'Chilling Effect' of Mass Surveillance Is Silencing Dissent Online, Study Says (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a Motherboard article: Research suggests that widespread awareness of mass surveillance could undermine democracy by making citizens fearful of voicing dissenting opinions in public. A paper published in Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, the flagship peer-reviewed journal of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC), found that "the government's online surveillance programs may threaten the disclosure of minority views and contribute to the reinforcement of majority opinion." The NSA's "ability to surreptitiously monitor the online activities of U.S. citizens may make online opinion climates especially chilly" and "can contribute to the silencing of minority views that provide the bedrock of democratic discourse," the researcher found.

Comments

They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mass government and commercial surveillance already have a massive chilling effect on speech online. Employers check your online presence and commentary for controversial issues; I can't believe the security clearance process doesn't do the same thing. Many people I know avoid making many political comments online precisely because of this.

This becomes more true as you enter fields intelligent people who understand policy may enter, such as law, finance, etc...

Re:They already do.

[neilo_1701D]

I would moderate you as insightful, but that means I'm agreeing with your position and thus inviting the government to monitor me more closely to see what other heretical beliefs I may have...

Re: They already do.

[Corwyn_123]

Moderating insightful it's not necessarily agreement, merely acknowledging the view as well thought out and with intellectual merit. You can see it as insightful and still disagree.

Re: They already do.

[tripleevenfall]

Let's face it, the government doesn't REALLY need a sound reason to monitor you anyway.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, its not really the government surveillance I'm most concerned with. I know enough to express my opinions in such a way as to not give the government any evidence to do me harm (or at least to 'want to do me harm'). I'm far more concerned over my employer knowing my opinions. If I was independently wealthy (not robustly so just so I could live free of having to be employed) or was self-employed in a business where I could support myself I would have 0 problem removing my anonymity online. Heck I used to robustly debate all kinds of things on-line (long before the 'internet' became what it is today), it was fun, a 'sport' if you would, it was intellectually gratifying. But with employers & especially SJWs running amok that can threaten my livelihood I have taken to express my views only to those people I already consider close family or friends & thus pretty much already know my opinions...they are smart people but its not nearly as gratifying.

Re: They already do.

[Qzukk]

As the cost to monitor people decreases, more and more people will be put under watch for increasingly trivial reasons.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus why we have Anonymous Cowards.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm posting anonymously because I don't want people to track this opinion to me. But here goes...

We have already seen where Brendan Eich was pressured to step down as the CEO of Mozilla. Despite showing respect to everyone who worked for and with him, the loudest ones on the Internet showed their full intolerance of him voting for Prop 8 and made an example out of him. You could also see that in the primaries where people would whisper "Republican" when asked which primary they wanted to vote in.

Re:They already do.

[david_thornley]

Eich made a large contribution to a campaign to deny the right to marry to a group of people. It had nothing to do with voting (which I assume he did on the secret ballot) or even expressing an opinion.

Re:They already do.

[wyHunter]

Indeed. It's the Democrats wet dream.

Re: They already do.

[currently_awake]

You are confusing the ability to automatically monitor people with the government paying attention to our actions. If they paid attention to everyone they would have caught the 911 attackers, all the pieces were in government databases. For the sake of national defense, the government needs to focus their spying: more tree and less forest.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving money to a campaign is expressing an opinion!

It was not one that I agree with but it was his right to express his opinion by giving to that cause.

Re:They already do.

[PopeRatzo]

Giving money to a campaign is expressing an opinion!

No, it's not. The opinion is made first, the giving of money comes second.

Despite what five fabulists on the Supreme Court said in 2010, money is not speech. Speech is speech. Money is money. If they're the same thing, I challenge you to try to pay for your bag of pork rinds and Big Gulp tomorrow with speech.

Re:They already do.

[Holi]

yes, because the Republicans have been so against it. I mean none of these programs were ever started under a Republican administration.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a fucking break, we have been surveiled for the past 70 years and it does not matter because court cases cannot be brought using information gathered without warrant

If you want to run away with your tail between your legs because you just REALIZED that people can identify who you are (and being AC means NOTHING, your IP is recorded) then you can fuck the hell off an hide in some dark corner somewhere :)

Re: They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face it, the government doesn't REALLY need a sound reason to monitor you anyway.

Huh. Imagine that.

They were thinking the same fucking thing when they decided to form their own country and ratified the US Constitution.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I miss the days of endless flame wars in newsgroups

Re:They already do.

[memnock]

How about this:

Fuck you, Obama! Screw you and your administration. You sold yourself as a community activist. You said that you'd get rid of the illegal quagmire of Guantanmo. You said that you wanted transparency; instead, you've promoted a government that does all sorts of illegal, unjustified activity under the guise of national security. I dissent with your position on encryption. And whistleblowers and journalists. Going after the people that justifiably question the power of the government, because they can see the abuses as they are happening, or are imminent, is a great example of your hypocrisy and tyranny.

Re: They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really believe that the overseers of the world are that nuanced? Even if you are willing to believe that most are, what about those that are not?

That's part of the problem. We have dark hands and veiled faces investigating us with no accountability. If they do a bad job, how does a citizen complain, ask for correction or compensation, or indeed even know that their job application was turned down for a false reason?

There's no way to know. It's all super secret and National Security, eyes-only don't you know.

Re: They already do.

[sjames]

Yes, but anyone who objects to the current surveillance is a terrorist and so, by definition, cannot be insightful or capable of good thought...

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

being AC does nothing to throw off a nation-state particularly when they can subpoena telco records

They can identify your IP when you post, then identify who that IP was assigned to via the telco

If you happen to use tor, and they still want to know who you are, then they have ways around that was well

The sooner that you get past the idea that you are in fact "naked before the state", the less you will worry about it

At least it keeps the citizen masses from doxing, or otherwise screwing with you in meatspace

Re:They already do.

[NormalVisual]

it does not matter because court cases cannot be brought using information gathered without warrant

Yes they can.

Re:They already do.

[sjames]

Yet, somehow you can get in a lot of trouble if you send money to jihadists. It must be somehow different from speech.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

One man's whistleblower is another man's pasty, loser, traitorous, putin-bitch, who sold the entire western security apparatus down the river due to misguided notions of right and wrong :)

The minute that you take national secrets and step off the plane in China or Russia, you have pretty much screwed the pooch and should not expect and civil protection

Re:They already do.

[tnk1]

I'd have to disagree. Money is definitely speech in a situation today where you don't get a voice unless you can pay for ad time. Certainly, I agree that you could strictly define it as having the ability to say what you like, but it is pretty clear from the specific freedom of the press being mentioned that paid speech, like journalists usually provide, was considered just as protected.

That is why some J. Random Guy can't just stand up in East Podunk and run for President. No one would ever hear him who mattered.

Now, I can get behind the idea that corporations are not somehow full citizens or speaking for actual citizens, but that is a separate issue. Of course, I would include all corporate bodies, such as businesses, Super PACs, churches AND organized labor in that.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you don't believe him, consider the Silk Road case. A good chunk of the information they presented in court about how they found the server was actually false. The Silk Road server configuration presented in court was re-constructed based on the court documents and nobody was able to produce an IP address from the server over Tor. I'm not even convinced that the guy was stupid enough to have fake IDs mailed to his home address from Canada (that just so happened to be opened by Customs?). I'm sure someone mailed him fake IDs (with a nice "open me" sticker on the box, to make sure the correct people saw them).

I'm also sure they got the right person, they just had to lie a bit to cover up how they actually got him.

Re:They already do.

[Sibko]

It's one of the reasons 4chan is as popular as it is.

I can go there, say whatever I want; "burn the gays!", "kill the niggers!", "Hitler did nothing wrong!", or even something as mundane as "Yeah, I actually support Trump" - anything and I won't be persecuted, ostracized, or otherwise attacked in real life for it.

And you know what that enables?
Actual political discourse. Because you no longer have to temper anything against the prospect of retributive action from people who oppose your political ideas. If someone thinks your idea is full of shit they can't just censor you, they can't just throw you in jail or even kill you. No matter how asinine (in fact, the more contrarian the post, the more visible it is due to the larger number of replies it will garner) someone will have to argue against your position in order to refute it.

And it's absolutely fantastic. It and the few *chan copycats are the only places on the internet where actual political discussion can take place. Where, rather than posting in a hugbox of like-minded people who echo your thoughts, you put yourself in a hurt-box where everyone tells you you're a dumbfuck moron who doesn't know what he's talking about, and you're forced to actually defend whatever argument you've made.

The only two issues the format has are: [1] signal-to-noise ratio; as there is a very large amount of spam that takes place due to the free-speech nature, and [2] moderation stepping in and censoring certain viewpoints/topics. (This doesn't tend to happen much on 4chan's popular boards just for the sheer number of posters that makes censorship almost impossible, but on the smaller sites as well as the smaller boards on 4chan itself, it's definitely an issue).

If you want to get the pulse of what the political undercurrents and beliefs in present day western society actually are, without the politically correct censorship that takes place, you go to 4chan and get the whole ugly truth of it.

Re: They already do.

[rmdingler]

Let's face it, the government doesn't REALLY need a sound reason to monitor you anyway.

No sir. They do not. It just has to be convenient and technologically feasible.

The gov't is not beholden to traditional budgetary metrics. Others are positing that it is the cost of the data accumulation and storage that affects the amount the gov't is willing to monitor.

Not so much. It seems the people who print the currency that is the rest of the world's reserve currency basically have a license to print money.

Re:They already do.

[david_thornley]

Are you saying that there's no difference between saying "I don't think same-sex marriage should be allowed" and saying "Since you're campaigning to disallow same-sex marriage, here's $100K"? It looks to me like the difference between disagreeing with me and becoming an effective political enemy. There's no actual evidence that Eich would have been in much controversy if he'd just expressed a personal opinion, even one that many people disagreed with.

Eich's actions were not illegal, so that's a red herring. (This also has nothing to do with corporate rights, being an individual contribution.) On a personal level, it is reasonable to think that a massive contribution to a political cause is not just speech but also action.

Re: They already do.

