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.
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.
"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.
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.
...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.
Because there is a change happening in America. No longer can "old, white Christian guys" (OWCG) be assured that they are the most powerful group. Now you have "upstarts" like women and Latinos and non-Christians gaining power. OWCGs see this as a threat but they feel powerless to stop them. Trump taps into OWCGs' frustration and fans their various hatreds (xenophobia, racism, etc). He says what they are all thinking because he himself is an OWCG. So they follow him and cheer him on without worrying about where his proposals will lead America. Because they see a Trump presidency as returning OWCGs to the seat of power and shoving everyone else back into their "proper place" of obeying the rules that OWCGs set.
In the long run, OWCGs can't win. This change will happen whether they like it or not. When I have grandchildren, they will regard many of the OWCGs ideas the same way most of today's society regards "black people should be kept separate and second class from white people." Yes, there's an ever-diminishing fringe that believes that, but society at large has moved on. OWCGs will be that fringe in a few decades. The only question is whether we'll keep moving forward or if President Trump will hit the brakes for a couple of years (slowing us down but not stopping us).
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Trump is still around because there is a large base of people who buy into the stuff he says.
Even more, he is still around because he sells papers (well, TV advertising). Even people who don't support him can't help but turn on the TV to see what wacky idea he has come up with today. The media knows this, so they throw him in our faces every chance they get. If he wasn't such an entertaining spectacle, the media would have dropped him months ago and he would have been stumping in half-filled halls to a dwindling number of supporters while the news focused on the other candidates (probably trying to dig up dirt on marital infidelities or contrast a candidates current policies with a statement he made in high-school).
Of course, Trump is well aware of this too, so he keeps saying ever more outrageous things just so he can keep making headlines. Not only does this feed his huge ego, it increases his visibility and makes him seem a viable candidate. Many people refuse to vote for somebody unless they think there's a chance that person can win, and with Trump in the news all the time, it makes him seem more popular than he really is (of course, eventually this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy).
Trump is one of the greatest political trolls ever, and his success is largely because the news is so addicted to advertising dollars they can't help but feed the troll.
What really terrifies me is that next election, other politicians are going to take note of Trump's success and are going to follow in his footsteps until eventually we'll end up with somebody like President Dwayne Elizondo 'Mountain Dew' Herbert Camacho.