Slashdot Mirror
Donald Trump: America Should Consider "Closing the Internet Up In Some Way" (dailydot.com)
Patrick O'Neill writes: Hours after Donald Trump suggested the U.S. ban Muslims from entering the United States, the leading Republican presidential candidate said America should also consider "closing the Internet up in some way" to fight Islamic State terrorists in cyberspace. Trump mocked anyone who would object that his plan might violate the freedom of speech, saying "these are foolish people, we have a lot of foolish people ... We have to go see Bill Gates," Trump said, to better understand the Internet and then possibly "close it up."
You're exaggerating. He might mess up his country and a bunch of other countries in bad ways if he is elected, but he's nowhere as dangerous or evil as Hitler. He's essentially a clown, a narcissist entertainer who was blessed with and psychologically corrupted by a lot of inherited wealth. The kind of guy who is proud to be an asshole and actually is one, as opposed to all these likable 'nice assholes' who in reality aren't.
Yes, it will be Hillary vs Trump, Trump will become the next George W. Bush^3 of the USA, and after his reign,the US might be at the brink of a civil war, but at least its going to be entertaining. In the long run, a weak and reasonably fucked up US can be beneficial to Europe, so I don't worry too much.
Because Trump said 'internet', this somehow qualifies as tech news I wanted to know about on slashdot? Shame. Quit feeding the bear, ladies and gentlemen. Eventually, it will leave and not come back.
To be fair, while he hasn't proposed concentration camps yet, neither did Hitler when he was first rising to power. I have a feeling the German people would have rejected "let's kill all the Jews and everyone who disagrees with me" if he led with that idea. Instead, he began with smaller ideas. You are suffering (which Germany was and which Trump supporters seem to think America is) and it's all these people's fault (putting the blame on another group - be they Jews, Muslims, or Mexicans). Then, since it's all their fault, they should be identified (star on their clothes or a national Muslim database) and segregated from "normal society." Then, you need a task force to deal with these undesirables (Trump's Deportation Force might not be as bad as the SS on paper, but I doubt the SS on paper was exactly what they became).
No, Trump isn't Hitler, but he's stoking the same xenophobic flames, is proposing clearly unconstitutional ideas without care as to their legality, and doing so while his supporters seem to say "We don't care if it's legal or not, those people need to be 'taken care of.'" History has shown us where this path leads and it's NOT a nice place. It's certainly not anywhere that I'd want America heading towards.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
If he's a ringer, then what does it say that he has the backing of enough Republicans to keep ahead in the polls - ahead of the "real" GOP candidates?
If he's not a ringer, then the same question applies.
Ringer or not, he's ahead in the polls. There's a worrisome number of people who are saying "Close down Mosques? Sounds good. Track all Muslims? Great idea. Ban all Muslim immigrants and form a deportation task force to get rid of 11 million Mexicans? Fantastic!"
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Many people make fun of Donald Trump or don't take him seriously. What most don't realize is that he is represents the pinnacle of what the Republican Party has become. All that he says is little more than populist slurs and factually incorrect statements, barring any context. He is extremely anti social, anti socialist and very pro industry and military. He resents using government money for social programs but has no problems spending the same taxpayer money for military projects. His world view is an immature outlook where the US is at the center and the rest is a nuisance or a playground for the military. He willingly and knowingly misleads the public using fear, uncertainty and doubt tactics. When he's on television he revels in the attention and uses it to entertain people with outlandish rants and to polish his public image as an anti-establishment rebel, while saying absolutely nothing of consequence. He is the kind of person that can only appeal to, for lack of a better word: white trash and its scary that it has come so far that he reaches mass appeal in the US. Abraham Lincoln must be turning in his grave from what his party has become.
He also founded the EPA. An organization loathed by most conservatives in America today.
I absolutely do not support Trump's proposal, but guys like you are precisely the sort of idealists that he will steamroll over without any effort in the public spotlight. Everyone else out there can see that as a matter of fact, the Internet enables terrorist recruitment probably 10x better than broadcast media did in the 60s to late 80s/early 90s.