[rmdingler]

I'm pretty sure there's a point system metric at work that allots you electronic demerits:

-1 commented not obviously against Edward in a Snowden story

-2 moderated a Snowden comment favorably

-3 Submitted a favorable Snowden story

-4 Posted a pro-Snowden story (damn the bad luck)

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving money to a campaign is expressing an opinion!

No, it's not. The opinion is made first, the giving of money comes second.

Expressing the opinion does in fact come after forming the opinion.

So your point that giving of money comes after forming the opinion does not in any way preclude that giving the money is expressing an opinion.

Re:They already do.

[Fwipp]

And you know what that enables?

I sure do. A bunch of 20-something white dudes circlejerking about they're brave enough to say "Hitler did nothing wrong!" on an anonymous imageboard, where only the edgiest opinion wins.

Re:They already do.

[PopeRatzo]

Expressing the opinion does in fact come after forming the opinion.

Money is not the expression. It's the purchase of a megaphone.

Money does not equal speech.

Re:They already do.

[PopeRatzo]

Money is definitely speech in a situation today where you don't get a voice unless you can pay for ad time.

Horseshit. You don't buy ad time, but you have a voice.

Speech as defined in the Constitution does not guarantee you a mass audience. It guarantees you that nobody is going to prevent you from saying something. The speech can't be regulated. The money can and should.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, and if you are providing a means to import illegal products int the US or across state lines, then you should pretty much expect the fuzz to be up in your shit

Rule number one, don't talk about fight club
Rule number two, assume somebody already talked about fight club
Rule number three, when fight club is a featured story on NPR, smash all of your hard drives, cut all ties and go live in a cabin off the grid for the next six months

Re: They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think the government understands nuance!?

Re: They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

i.e, the way they did things before someone pitched how much money they could save using "the cloud" to figure out who the bad guys were.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would moderate you as insightful, but that means I'm agreeing with your position and thus inviting the government to monitor me more closely to see what other heretical beliefs I may have...

Stop being a pussy.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would moderate you as insightful, but that means I'm agreeing with your position

It doesn't mean that at all, and anyone who moderates under that assumption is by definition an abusive moderator.

Insightful no more means "I agree" than Troll means "I disagree".

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypothetical:

Donald Trump somehow wins the presidency. His supporters then manage a clean sweep in the next round of Congressional elections, stacking Congress with Trump supporters. This Trump-friendly Congress passes a law criminalizing any donation of money, by any entity, to any political candidate not personally approved by Trump.

Does this law, in your opinion, violate the First Amendment?

If so, your claim that "money is not speech" is at best a half-truth.

If not, I'd like to hear your reasoning on why not.

Re:They already do.

[lgw]

"Speech" is shorthand for "expression", including the press and other ways of being heard. These usually require money. People who all want to express the same political point pooling their money to do so is political expression: this couldn't be more clear.

I think what you're really try to say is "free speech doesn't include wrong ideas" (as judged by Ratzo, of course).

Re:They already do.

[Nethead]

So you're saying it's a Trump rally.

Re:They already do.

[PopeRatzo]

"Speech" is shorthand for "expression", including the press and other ways of being heard. These usually require money.

Only since 2010 apparently. The United States Constitution was clear on this matter right up until then, and somehow we managed to survive as a civil society.

Re: They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

The government would never consider false flag terror attacks on our own soil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Re:They already do.

[lgw]

Since when was buying a political ad in the paper not protected speech? The SCOTUS has been clear from very early on that a law that de facto restricts speech is a law that restricts speech. Do you really think there's something wrong with, say, a Kickstarter to fund a political ad? What if none of us can afford a full-page ad, so we each by a 1 square inch section of the page such that the full-page ad appears? Is that somehow different?

Or is it really that the wrong people are getting the message out? Cause it sure seems like it form here.

Re:They already do.

[PopeRatzo]

Since when was buying a political ad in the paper not protected speech?

An individual could always buy an ad in a newspaper under his own name(assuming the paper wanted to run it, of course). What he could not do, was form a liability-protected legal entity for the purpose of raising money anonymously to use in elections.

That was the innovation of the 2010 court.

Re: They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confusing the ability to automatically monitor people with the government wishing to stop events that tighten its grip upon our necks.
If they had caught the 911 attackers, all their employers and lobbyists would have had less standing with which to drill unregulated oil-wells into the budget while granting themselves authority not seen since before the magna-carta.

For the sake of there being a nation left to defend, the government needs to take the pillow off its face.

Re: They already do.

[Zero__Kelvin]

"You can see it as insightful and still disagree"

No. You can't. Really.

Re:They already do.

[BradMajors]

> And you know what that enables?
> Actual political discourse.

Nonsense. There is no political discourse on 4chan, only obnoxious people yelling at each other.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you disagree with Eich's contribution, then you have to hold George Soros to the same fire for financially supporting protestors to disrupt Trump's rally and promoting Hillary for president.

Re:They already do.

[Zero__Kelvin]

You apparently don't undertand insight. If it is false, it isn't insightful.

Re:They already do.

[PopeRatzo]

If you disagree with Eich's contribution, then you have to hold George Soros to the same fire for financially supporting protestors to disrupt Trump's

I agree that people who object to Soros have every right to call for his resignation just as people called for Eich's.

Re:They already do.

[lgw]

Ah, so the problem is that the wrong people have free speech. The mechanism for raising money to pay for political expression is, of course, entirely irrelevant. And of course, anonymity has always been held as a necessary, even critical aspect of political speech, since before the revolution started and many of the founders were pamphleteers.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called using botnet zombies as proxies. Much cheaper and safer than buying a commercial VPN account.

Re: They already do.

[davester666]

Sorry, nuance isn't a field in the list.

You are either on the list or not. And you definitely are on the list.

Re: They already do.

[LordWabbit2]

I think it's worse than that, I think they are monitoring EVERYONE, all the time, and storing it away, what they need is a reason to go look into your history specifically. So if you get a wrong number call from a suspected nut job you get flagged and a weighting mechanism increases your "Person of Interest" score. If it gets too high for whatever reason the system notifies a blood sack and they take a more personal interest, or after review you get unflagged and the weighting mechanism goes back to a lower level of weighting. I know people who work in banks dealing with big data, working to stop transfers to drug dealers and terrorist groups etc. and thats how they do it. I can't see the NSA having anything as simple as "oh that was suspicious, I'm watching you now, don't know what you did yesterday, but I will from now on!"

Re: They already do.

[LordWabbit2]

And as fucked up as this might sound, I would LOVE to get a look in that database!

Re: They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

It still goes against company policy to downvote posts that are against the political position of the company and is a reason for termination.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you know what that enables?
Actual political discourse. Because you no longer have to temper anything against the prospect of retributive action from people who oppose your political ideas. If someone thinks your idea is full of shit they can't just censor you,

I think you meant 8chan, unless you've forgotten how moot appointed SJW mods and after Gamergate they went nuclear on /pol/ (the politics board), which did not exist anymore last I checked. Most /new/ and /pol/ oldfags moved to 8chan because of the rampant censorship on 4chan.

Re:They already do.

[KGIII]

Ah, but you've made previous dissenting opinions known so failing to agree with them, in a public fashion, will mean that you're attempting to now hide your views in light of recent events and, because of this, you've likely made efforts to curtail your speech and to hide it - thus you'll need to be monitored all the more closely because you're acting suspiciously.

My view? Fuck 'em. I say what I have to say and do what I need to do. If they don't like it, they know where to find me. I don't need a job, I don't need favor, I'm in a position where I can get away with that and not suffer any undue consequences. I will not now, nor ever, refrain from saying those things I feel need to be said. Sometimes it even pisses people off. I'm okay with that. In /. terms, it sometimes gets me modded down. I'm okay with that too.

Realistically speaking? I don't have much to say that indicates that I'm itching to start a revolution. I do speak out against government and let my opinion be known. I do so politely, realistically, and without advocating things like violence. I'm okay with that and they appear to be okay with it too.

Re: They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

People who comment online are not necessarily being serious, but the default interpretation by law enforcement is that they are. For example, a joke gets punished as a terrorist statement.
Don't be surprised if moderating someone insightful can be twisted in an undesired way. Web search "fired for liking".

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Speech is an action.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, its not really the government surveillance I'm most concerned with. I know enough to express my opinions in such a way as to not give the government any evidence to do me harm (or at least to 'want to do me harm').

So you're already pre-chilled, eh?

Re:They already do.

[houghi]

The real issue is that people think there is a two-party system. And that people think that two is enough variation in politics.
Try opening an ice cream store with 2 flavors.

Politics should not be 'winner takes all'. It should be 'All are winners'. That means compromising and talking together and finding a solution that is best for as many as possible.

And yes, that means that you will upset some people and most likely all people will be upset at one point or another.

Re:They already do.

[PopeRatzo]

Ah, so the problem is that the wrong people have free speech.

Corporations are not people, my friend.

Re: They already do.

[rtb61]

At the moment the really hot one is picking on NATO. Referring to them as the North American Territorial Occupation farce, gets you an immediate probe. Especially pointing out how NATO is purposefully poking Russia, so that the Russian government will react and NATO can use that reaction to push more countries into NATO. Basically surrendering their defence forces to US control, privatising their defences industries to US/UK corporations, ceasing all investigations of corrupt NATO activities and being prepared to surrender control of their borders and cyber security http://www.nicp.nato.int/index.... Final recruitment into senior positions of corruption within NATO are conducted by corporate representatives at the NATO school http://www.natoschool.nato.int... where military officers and political representatives are screened for suitability for agents of mass corruption.

If you are wandering why a mutual defence treaty needs all that crap, the obvious answer is, well, without it how will the profits flow https://diweb.hq.nato.int/niag.... Of course try to leave NATO and expect regime change of the most egregious sort, there is no leaving NATO. The US military industrial complex is basically taking over the world one country at a time be leveraging them into NATO and then taking over.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ridiculous.

An 'insightful' comment is just one that presents an angle or point of view that hadnt been considered before by the viewer. The viewer may ultimately decide that it doesnt change their position, but the comment itself is still 'insightful'.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is the existence of political parties and their monopoly of the process.

No member of congress represents their political party in congress - they represent their constituents.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, you're there forever.

Re: They already do.

[surmak]

What is really scary is that with this database, TPTB have the ability to find dirt on anyone. Criticize the NSA director? Don't be surprised if embarrassing information is leaked to the press, or if you end up getting investigated for a minor crime inadvertently committed some time ago.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no political discourse on 4chan, only obnoxious people yelling at each other.

