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."
Ironic isn't it that Trump wants to kill the very instrument that would be most effective in de-radicalizing people?
Free speech and free flow of information does more good than harm. Seems counter intuitive to lock violent radicals out of the very information that could change their minds, educate the ignorant, and carry a non violent message.
Sure terrorists use the Internet to recruit. But how many people did not join up because of information on the Internet?
Are we really so scared that we will turn proto-fascist?
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
America should consider ignoring Donald Trump in every way. The guy is the political equivalent of a troll. He adds nothing but noise to the political debate. It merely deflects attention from things that actually matter.
"We have a lot of foolish people" If that's not irony, I don't know what is.
He's like Hitler. Using my account because I actually believe this now. I rejected my friends' comments as silly Godwin-law rhetoric until now.
What is the disease does this country have in listening to people like this? I realize there are other candidates that are clearly not all there upstairs but when is this Trump shit gonna go away. Fuck that idiot and fuck his hi-jacking of the discussion.
"We have to go see Bill Gates," Trump said, to better understand the Internet and then possibly "close it up.""
Why Bill Gates? We all know he has nothing to do with the internets and it was Al Gore the one who invented it. But, of course, Trump wouldn't engage a dem even to save the country of those pesky... well, everybodies.
Jeb Bush has summed up Trump very nicely, and in a single word: "Unhinged".
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Meanwhile Eric Schmidt proposes a ContentID-like system to suppress "hate speech".
Pick your poison, left or right, up or down, makes no difference.
HAHAHAHA Because Bill Gates, of all people, understood the internet from the get-go.
It's not a series of tubes, it's a Tidal Wave.
Cut to the chase, Trump supporters. Upstream of using the Internet is thinking. Thinking leads to bad thoughts, and bad thoughts lead to bad acts. Our only hope now is to outlaw thinking. Do it now! For the children ...
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I dont care how crazy it comes off or about getting modded down. Trump is a ringer who's only purpose is to make sure no Republican candidate has a chance in the elections.
Probably not that many. All of the schools of "radical Islam" were in existence and active well before the Internet, but the Internet has given them an unprecedented ability to reach out to Muslims very far away from their core audiences such as Muslims in Malaysia and Indonesia which were prohibitively expensive and difficult to reach in pre-modern times.
With the advent of broadcast communication, radicals were able to start reaching their diasporas and Muslims outside of the normal stomping grounds of the radical schools based in the Middle East. The Internet not only enables that broadcasting, but enables dialogue. It's now possible for radical imams and jurists in the Middle East to do more than a fire-side chat with young Muslims across the world, they can actually engage them as pupils and groom them personally.
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.
You know SNL has really hit it over the top this year with this Donald Trump for president running gag.....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Nixon will be considered a good president compared to the last two ass clowns and if we elect trump,,,,,Oh my!
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
Wouldn't Al Gore be the better person to talk to about changing internet Architecture?
that keeps that hairpiece on the skull. It sinks in and poisons what's left of his brains.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...and the democrats want to "kill the very instrument that would be most effective in de-radicalizing people" which are firearms.
There is no lack of firearms in the Middle East and yet their availability (and routine use) is clearly not slowing radicalization. Your argument makes zero sense and is clearly contradicted by the facts. Your notion that radicalization is effectively fought with firearms is not supported by the US Military. You cannot win a war of ideas with guns. All you can do is provide time and space for your own ideas. We've dumped trillions of dollars into wars in the Middle East and groups like ISIS are stronger than ever as a result. The ONLY thing that will ultimately defeat groups like ISIS is with speech and ideas. Firearms can only suppress them for a time at best. You don't win hearts and minds at the point of a gun.
I'm not for banning anything, but we should block hate speech or any speech associated with known or suspected terrorists.
You claim to not be for banning anything and then contradict yourself in the same sentence. So clearly you aren't in favor of free speech. Here's a hint - free speech doesn't just consist of speech you approve of.
Trump is a bit of a clown but he's saying what the people want to hear so what does that tell you...
It tells me that the people who are taking him seriously are idiots. The words "President Trump" should be terrifying to anyone with a functioning brain. What people need to hear and what they want to hear are frequently different.
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.
Outside of the USA, the USA doesn't have a great image. It never really had, to be honest.
And, unfortunately for the USA, Donald Trump is doing absolutely nothing to make that image any better.
If anyone were to look just at Donald and how he represents you guys, then they will see an idiot, a racist, a bigot, a religious intolerant... he posses, in their worst forms, all of the bad stereotypes applied to "Americans". And, in many ways, he is the most un-American person one could point to. Taking just the simplest of American values - Freedom: He wants to close down the internet, ban Muslims, and have everyone saying 'Merry Christmas', because that's obviously what Freedom means to him.
I really feel sorry for you guys. He really does make the whole country look like a joke. I dare not imagine what your country will become if he were to be elected.
To be honest, there's an awful lot of things that he says that reminds me of one Adolf Hitler.
- observations from an outsider.
I've always thought that Trump just does this because he likes the attention. His comments lately may be him trying to get out of the race.
Trump likes his riches too much to actually be president. It's never felt like he actually wants the job.
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.
All he's REALLY interested in in getting big tax breaks for himself and his business/rich buddies.
Not buying it. Being able to throw millions around is already a great way to make that happen without the hassle of running for office. Trump's motivation is most likely fairly simple: he's an attention whore, and being in the limelight strokes his ego. Becoming "the most powerful man in the world" (f that's his end game) does so even more.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Are we witnessing the final stages of some sort of Trump Rhetorical Singularity?
It seems like every news cycle he has to top himself by saying something even more hyperbolic, and that in the last week the velocity of the hyperbole has been noticeably accelerating.
At this rate, I assume that by Saturday he will be calling for the immediate launching of nuclear missiles against every country that might harbor terrorist, and where he goes after that nobody can even speculate.
Good times!
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
What's frightening is that you'd choose a crazy bigoted egomaniac over a fairly unremarkable Democrat who has become the devil incarnate to right-wingers somehow. I never understood the incredible amount of hate that US conservatives have for Hillary. Since she's a huge war-hawk by Dem standards, you'd think they might even find her more tolerable.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Doesn't that pinhead Trump realize Microsoft doesn't understand the Internet - That's why the Internet runs on Linux and BSD. Hell, even MS is recommending deploying their Azure environment on Linux...
"Sufficiently advanced trolling is indistinguishable from stupidity", apologies to Arthur C Clark...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
You can't legislate against nutjobs with guns.
Australia did (both conservatives and liberals) and it appears to be very effective.
Most Americans seem to work from the basic principle that everyone will always have easy access to guns one way or another, and so it's pointless trying to legislate against them at all.
Whatever your position on gun control, it is certainly a fact that the US has a far higher proportion of people owning firearms than other countries, and so it would require a much more extensive government intervention.
When they basically banned handguns and most weapons except shotguns and hunting rifles in the UK, it only affected a tiny minority of people. There is no equivalent lobbying group to the NRA here, because it would basically just be comprised of farmers and grouse shooters, who know they will be allowed to keep their weapons anyway.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it