The way I talk about the Internet is the way most gun rights activists talk about guns. I care more about freedom than security. "If it saves one life" is not an argument to me. I'd rather lose lives in the name of freedom than save lives in the name of security.
In this case Trump might be right. I know I am going to get flamed into oblivion for saying so but you have to consider the alternatives. The lone wolf threat is probably the most impossible one we face. The talking heads and G-men have been quick to argue there was little or no communication with ISIS. That is not really true though it ignores the fact the one-way communication is still communication. Its also the hardest to cope with because even if we can known who has heard or seen what, in America we don't punish people for listening to things.
I see three options here:
1) Do nothing, This would be best but politically will be impossible after another attack or two.
2) EFF's nightmare, we start monitoring and logging just about everything that happens on the Internet, no more anonymity, broken encryption and systems with backdoors. Government thought police to knock on your physical door when you post the wrong kind of comment. All of this being ineffective to boot as criminals and terrorists will find ways to use side channels, steganography, and other methods to pass information around the Internet anyway. Innovation stifled as 'legitimate' applications can't be used until the government has facility to manage and monitor them.
3) Cut the cord, Great Firewall of America. We stop routing traffic to and from unfriendly parts of the world. For this work we have be willing to cast a broad net. You can't say lets cut off Afghanistan and Syria but let Pakistan and Iraq stay connected. After all the boarders weak and ISIS/Taliban/What have you will use the coffee shot the next town over if that is what they have to do. We would need to consider cutting off 'allies' (I use the term loosely) like Turkey and Saudi Arabia in regions know to be terror hot beds as well unless they are prepared to police things somewhat like option (2) although that is more practical in their societies.
I don't like option 3, but its a hell of a lot better than option 2. Politically speaking we are going to get (2) if we don't support something 'crazy' like (3). That is the current political reality. We build the Internet if proves to be to dangerous or we are to afraid to allow just anyone to use it however they like, than I say lets keep it for ourselves and for western society and culture rather than destroying it for ourselves, in the name of it being a small world or something.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
What is the disease does this country have in listening to people like this?
Greed.
Seriously, you can trace this all back to Tobacco companies fighting to protect their profits. In the early 1970s they devised a strategy to manufacture anti-government propaganda and "grassroots" organizations to distribute them. These organizations provided both inspiration and support to the Koch brothers when they started their own anti-government advocacy and recruiting group in 1984, Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE). As an interesting note, Ron Paul was the first director of Citizens for a Sound Economy. In the 80s and 90s, CSE was funded by Philip Morris, General Electric, Exxon and Microsoft (among others). In 2004 it split into FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity.
Both of CSE's successor groups were involved in creating the Tea Party political movement, the goal of that movement was to get people who have not normally been involved in political groups involved (specifically on the far right side of the Republican). They use populism and demagoguery to motivate these people, so it should be no surprise that the end result is support for populist demagogues. However, those same attributes have been driving reasonable people out of the party, as each election cycle the people motivated by the populist rhetorical impose more stringent populist requirements on the leadership, continually pushing them to the right. At first the Republican leadership embraced the new populism because it helped them win elections they had no right to win, now it may too late for them to salvage anything from the ruins of the party. Increasingly, it seem, the only Republicans who matter are the radical Tea Party ignoratti.
So the genesis for Trump's success lies in advocacy groups created to lobby for the right to poison and kill your customers and neighbours. Caveat Emptor, America! Freedom is cheaper than responsibility!
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I'd be happy if we could close up Trump in some way.
How the hell is he still leading the field on the Republican side? Is this some vast right wing conspiracy to get Hillary elected so they can have 4 more years of 'shredding the Constitution' and 'destroying America' rhetoric?
Signed,
A registered Republican who votes for sane candidates... when there are any.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
And here is your typical Trump supporter, fiscally cartoon-conservative and socially a closeted pseudo-nazi. They hate the shit out of every aspect of social progress and have a monstrous persecution complex, even though they're virtually all straight white Christian Americans, the most privileged and powerful group in the known universe.
They hate that social progressiveness restrains and effectively muzzles their many potent prejudices, and they hate when science and evidence disagree with their stupid gut feelings on other issues.