So they do have political discourse?

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have to disagree. Money is definitely speech in a situation today where you don't get a voice unless you can pay for ad time

The right to free speech is not the right to be heard. They are two different things, thus speech is not money.

Re:They already do.

[erik.opnemer]

I'm in a position where I can get away with that and not suffer any undue consequences.

Famous last words.

Re:They already do.

[lgw]

But corporations are run by people - people who decide where to spend money - apparently the wrong people, for they disagree with Ratzo. Can't have that.

Re:They already do.

[KGIII]

True but I've said them before. I am not outlandish but I am outspoken. I'm also running for a position in my State Senate (it is official now, signatures turned in and everything - I already had more than enough signatures). So, we'll see if I'm a target or not. What's the worst they can do to me? I am not dreadfully concerned - not even really concerned at all.

Hell, I've even met dozens of people from this site alone. So, it's not like the press or the powers that be can't trace me to my online identity. If they ask, I'll just tell 'em. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke or handle what I have to say. I retired to a pretty cool spot with decent people. They know I smoke weed and swear. They know how I feel about the government. They're the ones that asked me to run. I don't even really want the job - I've retired and I kind of like doing as little as possible sometimes. I don't need the money, don't want the publicity, but I've been asked and am in a position to do so. So, why not?

I'm really not too worried. What's the worst thing, realistically, that's going to happen?

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US constitution does not define what speech is, period. While it does specify certain protections in regards to speech, in no way may the text be interpreted as "this is an exhaustive definition of the concept", nor would it be logically sound to use such definition, were it to exist, to refute an argument which does not refer to the idea of constitutionally protected speech by that word.

You don't buy ad time, but you have a voice.

It doesn't matter if you have a voice, if your voice is marginalized into irrelevancy. This is effectively identical to having no voice.

Re:They already do.

[PopeRatzo]

But corporations are run by people - people who decide where to spend money

Not by definition.

And the people who are part of corporations already have a right to free speech, just without the additional benefits of anonymity and protection from liability. They shouldn't get extra rights just because they filed papers with the state.

Re:They already do.

[tnk1]

In the context of the Constitution, speech was considered important for its effect on governance, we shouldn't lose sight of that. That's what the revolutionaries fought for, a voice in their own governance and taxation. They weren't fighting for your ability to merely say obnoxious things. They were expecting people's speech to drive debates and influence policy. If it had been adopted today, I don't see the First Amendment having been limited to simply being able to go outside and say things. If you couldn't have a voice to say something that would be heard, your speech is free but easily controlled, a scenario which I just don't see being the one that was intended.

Also, note that even a lot of money today does not guarantee you a mass audience if the Rubio ghost town on Florida primary day was any indication, or the complete failure of Jeb Bush, despite his large bankroll, shows. It merely makes mass audiences possible. And that is an important distinction. You're not *buying* the audience, you're buying the ability to say something to them which will resonate with them. Donald Trump could spend his entire fortune on spewing what he is spewing at me, and I will still never vote for him because he has communicated his ideas to me, but they are crap.

Note, though, that Trump is bringing out *new* voters. That means the money is reaching people, but it is his message of anger and fear is what is resonating with all of those people. As much as we might dislike it, people don't vote for people because they had a lot of money, they vote for people who say things they like. That means that it is incredibly important today for us to understand that there is a bedrock requirement of money to get *any* idea on to the Federal or even state stage, and to me, that means that to have Speech in government, you must have means.

I understand the dislike of corporate money going into ad campaigns and I'd like to reduce that influence, although I want to remain aware that sometimes corporations do have important things to say that should at least be heard, even if no one agrees with them.

In this environment, you have a huge government over hundreds of millions of people. Speech is no longer who can get up on a soapbox and say what they want and be heard, and it hasn't been that way for decades, if not well over a century.

The concern is that the corporate money, being concentrated into just a few hands, keeps citizens with non-corporate approved positions out of sight. That is certainly a problem, if not really a new problem. The real solution is to guarantee people the ability to be heard irrespective of money. How to do that appropriately is something that I feel bears study, but I can tell you one thing, it will definitely require resources to make it happen which will compare with those being expended by PACs to reach voters. Money is very much in the question for Speech concerns.

Re:They already do.

[lgw]

just without the additional benefits of anonymity and protection from liability.

Wrong on both counts. Free speech has always included anonymous speech - from as far back as when the Founding Fathers were fomenting revolution. I'm not sure how liability protection is relevant, but LLC partnerships have always has free speech, as have corporations such as newspapers and TV stations.

Re:They already do.

[PopeRatzo]

I understand the dislike of corporate money going into ad campaigns and I'd like to reduce that influence, although I want to remain aware that sometimes corporations do have important things to say that should at least be heard, even if no one agrees with them.

Sure, just disclose who you are. When you get government protection from liability, you don't also get to be anonymous.

Re: They already do.

[Schmorgluck]

I tend to use "Interesting" for that, myself.

Re:They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but the real shocker is that some egghead had to commission a STUDY to figure this out.

Re: They already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

The federal government already had enough data to stop the 911 attacks. Flight instructors we telling FBI agents that they were concerned about some middle eastern students who seemed to interested in how airliners operate when they were taking flight lessons on smaller aircrafts. The intelligence community received tips that Al Qaeda planned some attack on US soil involving hijacked airliners. With the USS Cole bombing months before and the belief that Al Qaeda was behind the truck bombing attack on the World Trade Towers in the mid 1990s you would think they would have kept a closer eye on Al Qaeda. Even with surveillance they were clueless about the Boston Marathon bombers even though Russian intelligence warned the US about these brothers and their dislike towards the USA. One brother was even calling his mom back home talking about starting a holy war in the US. This didn't raise any eyebrows by the US intelligence community.

Re:They already do.

[nine-times]

But with employers & especially SJWs running amok...

For me, honestly, it's a mix of things. I have some concern about my employers, and even more concern about potential employers checking my online presence as part of an interview process.

I worry about SJW even more than that. Not necessarily SJW, but "some asshole on the Internet who gets butthurt over an off-hand comment and decides to try to ruin your life." There's stories about Reddit or Anonymous or just some random SJW deciding someone is a wrong-doer and causing all kinds of trouble for that person. That scares me a bit, since although some of the harassment might not be too terrible, you never know what some Internet psycho is going to do.

I've told the story a couple of times on Slashdot so I won't go into it in detail again, but I was once harassed for a few days on Reddit because someone decided it'd be fun to claim I was a pedophile for no real reason. It resulted in a few days of my inbox being flooded with threatening messages, until I deleted the account. So... I do think there's some danger in the anonymous do-gooders out there.

But if I'm being very honest, probably the most practical, immediate reason I want online anonymity is so that I don't have to consider my friends and family before posting. If I want to say that "People who believe [whatever] are a bunch of jackasses," I will inevitably find that I have a couple of friends and a few family members who strongly believe in [whatever]. Thanksgiving suddenly becomes very awkward, and someone will be mad at me the next time I go to a party. That's why I make no controversial statements to my Facebook account, but will say whatever I want here.

Re: They already do.

[nine-times]

Well I think part of what people find so worrisome is that there seems to be an increasing number of people "monitored" in terms of collecting data, but not necessarily 'monitored" in terms of paying attention. The reason that's such a distressing situation is that collecting data without paying attention is not going to be very helpful for predicting unknown plots, but more likely it will be helpful in digging up information on known targets.

So essentially, the system that has been built is not designed to prevent terrorist attacks (it's supposed purpose) but more the kind of system you'd want for digging up dirt on protestors and political rivals.

Re: They already do.

[Qzukk]

No. What is really scary is that with "national security" as an excuse to prevent even a judge from seeing this database, TPTB doesn't even have to bother finding dirt on anyone. "We have proof that you are a terrorist. No you can't see it, but everyone knows we see all and know all and therefore cannot possibly be wrong."

Re:They already do.

[wyHunter]

Of course they were because the D and R parties are evil twins. But Democrats hate freedom EVEN MORE than Republicans. The Republicans seem to be outwardly okay with apparent compliance to their insanity but the Democrats really want you to LOVE BIG BROTHER.

That's why we have fake user names

[sycodon]

What idiots are using their real names and putting in valid contact info?

Re:That's why we have fake user names

[BitterOak]

What idiots are using their real names and putting in valid contact info?

The article talks about NSA surveillance. You really think a fake name is going to fool the NSA???

Re:That's why we have fake user names

[Bitgod]

What idiots are using their real names and putting in valid contact info?

A lot of sites make you use your real name, or link to Google+ or Facebook.

Re:That's why we have fake user names

[110010001000]

Um, you mean *wish*. They cannot make you use your real name. Any who doesn't have a fake Facebook profile at this point?

Re:That's why we have fake user names

[Anonymous Coward]

Me.

Of course, my real Facebook profile has absolutely zero activity and is there because of rumored shenanigans back in the day about what Facebook was doing automagically to people who had no profile.

I'm giggling at the premise though. Mass surveillance... by whom? I don't give a fuck about the NSA and the NSA doesn't give a fuck about me. I give half a fuck about the FBI, but the FBI likes collecting secret files on everyone.

What do I give a fuck about? You fucks. The idiot peasantry. One wrong tweet and a person can be the target of a whining campaign and forced to give up their position at Firefox, for example, to pacify the dumbass mob.

Re:That's why we have fake user names

[CanadianMacFan]

Those sites, including Facebook, only say that they want the real name. They value the traffic more than enforcing the policy. The only time Facebook cares about someone not using their real name is when someone else complains.

Re:That's why we have fake user names

[DownWithTheMan]

I've personally lost 2 fake name accounts on Facebook. I live in an ultra-conservative state governed by a majority conservative religious electorate (Utah), and I personally hold some liberal views. I changed my Facebook account from my real name, to a fake name years ago specifically to stop any potential employers from seeing any of my social media activity (even with stringent privacy settings) and then causing me employment issues. On two separate occasions Facebook shutdown my fake name accounts, so I just don't use Facebook anymore.

Re:That's why we have fake user names

[dcollins117]

On two separate occasions Facebook shutdown my fake name accounts, so I just don't use Facebook anymore.

