We attain power by being useful to others."

      Obviously, you are a tool. A wiling tool, at that.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:ROFL by EdgeCreeper · · Score: 1

      A far more effective use for your money would be joining a trade union.

    6. Re:ROFL by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      All you need is $10 million you can afford to flush down the political toilet and you can have your own modicum of real power.

      Aint got $10 million to throw away, you pauper you, go and get back into your cardboard box.. (Mumbles : I remember when $10 million was a lot of money...)

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    7. Re: ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're joking right? Or do you honestly believe that those of us who don't have an extra few thousand laying around to spend on a "vote", should just pool our resources and collectively buy one vote?!? Money is not free speech!

  33. slightly OT, concerning the TPP itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a vote on legislation based on a classified document CAN ONLY BE BAD FOR THE PEOPLE. A vote for such legislation is, therefore, treason.

    There is no trust in secrecy. Period.

    As for the blacklisting, I don't know. Maybe agents acting for those who want the TPP are working to actively stifle dissent? It's been known to happen, I've been a victim of similar actions myself. More so on a personal basis in my case - my family was threatened so I had no choice but to withdraw from an action that would have brought down the British Government.

    [ihtoit posting AC because reasons]

  34. Who was it that allow all the system rot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but that what happens when citizens can't be fucking bothered to pay attention and give the goddamn lobbyists free reign to write the laws!

    Literally blaming the victim. Heh

    Look, it's not simply a case of "We just weren't prepared enough for this, didn't take any precautions, and did nothing to stop it." this is systematic rot that has been eating away at our rights for decades

    Good that you are truthful enough to acknowledge that for decades the rights of the people have been systematically being taken away, but please do tell ... WHO THE FUCK ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    It was THE PEOPLE who have casted their votes for the same fucking cretins time and time again --- and more importantly, none of them voters had been forced to do so, they did it willingly!!

    Did anyone ever point a gun to your head and order you to vote for Mr. X?? Did that happen to you??

    Thus, it was THE PEOPLE who have allowed, nay, ENCOURAGED the system rot to happen

    1. Re:Who was it that allow all the system rot? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      there is a very simple answer, and I don't give a fuck what you say, this is completely legal: spoil your ballot by marking a single line through ALL the boxes and writing in the margin: "NONE OF THE ABOVE".

      A "NONE OF THE ABOVE" is not a protest vote, it's a vote for regime change.

      Tell me, what changed after the last election? Anything? Was anything brought in by the incumbent immediately reversed by the incoming as they took over? Anything at all? Please, tell me, just ONE SINGLE FUCKING THING?

      I'll wait.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  35. Sue them for defamation by Sun · · Score: 1

    Or is it slander? I'm not a lawyer.

    In essence, these sites claim that your site is maleware/spam. This seems to me to be an actionable claim.

    Furthermore, winning such a court case would also result in companies not automatically listening to those falsly reporting, or placing a proper appeal process into their blocking procedures.

    Shachar

  36. Slashdot community bites down hard on free speech by erexx23 · · Score: 1

    Sites gets banned for legitimate reasons all the time Thousands of other legitimate business sites go through this all the time. This site cries like baby and throws poo at internet community to get attention drawn to its "cause" much less the real problem for the ban. Slashdot community bites down hard on free speech bullshit... entertains crap... lame.

  37. Bullshit by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    The CTO of Fight for the Future — the non-profit activism group

    A registered non-profit?? Not that it (transparency) matters - a good cause is sufficient, and the more groups targeting that cause the easier the battle.

    behind Battle for the Net, Blackout Congress, and Stop Fast Track — Jeff Lyon

    That'd be the Chief Technologist - FIGJAM self-certified Jeffery S. Lyon

    The site been blacklisted by Twitter, Facebook, and major email providers as malicious/spam.

    Bullshit Not blacklisted . A dig through the history shows that some of the email accounts have been blacklisted in the past - for spamming. No conspiracy, just piss poor security, hunger for publicity, bad manners, and general IT ignorance. (e.g. complain about Ffffacebook and Google but overlook what Yahoo does with non-SPF signed email)

    Over the last week, nobody has been able to post the website on social networks, or send any emails with their URL.

    Bullshit All posts of links to the site published in the past week

    Thanks Jeff. For nothing. Failure to check your facts doesn't help the campaign - the proponents of TPP don't have to block you - your incompetence and dishonesty does the job for them. Not that I'm accusing you of diluting the EFF campaign, or cashing in on it...

  38. Two points before you get totally bent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm against the TPP, certainly against the secrecy in the negotiations, and I'm ready to believe that "They" might looking to stamp out threats to "Their" plans but...
    1) I just posted the stopfasttrack site to Facebook with no problems.
    2) I never heard of the site until they started claiming that they were being blocked. Does anyone have evidence that the problem actually exists?

  39. WFM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  40. spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nigga you are blocked as spam because you were spamming. Quit bitching about it, swallow some cement mix and harden the fuck up.

  41. You thought the government wasgoing to let you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How cute.

  42. Re:Obama and his administration would NEVER do thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on guys, tired of hypocritical liberals yet? Tired of hearing how open and honest Obama and his minions are yet? Tired of the mainstream media BLOCKING information that is critical to debate? Come on guys... time to stop being liberal hypocrites yourselves and stand up for what you've preached all throughout the Bush years.

    This guy set up his site in the most clueless way possible, tripping every automated spam alarm possible. And you want people to blame Obama? Ok, bright guy..

  43. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bow down to your corporate overlords and pucker up. Oh and that stuff about government tyranny? We should be so lucky.

  44. They must be getting a lot of traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Fight for the Future website seems exceedingly slow when one clicks on their internal links. Is that because they are getting a lot of traffic from the "Streissand effect" or are they victims of a DOS attack?

  45. happened to me, too - for my personal site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had the same happen two times to my personal website with articles on Freenet ( http://draketo.de ). I wondered for days why my tweets showed errors, until I tried to link the site on another page and got the information that someone had put it on a spam blacklist. Took me over a week to get it out again (by writing an E-Mail to the maintainer).

    What I really don’t like about this is that twitter does not inform people *why* the site is blocked. It can’t be so hard to give the error message “tweet not accepted because the site [url] is on the spam blacklist [name] [url]”.