And Trump is a giant nuclear double-middle-finger to progressiveness and facts, who promises to finally give them what they want, to run their country based on their many potent prejudices and uninformed gut feelings.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The cut the cord could be analogous to customs, where "packets" have to pass thru customs. Shoot, we litigate IP, we shift tax burden thru IP, why not make IP go thru customs like real stuff.
Both Trump and Clinton said the same thing. Why only attack one of them in the summary when the article criticizes both parties? This goes to show that both sides have no concern for the constitution, and are probably just pandering to fears.
The article says:
Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton urged tech companies to “deny online space” to terrorists. Clinton then anticipated and waved away presumed First Amendment criticisms. We’re going to hear all the usual complaints,” she said on Monday, “you know, freedom of speech, et cetera. But if we truly are in a war...
Wow, she basically summarized the first amendment as "blah blah blah" and justified that it is okay to violate the constitution during wartime. This is the exact same kind of logic that was used 200 years ago that made us write those constitutional amendments. We have been fighting the same political battles for 200 years.
And neither do most Eastern countries, or Southern countries, or Northern countries, etc. Yet many of them have murder rates far higher than the US.
Oh great so the US does not suck compared to a large number of dictatorships and failing states? I compared the US to states which are democracies and have at least a comparable GDP per capita.
And you have a mass shooting almost every day
Only by a measure which includes 'shootings' in which nobody was killed, and the vast majority is gang violence in the inner city.
Have a look at http://shootingtracker.com/wik...
And no it makes no difference whether Jihad Joe, Racist Randolf or Narco Nick kills people. The people are terrified by that.
31,537 people die from gun violence every year in the USA. Based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... you have 10.5 people shot per 100 000 people a year. In Germany that is 1.24, in Spain 0.62, in the Netherlands 0.46. And you think you do not have a problem? Really)
BTW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that we have far less people in prison. So western Europe looks quite save to me.
With rape it is 27.3 (2010) in the USA, in France 16.2 (2009) in Germany 9.4 (2010) in Spain 3.4 (2010). It is only higher in Sweden 63.5. However, they have very different laws what rape is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And we do not have a refugee crisis. We have a problem in distributing refugees fairly in Europe. However, I am absolutely sure that Germany and Sweden are able to handle it. Not so sure about Greece, but maybe the EU will figure out a way to work together again (which is the real issue). Also we have a problem with fascist and nationalist movements in eastern Europe, e.g., Hungary and Poland. Still it does not make things better for you when we fail on our own problems. You will still have your gun problem.
You know, I have a theory.
I think Donald came into this thing, as a lark...running for president would get him a lot of attention and when he dropped out after a good showing, he's have more demand for him thereafter on news, etc.
I think, this long term support as nominee has surprised even HIM...who likely didn't want to really be president, just to run and get some "credit"....
I think with his marks in the polls, it is scaring even HIM that he could get the nomination, and therefore...is amping up the "crazy" to be able to get out of being nominated, yet still never have to voluntarily drop out, etc.
I think theres a possibility he got into this never meaning to win...and is maybe scared shitless he might really do it...?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I recently read a book called "The Narcissist Next Door" which details narcissistic personality disorder. Although the book was written years ago, it specifically mentions The Donald as a possible sufferer of the disorder. And based on the symptoms they described, it seems quite likely to me. If so, that would adequately explain all of his behavior that we've seen. In effect, all this isl about drawing attention to himself (which actually is the motivation of any troll.) And if he happens to get elected as President, that's just gravy (for him.) That said, as a narcissist, he would fully believe that he's the best person for the job. So he would believe that he should be elected.
I recently saw program where a commentator observed that unlike other politicians, Trump "doubles down" on anything stupid that he says. For example, the more that people point out that there is no evidence of thousands celebrating in New Jersey when the twin towers came down, the more he pushes the idea.
According to the book, a narcissist - in the clinical sense - is incapable of admitting he's wrong. So, whenever that gets pointed out by someone, it must be the fault of an external party. In this case, he can blame the media for misreporting the "facts" or whatever: he's never, ever, ever, simply "wrong."