That's wierd, I've never had any problem with obviously fake accounts on Facebook. Back when I played FFXI I had profiles for each of my characters without issue. I never did get around to making a real account, probably never will.

Re:That's why we have fake user names

[KGIII]

Beliefs that you profess to hold but are unable to accept the consequences of are not really beliefs, now are they? They're conveniences.

Sorry if that hurts but if you really held the views you profess to hold then you'd be willing to accept the consequences of holding and expressing those views. Beliefs that one is willing to be castigated for are truly held beliefs. The rest are just things you tell yourself to make yourself feel good about yourself or, perhaps, myriad other reasons.

Yes, yes that is a pep talk. Put your name behind the views and accept the consequences. You'll feel better about yourself - even if you're hungry, homeless, and friendless.

You needn't listen. It's okay. It's a way to feel liberated and happier with yourself - if you want to take that route. It might not be a wise move if you have others that you're responsible for. Though, today, it's probably not as terrible as you seem to think it is but you're surely more familiar with the local environment so you'd probably be able to guess better than I - it just seems a bit unlikely.

Me? Well, I'm David and I've not only had /. users at my current abode just recently, I've had them visit my home in Maine more than once and met others in their locale. Someone appropriately dedicated could probably find me without enlisting the aid of the NSA. On the other hand, I don't have a Facebook account but I'd be fooling myself if I said I didn't have any social media accounts. Slashdot is, for example, a social media site - even though a few of us like to deny it.

At any rate, a truly held belief is one which one is willing to accept the consequences for holding. The rest are just things you tell yourself for whatever reasons you have. I'd assume they're to make you feel better - it's hard to imagine why you'd tell yourself things to feel worse. Would you have said nothing when they came for the Jews or would you have expressed your dissent and accepted the consequences? Would you have risked hiding them or would you have quietly pointed when they came looking?

Re:That's why we have fake user names

[jafiwam]

Unless you also log into that profile (so their bots pick up the right cookie when you visit other places) they still have an "anonymous" profile on you.

Re:That's why we have fake user names

[jafiwam]

On two separate occasions Facebook shutdown my fake name accounts, so I just don't use Facebook anymore.

That's wierd, I've never had any problem with obviously fake accounts on Facebook. Back when I played FFXI I had profiles for each of my characters without issue. I never did get around to making a real account, probably never will.

They shut down or "investigate" accounts after someone "outs" you.

If you don't get into heated arguments with others on Facebook, or never post things / pictures that get flagged by a human in the first layer of auditing they don't notice you. I.e. if you post a carrot that looks like a pussy, the low paid third worlder will flag it for a higher paid person to look at. If your carrots look like carrots, you never get that treatment.

Also, pick a fake name that sounds real enough.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

He is a democrat, what else would you expect?

Oddly enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

...this probably suits the end objective for those conducting the mass surveillance in the first place.

Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh, that was the idea all along.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

He is friend of the IS. No way he will ever crush it.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats are the root of all evil.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

They are drowning people in cages. Trump will let Assad handle IS, he will get along with putin.

Sure does not seem like it

[SuperKendall]

People are protesting the stupidest things these days, and posting crazy things online all the time. It doesn't seem like "mass surveillance" is having any effect whatsoever.

Re:Sure does not seem like it

[Moof123]

Precisely, the nutters are the only ones crazy enough to use their free speech rights anymore.

Re:Sure does not seem like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Salient quote from the 40k rulebook, itself the ultimate in fascist dystopias:

> Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

They are the religion of the devil.

Left wing or right wing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I wonder which side will claim the "minority" view and portray themselves as the victims of teh surveillance state? (oh, shut up Centrists. Everyone can't be a victim, you know)

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

IS sodomy will cover the whole world, and obama is watching.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump will get a strong army, and all terrorists will be afraid of us. America will be great again.

I've got an easier way to silence speech!

[CajunArson]

Go onto any college campus and commit a microagression. That'll shut things down real quick, no mass surveillance required.

Re:I've got an easier way to silence speech!

[Nutria]

Damn. Two days after my mod points expired (since "Yale Shrieking Girl" was my first thought when reading the summary).

Re:I've got an easier way to silence speech!

[Anonymous Coward]

If all your world problems come from teenage girls, I think it's you we should be laughing at for needing a safe space from reality.

Re:I've got an easier way to silence speech!

[wisnoskij]

When everyone is watching you, you tend to get militant defence of the status quo.

Re:I've got an easier way to silence speech!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite. "Expressing minority opinions" equals "trolling", in the modern parlance, and a lot of people quite seriously try to argue that should be illegal in its own right.

Re:I've got an easier way to silence speech!

[Tailhook]

Indeed. I don't want to be mass surveilled any more than you do, but on a personal level the culture war and the hate being created by it is many times more chilling than anything the NSA is doing. So I have some contempt for those who feel one so acutely while studiously ignoring the other.

Re:I've got an easier way to silence speech!

[Tailhook]

my first thought

Well here's another little meme to keep your outrage collection fresh. Our most powerful academic institutions are straight up teaching hate.

Re:I've got an easier way to silence speech!

[Nutria]

The black guy is talking too fast to understand. Anyway, it's nothing different from what the Nation of Islam taught Malcolm Little 70 years ago.

Re:I've got an easier way to silence speech!

[Anonymous Coward]

you should see the new 'all inclusive' debate styles then that this seems to be a small example of.
Baffling and brilliant in its idiocy.

Re:I've got an easier way to silence speech!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a debate. Do you know what a debate is? You are being hypocritical. You want free speech or you don't. The only thing that appalls me is that if the top comment on that video is true, the president of University of West Georgia says that there are exceptions for sanctioned debates. Exceptions? For *sanctioned* debates!? God bless Amerikka, comrade.

Re:I've got an easier way to silence speech!

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill yourself.

Re:I've got an easier way to silence speech!

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you are saying is the white guy has a right to live but the black guy doesn't. This was his argument. The white guy was saying that just being white gives you the right to live. As an Indian this line of thinking by the white guy is what damn near killed us to extinction. Maybe he was talking too fast for your slow ears but he has a point. ALL humans no matter what color have a right to life.

Remember this if you come for my life. I will take your first if I have a chance.
Indians do shoot back.

Re:I've got an easier way to silence speech!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a debate.

Bullshit. If video appeared of a white student of a major educational institution demanding black people "justify black life" the whole establishment from the president on down would collectively shit itself and crush everyone involved with a ban hammer. There is no "free" speech here. This is sanctioned hate.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

He made a deal in iran. Obama is financing terrorism.

I'm chilled

[wcrowe]

I was just having a conversation about this the other night with some friends. I said, "That's why I don't comment about a lot of stuff. It may be that one day all of those tweets and facebook comments will get sifted through, and someone may decide all you guys need to be in concentration camps." I was half-way joking... but only half-way. It certainly is chilling.

It's not just mass surveillance, however. Social media being what it is, everyone is one bad joke away from becoming the pariah du jour, losing their job, and having their entire life ruined.

Re:I'm chilled

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, it takes some serious work to try and stay anonymous on the pipes..

Re:I'm chilled

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is it'll be a descendant of the machine that beat that guy in Go 4 of 5 games last weekend that does the siftin' and dedicin'.

Re:I'm chilled

[Nutria]

All during the NSA slurp years, millions of idiots said the most hateful things about W, and moaned that they might get thrown in Gitmo.

Shockingly, none are.

Re:I'm chilled

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's how it's chilling, and has been chilling for a long time: I only post where I can comment either without logging in or where there are accounts on BugMeNot. Both are getting quite rare. Hello Slashdot, though. If Slashdot ever starts requiring logins, I'm out of here. I used to post to Usenet, with my real name even. But then came DejaNews and altered the deal: What was previously a transient form of communication, with at most personal archives, became a public archive of statements, indexed to be found and scrutinized forever. You can probably guess how many social network accounts I have. The lack of private and transient online communication is a real problem.

Re:I'm chilled

[Anonymous Coward]

This may shock you, but most of these people have vanished!

Re:I'm chilled

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just having a conversation about this the other night with some friends. I said, "That's why I don't comment about a lot of stuff. It may be that one day all of those tweets and facebook comments will get sifted through, and someone may decide all you guys need to be in concentration camps." I was half-way joking... but only half-way. It certainly is chilling.

It's not just mass surveillance, however. Social media being what it is, everyone is one bad joke away from becoming the pariah du jour, losing their job, and having their entire life ruined.

I'm going to say surveillance isn't really your problem there, it might be the hyperbolical concentration camps. If you're on the wrong side of whoever runs said camps, it's not the Internet that's going to fuck you, but friends and family under pressure, anyone you ever pissed off, random jokers on the Internet making shit up.

Re:I'm chilled

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you know?

Re:I'm chilled

[Anonymous Coward]

Social media *is* mass surveillance. That's the whole problem with it. If Facebook respected my privacy as much as the local strip bar, we'd be set.

Moderators Are Stifling Dissent

[Anonymous Coward]

Dissent online is very, very much alive. Go to the comments section of any website and you will see loud, proud, sometimes articulate, occasionally constructive, and frequently genuinely angry dissent and dissatisfaction with the status quo and especially the bullshit peddled by those running it.

Most of it is periodically scrubbed, censored, banned and shadowbanned by increasingly ideological moderators on media and "social media" websites up and down the internet.

The internet should eb a forum for free discussion, but instead we have a class, a new social class of moderators, community managers, and media manipulators whose function is to turn the internet into a giant propaganda machine.

Note that this function is independent, but not exclusive of the function of other groups to turn the internet into a panopticon. But the critical distinction here is that you can spy and snoop all you want, but if you want to shut people up who really want to speak their mind, you must have muscle and manpower in the right locations to shut them down by fiat.

Call them "socialists", "terrorists", "trolls", "misogynists", "islamists", "bigots" or "radicals". The name doesn't matter; the result is just to shut down free assembly of any kind on this increasingly disillusioning network. "Moderation", or what has come to pass for it, is the real silencing force on today's web.

Re:Moderators Are Stifling Dissent

[Anonymous Coward]

"Moderation", or what has come to pass for it, is the real silencing force on today's web.

Mod this guy down!

I kid. I kid.

Re:Moderators Are Stifling Dissent

[Locke2005]

There still appears to be an assumption of anonymity in many online forums. Which is actually a rather false assumption. In fact, Mr. anonymous coward, I know exactly who you are!

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary is a demon from third hell. She will make the U.S. serve the FALLEN ANGEL.

Protecting Democracy, or Breaking it Down?

[surfdaddy]

Under the guise of protecting the U.S., I'm sure plenty of well-intention ed people are serving their roles in NSA, FBI, Congress, etc. that in the short run are trying to protect, but in the long run are undermining our values. This is very dangerous and troubling for our future.

Re:Protecting Democracy, or Breaking it Down?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I agree. Did I just get on a list?

For that matter, I regularly go through what the Constitutional protections are, and why, and how a need for emergency powers has been the downfall of the few historical democracies. Does that get me on a list?

Finally, unspoken is what happens when, not if, someone hacks the NSA and out comes tumbling everyone's emails and phone "metadata" (and conversations, as some suspect), and browser histories?

Re:Protecting Democracy, or Breaking it Down?

[Anonymous Coward]

"but in the long run are undermining our values."

"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."

Trilateral commission crisis of democracy pdf

Crisis of democracy - pdf

Book

Crisis of democracy

Re:Protecting Democracy, or Breaking it Down?

[KGIII]

I am trying to come up with a pithy and simple way to say; The boot is stomped with the greatest zeal by those who believe they're doing the right thing.

I guess, that's as close to concise as I can make it and it shouldn't need much elaboration or expansion - everyone should be able to agree and there are many instances in history of this being demonstrated as true. Do you think the NAZI party members believed they were doing bad things?

So, there's the above. I'm not usually all that concise, I do not articulate things well, and I'm very verbose. Thanks for giving me the motivation to ponder that. I'd like to think it says what I need it to say. It'll get used in the future, thanks.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the kind of thinking we need.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

In the old days, we shot the islamists with bullets that were covered in pig blood, and left one of them alive to tell the others. For thirty years we never heard of any islamic terrorism.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

GNAA is a great organization. They are great people. Their leaders are smarter than slashdot leaders.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

They are HIS slaves. They serve him well.

I think it's the fear of future career-kills

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> widespread awareness of mass surveillance could undermine democracy by making citizens fearful of voicing dissenting opinions in public

That's part of it, but the bigger part is that many people see how something stupid or controversial someone says now could bite them in the ass twenty years from now. That exact thing is playing out now with a state supreme court justice in Wisconsin (http://www.jsonline.com/news/rebecca-bradley-called-gays-queers-who-opted-to-kill-themselves-b99682686z1-371276861.html), but I think it will probably be 10x bigger in ten years when even more people's careers or positions in their communities get torpedoed by drunk/ignorant comments they put on Facebook before they grew up.

That plays out into political speech too - I'd say MOST people are afraid to sign their name to their beliefs today, not because they don't want to be challenged, but because someone could try to nuke them for speaking their mind down the road. (e.g., http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/mozilla-ceo-resignation-free-speech/7328759/ or http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisonsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french)

FWIW, it's also part of the reason for Trump's popularity - I think a lot of his supporters remember a time when you could speak your mind without getting fired/sued/ruined because someone thought you were "microaggressing" or not supporting the right cause at the right time, and they identify with him as a politically incorrect old schooler.

Re:I think it's the fear of future career-kills

[Anonymous Coward]

YOURE FIRED!

Re:I think it's the fear of future career-kills

[Anonymous Coward]

The Wisconsin thing is a flaming pile of bullshit, and Scott Walker threw more bullshit on top when he signed into law a provision to forbid the cops from using these raids to attack politicians (the rest of us? Everyone who isn't Scott Walker is fucked, thanks to Republican Scott Walker and his Republican Cop Cronies in the WI Congress changing the laws for themselves only).

It's proof that the police state is coming and both the Republicans and the Democrats can't wait for it to get here.

Re:I think it's the fear of future career-kills

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> signed into law a provision to forbid the cops from using these raids to attack politicians
>> police state is coming and both the Republicans and the Democrats can't wait for it to get here

Well...which is it? In Wisconsin, you had a Democrat district attorney try to punish Republican political supporters for legally supporting Republicans in a political arena. (Fortunately courts at multiple levels essentially said the DA was on a rouge witchhunt but stopped short of tossing him in jail.) That's a chilling police state if there ever was one: support the wrong party and go to jail, lose your house, and pay tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees.

In response, the state passed a bunch of reforms, one of which is that if you're going to investigate a political crime (e.g., misuse of funds), you have to use a normal criminal process, not a secret (called "John Doe" in Wisconsin) multi-year process in which one prosecutor can (and without judicial supervision) seize the records and property of anyone he/she wants without ever specifying what crime he/she is trying to prove.

>> Republican Scott Walker and his Republican Cop Cronies in the WI Congress changing the laws for themselves only

The reforms don't just benefit Republicans operating in Democrat-controlled counties, they also return the rule of law to Republican-controlled counties. In other words, a right-wing DA in upstate county X can no longer start an open-ended "John Doe" investigation to hassle the peace protesters his buddies hate to see at the Memorial Day parade. (If you're for open government and an open court system, you should be FOR Walker's reforms.)

Re:I think it's the fear of future career-kills

[Anonymous Coward]

Well...which is it?

Both of them are true, for all of us that aren't sucking the shit from the political elite. Don't worry, as long as you're politically connected Scott Walker has you covered. Now, kneel down and accept Walker's blessing.

if you're going to investigate a political crime you have to use a normal criminal process, not a secret multi-year process in which one prosecutor can seize the records and property of anyone he/she wants without ever specifying what crime he/she is trying to prove.

Once again, if you're not a crony, you get to experience the secret multi-year process where the prosecutor can seize your records and property without ever specifying a crime.

they also return the rule of law to Republican-controlled counties

Secret multi-year processes where the prosecutor can seize your records and property without ever specifying a crime is not "rule of law". This is straight up rule of cop, aka police state, but of course the Republicans and Democrats are OK with that as long as the politically connected are above the law. Hey, you got a little something hanging from your lip there, you better clean up those leftovers. Scott Walker hates sloppy seconds.

Re:I think it's the fear of future career-kills

[ADRA]

Its hard to ridicule well reasoned opinions. If your opinion is well constructed and rationally based (even though wrong), its a lot harder poke holes into than saying "Gay people don't deserve marriage" or "Gay people are the best employees have", etc..

Life lesson: Say dumb things and they'll come back at you. Say well reasoned wrong things and you could still get bashed for it, but at least its a more simple conversation than defending 'fags are bad, k!'

PS: The only time I've ever heard words Microaggression and SJW are Slashdot and South Park. Is this really a 'thing' or is it a strawman for some perceived attack on one's own personal biases (which may be considered un-PC in today's climate)? Is this really in the public sphere in common parlance?

Re:I think it's the fear of future career-kills

[drew_kime]

tl;dr

Got a link to a shorter version of what's happening in Wisconsin?

Re:I think it's the fear of future career-kills

[KGIII]

> http://www.nationalreview.com/...

I'd wondered what the fallout would be. I had no idea. "HOLY SHIT" does not cover my thoughts well enough. I'd been a bit curious as to what was going to happen to the people involved but that never showed up in any of the media that I follow so I mostly forgot about it. I figured that they had to have pissed some people off - especially at the national level and at the level where powerful people sit.

I have not yet looked into it further to see who sent down the orders to do those things. People often wonder why I hold the US' political left, and their adherents, to high standards. At first blush, this would be a good example of why I do so. I've not yet spent the time to look deeper (I will) to see if it's a confirmation of my expectations. I am less than impressed - disgust is the word I'm looking for but that only begins to describe it.

Ah well... I'm awake now. Fortunately, I've been awake since about 0300 and have already had my bucket of coffee.

Re:I think it's the fear of future career-kills

[Anonymous Coward]

TL;DR: Republicans created a law that said that prosecutors can use raids to investigate and seize shit from people in secret (they were instructed they cannot even speak to a lawyer about it) without having to have any charges at all. A Democratic DA used the law exactly as written to investigate and seize shit from Scott Walker's supporters. The Republicans said "whoa whoa whoa this is SO terrible! So terrible, we must immediately repeal this law!" so they did, by amending it so it can't be used against politicians. After all, they can't allow the police state to be used against themselves.

Re:I think it's the fear of future career-kills

[Anonymous Coward]

The fallout was that the Republicans amended the John Doe investigation law so it cannot be used against politicians.

You a politician? No? Then you's little people, and little people still get the police state. Both Republicans and Democrats alike rejoiced.

Re:I think it's the fear of future career-kills

[KGIII]

It looks like your response is slightly biased. I'm not entirely sure if it's accurate. From what I'm seeing, the law (can) protect anyone - not specifically just politicians. You wouldn't actually have some sort of citation for that? I'm pretty good at parsing legalese. I've had quite a bit of experience at it.

Of course, that may not be how the law is being used... However, from my reading, it should appear to work for citizens and politicians alike - though politicians are citizens. However, I'm not so sure that the law, itself, is misguided or that the intent, or letter of it, is specifically limiting the protections to politicians. However, I've only read interpretations of it - I've not yet found the actual law. I've only read about a half-dozen other articles now. I have not yet found the text of the law. Do you have a text copy of the bill handy? I can probably find it but it's easier if you've just got a copy.

Disclosure: I am running for State Senate. I am not yet a politician. I have been elected in the past but only for a school board. I do not have political aspirations beyond the Senate and I will accept the office only once. I am almost certainly not going to be your politician. My home is nowhere near that part of the country.

Re:I think it's the fear of future career-kills

[drew_kime]

Ah. That's not quite how it sounded in the long link.

Re:I think it's the fear of future career-kills

[Anonymous Coward]

the DA was on a rouge witchhunt

A rouge witchhunt? Did you mean: communist hunt?

This seems like willful ignorance

[Etcetera]

"[T]he government's online surveillance programs may threaten the disclosure of minority views and contribute to the reinforcement of majority opinion." The NSA's "ability to surreptitiously monitor the online activities of U.S. citizens may make online opinion climates especially chilly" and "can contribute to the silencing of minority views that provide the bedrock of democratic discourse," the researcher found.

Sure, but I'd wager that hyper-sensitivity towards minority viewpoints is FAR more affected by the social effect of "political correctness" rather than than literal "political correctness" from a government body as an independent entity (unless the government is responding to specific social pressures, which is then a failure of 1st Amendment enforcement).

If you're plotting to overthrow the government, then yes there's a "chilling effect" if you know the FBI is listening in. That's debatably/arguably a good thing. If you have a mere "minority opinion" and you're hoping to engage in democratic discourse you have far more to fear from SJWs.

Hell, Proposition 8 was a majority opinion in 2008 and Brendan Eich still got fired for it.

Re:This seems like willful ignorance

[WillAffleckUW]

Um, old guy, what you call "minority" opinions are actually the majority in the West.

Wake up, it's 2016 not 1916.

Re:This seems like willful ignorance

[Triklyn]

you forget, majority POLITICAL opinion.

obviously the kind of opinion that needs the least protections.

Re:This seems like willful ignorance

[Triklyn]

just because it's the loudest, doesn't mean it's the most popular.

Re:This seems like willful ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent, now that you are blaming women and minorities (or SJWs as you call them) for being oppressive, the people who have all the money, power and connections are free to actually oppress you as they always have.

How fortunate for those in power that the people are so stupid.

Re:This seems like willful ignorance

[whoever57]

Hell, Proposition 8 was a majority opinion in 2008 and Brendan Eich still got fired for it.

Probably because people realized (belatedly) that it was a terrible, bigoted opinion. I think that, quite soon after the Prop 8 vote, opinions in CA changed such that the proposition would have failed.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

In the whole world, they celebrated when obama became president. Because he betrays our holy nation, and he betrays GOD.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald Trump?

This is how revolutions start

[WillAffleckUW]

Just saying.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Re:This is how revolutions start

[wyHunter]

Sure. This is a nation where people get prostrate if they can't get on facebook for 10 minutes.

Re:This is how revolutions start

[currently_awake]

Governments don't spend money without cause. Yes pork and pet projects are cause, but when the current government carries on the project of the former one you know it's an important cause. We need to find out why the government is afraid of us.

Re:This is how revolutions start

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? REALLY?? I'm so sick of hearing this garbage from 2nd amendment gun nuts.

They've been fighting for years IN CASE the government needs to be taken down. Then when the government starts exhibiting behavior the founding fathers would be appalled by, and clearly NEEDS to be taken down... ...then all I hear is crickets chirping from the militia camp. I'm waiting on your revolution. Any time now. Go ahead..

I'm WAITING.....

Re:This is how revolutions start

[Anonymous Coward]

A man won't fight until he's hungry, or his life is threatened. We're not at that point yet.

Re:This is how revolutions start

[WillAffleckUW]

I'm not into either or those things. You're making assumptions.

Re:This is how revolutions start

[KGIII]

The government should be afraid of the citizenry, not the other way around. If they are afraid then that is just, that is how it should be. I doubt that they are afraid of us, yet. I suspect they worry about losing control but that they're not afraid at this time. This sort of stuff is precautionary, not reactionary. If all were well in the world, the government would be afraid of us and would act accordingly.

Re:This is how revolutions start

[KGIII]

If we are, as you say, the point where the government "clearly needs to be taken down" then why are you not doing so with you and your like-minded people?

What you have there is a non-sequitur. Your belief of when it needs to be taken down does not match the majority opinion. The militia you decry seems to have more intelligence than you do. If, as you claim, it were time to be taken down then you'd clearly be doing so. I notice that you're not.

The rest of us speak out, work in peaceful ways, and will rely on a firearm as the last choice. A firearm is a tool. It is not yet time to use one. When it is time to use one, in my views, then I will use one. I am disgusted but I am not without hope. When I am without hope, I will resort to a firearm. Until then, I will use all lawful means to accomplish my goals.

Your presumptions are based on stupid things and things you've assumed as opposed to actually heard. You argue against a strawman, you argue against a caricature. You feel just for you have beaten that which doesn't exist. You're a coward and a hypocrite. If, as you describe, it's clearly needed then you'd be doing it. Yet, here you sit...

I should also add, it is not when you feel it is clearly needed. It is when we feel it is clearly needed. Why you'd think you have any other option is beyond me. Why you think your opinion matters is beyond me. You, and what you think is clear, is of no importance to anyone but you and those you can convince to feel the same. You're lazy, a coward, and are far more egotistical than you rate.

And no, no I do not belong to any militia but I am an armed US citizen with a history of serving my country. In short, there's your lesson and you are dismissed.

Re:This is how revolutions start

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? REALLY?? I'm so sick of hearing this garbage from 2nd amendment gun nuts.

They've been fighting for years IN CASE the government needs to be taken down. Then when the government starts exhibiting behavior the founding fathers would be appalled by, and clearly NEEDS to be taken down... ...then all I hear is crickets chirping from the militia camp. I'm waiting on your revolution. Any time now. Go ahead..

I'm WAITING.....

This is why you shouldn't smoke weed, mr dumbass liberal.

Without your crimes on record, you could buy your OWN gun and decide when and why the revolution comes.

As it is, you are going to remain the pawn of someone else.

Re:This is how revolutions start

[butzwonker]

You guys are a bunch of idiots who will be obliterated by tanks and heavy artillery in two hours if you ever start to fight. But you won't, so there is no need to worry. Go hide in the bushes with your 'bag out bag'.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

He is chosen by JESUS to build a holy TEMPLE OF GOD out of the US.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

In this sacred temple we will survive the second flood to cleanse the world from sinners.

Awful

[frovingslosh]

That's Awful. This country (at least in recent years) has been built on giving the the whinny 3-5% everything that they cry about. It has made this country what it is now.

Re:Awful

[JustNiz]

Not really. I think what has made America worse in recent years is the phenomenon of most Americans to vote tactically. By which I mean, they vote against the people/party they dont want, instead of voting for the policies they actually do want, regardless of person or party.
If you just vote for the thing that is most against the things you definitely don't want, no wonder you're gonna get a mess.

Re:Awful

[david_thornley]

So what should I do? In cases where I dislike both candidates, I can either try to avoid the greater of two evils or make a political statement, not both. I've been voting against people probably longer than you've been alive.

What I want to see is some sort of ranked-choice voting across the country. We have it in Minneapolis now, although the process to get on the ballot needs some fine-tuning. It was great in the last mayoral election: I voted for ones I really liked on my first two choices, then the one I liked most who had a good chance to be elected on my third, meaning that I avoided the greater of two evils and made a political statement.

Re:Awful

[whoever57]

So what should I do? In cases where I dislike both candidates

Vote for the candidate you like. Who know, there might be a majority of people who would prefer that candidate, but they are all afraid to vote for him/her. If they see enough other people vote for that candidate, they may well decide to do so in subsequent elections.

Also, you are sending a signal that you prefer a certain political position. Over time, if enough people send the same signal, then the center of politics moves that way. Look at how the Koch brothers, the Bechtel descendents and their friends have been successful in moving the center of politics to the right. Most democratic politicians in the US would not be recognized as left-wing in most of the developed world.

Re:Awful

[KGIII]

You're mistaking that 3-5% as actual dissent. Nah, their dissent is generally with their fellow citizens. If they were giving small percentages attention and kowtowing to them then the privacy advocates would like to have a word. The intellectually capable would like to have a word. The people with advanced degrees would like to have a word. The well-reasoned and logical would like to have a word. The advocates for liberty would like to have a word. The list goes on...

Re:Awful

[KGIII]

So what should I do? ... ... I've been voting against people probably longer than you've been alive.

And how's that working out for you?

You're almost there... A few more pushes and I'll have turned you to the dark side! MUAHAHAH!!!

Re:Awful

[JustNiz]

>> In cases where I dislike both candidates,

There's your problem right there. There actually are more voting options than just Democrat or Republican. You need to vote for what you actually believe in, regardless of its low chance of winning just because its a minority. Perhaps the whole reason it is a minority is because people like you are tactically voting. If there's really no option for you then not voting at all is better than giving your vote to the least worst.

YEAAH

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK that shit. And your fucking control-everything programming that... ain't so bad... I see why it's necessary... I love my country... yeah fuck that shit... maybe trump ain't so bad...

Nice

[Ted Stoner]

The article was nice.

Re:Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

If I don't survive, tell my wife, "hello".

Re:Nice

[KGIII]

Alright... You're an asshole. I mean that in a good way.

So, I'm in Florida for the winter and my neighbor has some really good weed. I got up at 0300 and I just smoked - it's about 0530.

I then read your post... I'm halfway convinced it's a brilliant post that's insightful and demonstrating the decried problems from the article (which, of course, I didn't read but surmised from the comments).

But then, you could just be a script... Or, alternatively, you're a fucking idiot. The last one is actually unlikely. Deduction says you're not a script and not an idiot. Yet, I don't recollect your name so it's unlikely that you've posted a bunch of stupid things - or I'd have noticed. I'd have likely noticed a bunch of smart things and noted your name - I'm also not going to go dredging through your comment history.

That leaves brilliant, insightful, and spot-on. It leaves articulate, witty, high-brow, and concise.

It's that or you're an idiot...

I'm going to operate under the assumption that you're brilliant and the display of subject matter is top-notch intellect, cutting and to the point, and risk opining my agreement and signaling my appreciation.

Thanks for that. Asshole. ;-)

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary will lead the USA into devil's claws. Donald Trump will deliver us from the evil of the Democratic party. He is the chosen one.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate change is only the beginning. If you fight climate change, YOU ARE FIGHTING GOD.

The terrorists (US Gov + affiliates) win

[Anonymous Coward]

All thanks to your lack of courage to stand up to your rights.. Congrats! You earned it!

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

GOD will punish mankind. And with a democrat as president, he will punish the once holy nation as well.

Just what [redacted] was [redacted]

[gachunt]

Exactly.

[redacted] needs to understand that [redacted] and [redacted] are threatening our [redacted].

These are sobering findings.

Without the use of [redacted] and [redacted] to [redacted] for the [redacted] of [redacted], then [redacted] is certainly [redacted] to [redacted].

Re:Just what [redacted] was [redacted]

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to have a hilarious T-shirt during the GWB presidency that was a faux DoD memo with every word blacked out except sparse words that said "[redacted] The [redacted] troops [redacted] are [redacted] having [redacted] a [redacted] blast [redacted] here [redacted]". LOL

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

We are all doomed if Hillary becomes president. Doomed we are.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump will be a great president.

Only on reddit

[Anonymous Coward]

They haven't silenced anything on voat.co yet.

Maybe needs to be

[JimSadler]

There are numerous sites on the net where people try to rally others to be violent or to revolt against the government. Sedition really is a crime. Maybe it is not so bad to have some of these folks get their chains yanked a bit now and then.

Re:Maybe needs to be

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet their right to peacefully gather should not be infringed. If they actually decide to march on Washington, assuming they can even find it after a couple beers, I'm sure the appropriate authorities will be well-forewarned due to the public nature of their assembly. And if all they're doing is blustering and venting, then doing it online is a lot healthier than a lot of other ways they could act out.

Re:Maybe needs to be

[KGIII]

> Sedition really is a crime.

Should it be?

Re:Maybe needs to be

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguably, yes. In the same way that murder is a crime.

Whether acts should be considered sedition is another matter.

Re:Maybe needs to be

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you don't believe in free speech.

Re:Maybe needs to be

[KGIII]

I've been thinking about it since I posted it. Another AC responded as well. I'll just reply to one of you and hopefully they'll see it.

With a few things, there's something called an "Affirmative Defense." It's basically, "I did it, and it was just." Assuming the motives where just and the government's behavior sufficiently egregious then is a coup really not the right course of action? Is not advocating and/or acting against tyranny the proper choice?

Then again, perhaps that we're even discussing this means that this study's conclusion is flawed. I don't know? I've never once felt compelled to curb my speech for the purpose of impressing or because of fear of repercussions. I'm unlikely to change that.

I Work for a Bank and Watch What I Say

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a big bank with horses and stagecoaches and my band played at an Occupy event. I also spent several days at the local Occupy site and contributed.

So, you figure out why I post as an AC.

Re:I Work for a Bank and Watch What I Say

[Locke2005]

Because all the Wells Fargo Bank employees I know are gay? (Ok, I don't know very many Well Fargo Bank employees...)

Re:I Work for a Bank and Watch What I Say

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, you figure out why I post as an AC."

Because you vastly over estimate your importance to other people?

Rock solid argument.

[westlake]

I appreciate the taste of paranoia as much as anyone.
Less so when it is salted with too many words like "could" and "may."

widespread awareness of mass surveillance could undermine democracy by making citizens fearful of voicing dissenting opinions in public.
the government's online surveillance programs may threaten the disclosure of minority views and contribute to the reinforcement of majority opinion
The NSA's ability to surreptitiously monitor the online activities of U.S. citizens may make online opinion climates especially chilly

It struck me that if minority views are not disclosed they --- for all practical purposes --- do not exist. The majority holds the floor uncontested. It also struck me that the kind of group think that prevails in many online forums makes the NSA quite irrelevant.

Its true even on slashdot

[JustNiz]

I find it very depressing that even here on Slashdot where the readership is apparently meant to be more "deep thinking" than the average, if you post anything that questions current mainstream thinking, no matter how polite, rational, justifiable and sincere your post is, you will inevitably incur the obligatory crop of -1 troll moderations.

If you are one of those people that moderates rational, polite posts as "-1 Troll" just because it is making a point that is contrary to your own beliefs, you need to realize what you are actually saying about yourself.

Re:Its true even on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

A popular trolling tactic is to disagree with someone in as plausible a way as possible. After dealing with that for a while, people get to a point where they can't take anyone who disagrees with them seriously. So they conclude that anyone who disagrees is doing so insincerely. The result is that they merely become part of the problem. It's bad enough that trolls waste people's time with bullshit insincere arguments, but at least when people respond to that bullshit, the response will have some educational value. However, when sincere arguments are moderated down, it's a total loss.

That's why a lot of subreddits don't have negative moderation, but instead rely on shit posts merely not receiving any up-votes.

As far as Slashdot being a "deep thinking" web site goes, I think the bigger problem is that Slashdot's moderation system heavily favors the first posts to appear in response to a new story by exposing them to more potential moderators than posts which appear later. The result of this is that the highest-rated posts are rarely new ideas, but rather, just old and obvious ideas quickly typed up in response to a new story. New and original thinking requires time to be written, and since it appears later, is at a severe disadvantage when it comes to being seen by potential moderators. Essentially every moderation system on the internet is like this since none of them present posts to moderators in random order, but Slashdot is particularly bad about it since, after 100 comments are posted, one must click "load all comments" in order to load the lower-rated comments into the page at all, which means that those lower-rated comments are rarely seen and thus unlikely to receive any positive moderation no matter how enlightened they may be.

The result of this is that we end up mostly just reading comments from those who know how to game the system well: For every new story that appears, quickly post any response that many people are likely to agree with, so that as the first moderators read the story, they have only your own post and perhaps 20 others to choose between when deciding what to positively moderate, and so you'll almost certainly receive some points. If you're late to the game, post in response to an existing highly-rated comment since the replies to that comment are more likely to be read. If there are already more than 100 comments posted to the story, then don't waste your time, but instead just post in response to the next story. Eventually you'll earn karma because Slashdot has learned that people enjoy your comments, even if it's more just because they see them than it is because you write particularly good comments. I mean, a fucking lot of people write worthwhile comments, but only some people get instant +5 karma, and that's how they do it, whether that's by choice or by simple accident of having nothing better to do than browse Slashdot all day and always thinking they know everything and thus never bothering to read the story before commenting.

The way to solve this would be to track what posts moderators are seeing by presenting them one at a time, and choosing which post to present to the next moderator by sort of which post has been viewed by the fewest moderators. Then those who aren't moderating would actually be shown the best posts.

Re:Its true even on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep slashdot went to shit a long time ago with the internet becoming no more then TV. Internet commenters = former influx of TV audience on all websites.

Re:Its true even on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I read at -1. Don't get too discouraged. This site is large enough that it's host to several massive shill armies.

Re:Its true even on slashdot

[dargaud]

Too bad I don't have mod points right now, but that's an excellent analysis. I believe /. comment system to be the best on the internet, but it sure can be improved.

Re:Its true even on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always tell who the kids are by whether or not they pay any attention to moderation/scores/karma whatever.

Only kids and the equally immature selectively read posts with particular scores. Karma is just another version of "Like".

Adults expand all and browse all and completely disregard popularity indexes.

Re:Its true even on slashdot

[Shortguy881]

Whoa, calm down there buddy. Violent outbursts like that will get you modded down...

Re:Its true even on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I don't have a slashdot id. I signed up for one back in the 90's, but by my 3rd post, I already noticed that I was being attacked for my views in the first 2 posts. They replied to my 3rd post, which was about a completely different topic, and attacked my character, based on their ASSUMPTION of what my beliefs were based on how they mis-read the first 2 posts. So the actual topic and content of the 3rd post (which I felt was far more insightful than the first 2, I put more work into it), was completely ignored and rendered off-topic by their trolling. It happened so quickly (3rd post in a weeks time), that I can't imagine it isn't always like that.

LOL at "minority views"...

[Anonymous Coward]

MOST white people want to live in all white countries. Why wouldn't we? Because the JEWISH media said otherwise? You cannot be serious.

on second thought

[AntEater]

...nevermind.

comrades

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody knows there is no surveillance on the net. Everything's great and secure! There is lots of innovation and stuff! Every browser is completely invulnerable! The toolchains for software and worse (hardware), are not made out of shit and held together with bugs, i swear! And even if a random 8 year old can own your hardware, if he signs the right NDA's , it doesn't matter. There's no evidence of any wrongdoing. Woo-wie, SAFE and CONFIDENTIAL. Incidentally, i'm also Queen Of England.

There's 2 sides to that

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically without the Mass Surveillance you will have relatively small groups repeating things under different identities to enlarge their opinion.

That's fundamentally just as bad as open-ness being the problem, out of fear.

If everything is open then what is there to fear? Wouldn't everything be traceable and true fault be provable regardless of how minuscule the problem was?

I mean let's assume everyone's worried about Politician X using his power to shut off electricity at people's homes (just an example). Now if there was true transparency, then wouldn't you just be able to watch a video of what Politician X had been doing for the last 24 hours? That should at least be a requirement for public office.

If that's the case then there are no worries, if there's transparency with black holes then of course it won't work.

So I understand the fight for hiding things, but in reality if you are going to fight you should fight to open everything.

Re:There's 2 sides to that

[Locke2005]

Make all politicians carry bodycams 24/7? That's sounds like a great idea, especially when you consider the fact that politicians always know where the best strip clubs are!

Law Enforcement

[Kennon]

There are private companies already keeping tabs on things you say, tying that to your credit score, creating profiles for you and figuring out your real identity, mapping that to your physical address and then calculating your "threat score" then selling that information to law enforcement. This is so much more invasive and complete than your future employer browsing your twitter or facebook posts. Here is a WaPo article detailing one such system actively in use today. http://wapo.st/1TOtLhC Everyone crying conspiracy/tin foil beanie is only enabling this tech to proliferate. A couple years ago people who knew about Stingray were called paranoid...a couple years before Snowden people who pointed out the NSA's abuse of power were too. At this point I am pretty sure the denial is a self defense mechanism because the reality is too scary for most people to accept.

Re:Law Enforcement

[Locke2005]

And those companies started sending me massive amounts of advertising for newborn baby products, when my wife had already had a hysterectomy and my daughter was 12, leaving me wondering, "Do these marketing geniuses know something I don't?" I had to go ask my wife and daughter, "Is there something you're not telling me?" Nope, turns out sometimes these "private companies keeping tabs on things" are completely clueless! Of course, it doesn't help that I keep trying to deluge them with false data at every opportunity. Yes, I am a 90 year old pregnant black woman, honest!

Facebook and Twitter

[wisnoskij]

Facebook, Twitter and your friends are a million times more guilty of this than any government agency. Technology and culture destroyed privacy and free speech well before the government was given half a chance.

Re:Facebook and Twitter

[Hartree]

This. A thousand time, this.

I just don't say much on Facebook anymore.

A friend was talking about how a Wisconsin company was dumping phosphorus into a river. As I work in a chemistry department, I mentioned that it was phosphate, not pure phosphorus and that it also comes from agricultural fertilizer runoff. Boy was that a mistake. It turned out that the company was owned or affiliated with the Koch brothers and he came back at me on a tear, saying that I was an apologist for them and all the other ills of the world.

I finally got him to understand I was making a technical point and wasn't defending pollution, but I thought he was going to unfriend me over it and take it into our RL friendship. Generally he's a reasonable guy, but this was a button issue for him.

After that, I don't give out technical info on Facebook anymore unless I'm certain it won't result in flame wars, or it's someone I specifically want to be angry with me (neo-Nazis, anti-vaxers, etc.)

Not at all surprising

[jenningsthecat]

All along I've just been assuming that mass surveillance "contribute(s) to the silencing of minority views" and "undermine(s) democracy", to the point where TFA is about the equivalent of the statement "water is wet". The question I struggle with is "did the authors of these policies and mechanisms foresee this outcome and purposely work towards it, or did they just get lucky"? Not that it much matters though, because the outcome is the same regardless; but it would be nice to know how clever and foresightful the enemy really is when the peasants finally do revolt.

You say that as if you think it's a BAD thing!

[Locke2005]

Personally, I've gotten pretty tired of listening to the rants of Malheur Wildlife Refuge Occupier supporters and even Racists for Trump online, and I wish they'd get a clue that government agencies are hoovering up all the crap they post online, and WILL use it to make a case against them should they ever piss off the wrong people. We need to remind people of their 5th Amendment rights: You have a right to remain silent, anything you say online can and will be used against you!

Re:You say that as if you think it's a BAD thing!

[ADRA]

Wow, one would assume that satire would be covered under the 1st amendment. Or is your impression that political free speech is going to be criminalized in the near future?

Quantitative

[Livius]

If the "minority" views are silenced, how can you be so sure they aren't actually in the majority?

Trolls

[Etherwalk]

Quite. "Expressing minority opinions" equals "trolling", in the modern parlance, and a lot of people quite seriously try to argue that should be illegal in its own right.

Not quite, no. Expressing insane ideas without recognizing any possibility that you might be wrong or willingness to engage in legitimate discussion, while going on for pages about why you are right in a way which totally misses the thread of argument is considered trolling if it ALSO is in not in approximate agreement with the majority opinion.

For example, if you insist vaccines cause autism but express willingness to be proven wrong and squarely address points raised to prove you wrong, you are not usually a troll. But if you insist you are right despite all of the evidence to the contrary and go on for dozens of posts, you are a troll.

Re:Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

So now you're going to mansplain "science" to us? Maybe give us some dumbed-down, overly simplistic overview of the 6-step "scientific method?"

A unicorn!

[tsotha]

On of the left's "chilling effect" canards is actually real?

Sigh...

[Locke2005]

So when Il Duce Trump gets into power, he's going to round up all the people like me who called him a moron online, and put them all in concentration camps? Yeah, that is pretty chilling...

it wont stop me from criticizing the govt

[FudRucker]

it might make them listen because even though i am hard with my opinion i am truthful,.

as we all know the government is just middle managers for the real power behind the throne which is the global banking cartel with the military-industrial-complex as the muscle enforcing the desires of the BIG monied elite, thats why i say it does not matter who gets elected president because the monied elite is not going to let a president and an election by a bunch of filthy unwashed peasants change the status-quo

How to become interesting

[AHuxley]

Buy a lot of books online with your CC, ip.
Libertarian philosophies, survivalist literature, self-sufficiency, economic collapse, book of Revelation, the ever expanding role of big government, civil liberties.
Mention ongoing whistleblower news and list the project names surrounding the NSA's tasking tools, correlation and selectors. MAINWAY, IRONMAN ect.
Read local news about any events, anti war protests, campaigns with a US foreign policy connection, public meetings. Local government having a public hearing or seeking public comments?
Turn up, ensure your cell phone is always on. Be seen around the area. Get out that old, larger DSLR camera. Before, after and during the event. Walk around the event with a cell phone, park your vehicle near the event and try to interact with anyone handing out event pamphlets. Wonder around so any surveillance teams can get a good image for facial recognition.
Ensure your cell phone is tracked around the area and your vehicle registration enters a database. A few new libertarian bumper stickers bought online with a CC is always useful to make your vehicle stand out to any level of gov.
Ensure any city or state task force reports you to the local Fusion center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for long term federal consideration.
When online try and use as many politically interesting search terms as possible everyday on the big brand search sites that collaborate so well with big gov. Fill any posts, blogs with political or keywords relating to emerging signals intelligence over the years.
Shape your own gov paperwork and help your state and federal workers create a vast digital dossier on your own terms.
Enjoy the later state or federal chatdown and post it to any good first amendment audit site.
Your federal and state gov has spent so much on its new workers and databases, why not participate and help create gov jobs.
Just enjoying the First amendment every weekend could ensure years of full employment for teams of private sector contractors watching you.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like there's any retaliation for dissent, and really, a lot of politicians could be accused of dissent when they trash the competition's stance

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

They are drowning people in cages. Trump will let Assad handle IS, he will get along with putin.

I thought he was going to build a wall around IS and make them pay for it?

Then nobody will have a job

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much

Not as per my experience

[gurps_npc]

My experience on the internet is that it is not currently an issue.

There are too many idiots ranting about their personal version of the tinfoil hat. Therefore, there has been no chilling effect on the internet.

but which points of view are chilled?

[cascadingstylesheet]

There are points of view that in 2016 can get you fired, get angry mobs outside your house, and so forth, but I'm not sure that they are the points of view that you think they are.

Re:but which points of view are chilled?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a number of people out there who think it's great that this can happen. Those people aren't wise enough to understand that once the pendulum swings the other way, it will be their views that are getting them harassed and fired.

And swing, the pendulum will. The current group of noise makers seems large, but they are in reality a small minority. The rest of the population is usually quiet on matters, but they are fed up with being told what to think by immature, inexperienced, whiny shriekers, and they will vote for a hard-right government as a means of ridding their nation of that nuisance.

This highlights the importance of anonymity

[Anonymous Coward]

widespread awareness of mass surveillance could undermine democracy by making citizens fearful of voicing dissenting opinions in public

Which makes it all the more important to allow anonymity.

Perhaps we should even be encouraging the use of anonymity whenever possible, so that anonymity becomes the new norm.

Chilling effect silencing dissent...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. That's kind of the fucking point.

Personally ...

[PPH]

... I welcome our voyeuristic overlords.

Sites which DO allow anonymous speech

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the biggest places online to comment anonymously is Reddit and Voat. Out of both of those places, the biggest alt-right or anti-SJW subs include:

www.reddit.com/r/european - News for Europe with an alt-right slant
www.reddit.com/r/northamerican - News for North America with an alt-right slant
www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald - Memes, humour and support for Trump.
voat.co/v/news - Voat's uncensored equivalent of Reddit's news or worldnews sub.

I have no affiliation to the above sites apart from being a user who comments occasionally. Worth a look if you value raw, non-compromised speech and worry what unfettered immigration is doing to the world.

You want "chilling"?

[anti-pop-frustration]

Ask any Arab-american or American Muslim how comfortable they feel about voicing any sort of political opinion online (even via private messaging).

This is our future.

Re:You want "chilling"?

[Contract Gypsy]

Ask any Arab-american or American Muslim how comfortable they feel about voicing any sort of political opinion online (even via private messaging). This is our future.

That's only half of the game, the other is hammering people on the news that put down Muslims, driven by the white house. What is their game, is it another case of dividing our nation, aka divide and conquer?

Omg

[easyTree]

One can only feel ordinary human empathy for the citizens of those countries which operate a democratic system.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Obama is cheering. He hates us and wants us to die. Wants us to die! It is the way of their kind.

So you killed democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats you did what China and Russia could not. Guess they knew all along all they had to do was wait.

It has already started...

[Anonymous Coward]

... In the UK "Boy, 15, is quizzed by anti-extremist police after deputy headteacher caught him looking up Ukip's website at school", it was the headmaster who "grassed" him to the anti-terror police. Instead of saying that it not school work he rings the police and is questioned about his beliefs!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3468162/Furious-father-reveals-son-15-quizzed-police-tracking-extremists-looked-UKip-s-website-school.html

Moderate it "realistic"

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be moderated "realistic" because silencing dissent isn't just a side effect of mass surveillance -- it's the first and foremost goal. How could it not be? After all, simple logic tells us that spying on the innocent makes no progress towards controlling the guilty.

Examples please

[joppeknol]

Do we have a clear example of someone who posted an perfect legal opinion and got into trouble with the government because of that. Snowden doesn't count. The issue with him is not his opinion but the leakage of confidential documents (whether you approve of his actions or not).

Not just mass surveillance,

[Anonymous Coward]

but SJWs as well. If you've got a minority opinion you can expect to be attacked for it by civilian vigilantes.

Simply false

[Anonymous Coward]

As evidence, I submit the everyone posting in Slashdot

Slashdot does this all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Say anything against Israel and their cruel treatment of Palestinians (for example) and Slashdot have and will censor.

Re:Obama is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot, hopefully you don't reproduce.

More cold fish from the govt?

[Contract Gypsy]

One if by land, two if by sea... they couldn't even figure that one out with a history book. Dissent online is a waste of time and it is becoming dangerous. Whatever you do don't join the NRA, talk about making yourself a target for the Government. The stingray is just the tip of the iceberg, I wonder what else Qcom is working on for the Govt?

Why I am Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes why I post without using my ID I have on here. You do have a point about employers. Not long ago I got invited to a security conference which the FBI was going to be talk at. Where I work was one of the sponsors. Work knows my opinion on things. Well my boss ask me not to say anything or ask any questions to the FBI if I went my questions might be too "upsetting" to the FBI. So I didn't go. So here is a case of an expert in the field of security silenced because of his views on the subject. My boss I know agrees with me on my opinions on surveillance and encryption but still I was told "not to rock the boat".

Welcome to Nazi Amerika home of free speech as long as to tow the party line.
Home of the free and the brave? Not any more.
We are a country full of pussies now.

capcha: outcast
Yea I guess that's me!