Slashdot Mirror


Mass Surveillance Silences Minority Opinions: Study

Reader sittingnut writes: According to a study by Elizabeth Stoycheff from Wayne State University -- which was also referred to in the Washington Post, "knowing one is subject to surveillance and accepting such surveillance as necessary, act as moderating agents in the relationship between one's perceived climate of opinion and willingness to voice opinions online." In other words, knowledge of government surveillance causes people to self-censor their dissenting opinions online. This study adds to the well-researched phenomenon known as "spiral of silence", of people suppressing unpopular opinions to fit in by explicitly examining how government surveillance affects self-censorship. Participants who claimed they don't break any laws and don't have anything to hide and tended to support mass surveillance as necessary for national security, were the most likely to silence their minority opinions.

266 comments

  1. Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So far mass surveillance had zero impact on silencing Anonymous Cowards.

    1. Re:Not on Slashdot... by msmash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Should have seen this coming :-)

    2. Re:Not on Slashdot... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt that. Even ACs are being logged, both by Slashdot (IP address) and by the NSA/GCHQ/Chinese etc. You can bet anything you post as AC ends up in your file at those agencies.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is a good thing. Anonymity is key to having a free society and anyone who is against it hates freedom.

    4. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You can bet anything you post as AC ends up in your file at those agencies.

      Slashdot never came up in my background interview for my security clearance at my government IT job. Then again, I don't post under my legal name. A Google search under my legal name shows that I fell off the Internet prior to the dot com bust in 2001. I haven't had any jobs in the last 15 years that made an issue out of my lack of presence on the Internet.

    5. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because they're still anonymous (on the surface at least), while the purpose of mass surveillance is to destroy anonymous speech.

      Back on topic, I do agree that mass spying has changed my outlook on communication. I generally no longer speak up in public, and if I do, I think long and hard about it first, and neutralize my words as much as possible.

      You want a world where the most imaginitive people are afraid to speak up? You got it. You want a world where the most imaginitive people shy away from reproduction? You got it.

    6. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor your holier than thou attitude

    7. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But mass surveillance has made a lot more people become Anonymous Cowards. Because once you start becoming very passionate online and talking about how you'd like to see certain people dead, you stop wanting to associate your name with your arguments for all eternity. I mean, think of how many times in the company of friends you may have, for a short burst, espoused very hyperbolic views calling for people to die? Without mass surveillance but merely mass indexing, you'd be wary of attaching your name to your posts for eternity. With mass surveillance, suddenly you have the government actively seeking out posts like yours and an interest in shaming you by using your posts to show a pattern of "unstable, mental" behavior for which if there weren't the mass surveillance they'd like never connect the dots that you are creimer.

      In short, not all of this self-censorship is due to mass surveillance. Part of it is due to the ready, immortal maintenance of your words in searchable indexes. Yet obviously the government "investigating" you as a threat is much more powerful than merely having a friend or a coworker figure out what one of your pseudonyms are online and potentially harassing you over it.

      PS - This also keys into Facebook/Google+'s "only real names" property.

      PPS - One could say one should never make such hateful speech that it'd never be an issue. But there are times when the future is uncertain and you make comparisons to certain Presidents to Hitler because the progression towards a dystopia seems well at hand that in retrospect was off the deep end...well hindsight is 20/20 and obviously people make mistakes. So as much as one has a right ot be forgotten, once you feel the cold hand of the NSA on your back you start to further push yourself to hide who you are and hence further mod down your own opinion.

      PPPS - tl;dr Being Anonymous Coward gives you less weight and so even here mass surveillance causing people to merely post as Anonymous Coward has had a chilling effect.

    8. Re:Not on Slashdot... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nevermind the NSA, I think slashdot's moderation system probably does a better job at suppressing minority opinions. Or at least, I've had a lot of posts of mine modded flamebait or trolling for i.e. being critical of Bernie Sanders, even though there was no trolling or flaming going on. Likewise I've avoided painting what is IMO a realistic picture of what a Sanders administration would look like (the Francois Hollande government in France) because I know it will just get buried.

    9. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, you honestly believe that they would tell you about all the data they have on you?

    10. Re:Not on Slashdot... by NotInHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The ability for pseudonyms is something really important I think for freely expressing your opinion, without the fear that some of your future bosses won't like something you said in some forum five years ago.

    11. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I generally no longer speak up in public, and if I do, I think long and hard about it first, and neutralize my words as much as possible.

      That's the definition of a politician.

    12. Re:Not on Slashdot... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      ACs will be typically classified as trolls with some personality disorder, and certainly as cowards, but not as a threat. So they should be pretty safe.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    13. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Then again, running open wi-fi and Tor are your best friends

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    14. Re:Not on Slashdot... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      ACs don't post because they're evading surveillance. They mainly post anonymously because that's how they get away with shitposting.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    15. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want a world where the most imaginitive people are afraid to speak up? You got it. You want a world where the most imaginitive people shy away from reproduction? You got it.

      Or perhaps the most illiterate in your case.

    16. Re:Not on Slashdot... by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But the trends online are all moving in the opposite direction, to making people attach their real names to comments - the sole purpose for which is to make retribution possible.

    17. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The fact that you believe a handle like "MobileTatsu-NJG" is any less anonymous or that all of your posts are somehow not complete shit is laughable.

    18. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as you know. Personally I censor a huge amount of content because I know they are watching... I wish I was joking

    19. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Nor your holier than thou attitude

      I may be an asshole, but I'm not Donald Trump. ;)

    20. Re:Not on Slashdot... by tinkerton · · Score: 2

      That's one serious argument in favor of anonymous cowards. And even one for doubly anonymous cowards, that are hard to track for those with 'access'.

    21. Re:Not on Slashdot... by magarity · · Score: 1

      You want a world where the most imaginitive people shy away from reproduction? You got it

      One can find a mate without taking a loud public stance on polarizing political issues.

    22. Re:Not on Slashdot... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      Or at least, I've had a lot of posts of mine modded flamebait or trolling for i.e. being critical of Bernie Sanders, even though there was no trolling or flaming going on.

      Did you back up your opinions with evidence? Or did you just expect that the Slashdot mods would agree with you and mod you up?

      I've expressed many opinions here over the years that were against what was clearly the "Slashdot consensus." When I do so, I make a reasoned argument and back it up with facts and often links to reputable sources so those facts can be verified. That's the way you break into a discussion and overturn a flawed consensus.

      Yes, sometimes my posts have been modded up and down in what seems to be a moderation war, but if I've provided an actual insightful and informative post with evidence, it rarely ends up modded down permanently. Maybe I've been downmodded less than 5% of the time that I've posted unpopular opinions -- and I'm willing to accept that all moderation systems are imperfect enough to have some failure rate like that.

      There may be ways to improve Slashdot's moderation system, but it seems to work a LOT better than most places on the internet in supporting minority voices, as long as they back up their ideas with rational arguments and verifiable facts.

    23. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      [...] the sole purpose for which is to make retribution possible.

      Uh, no. The sole purpose is to make people think twice about their comments. Nothing stops you from posting, "The president is a [church bells]!" (to paraphrase Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles). Do you really want the whole world to know that you — under your real name — are just another racist nut job? Probably not.

    24. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I meant was that I don't feel right about contributing another human being to this world, not only because he/she would be subject to this kind of injustice (and many, many others), but because he/she would ultimately end up aiding the continuous expansion of coercive authority, at the very least through individual productive capacity.

    25. Re:Not on Slashdot... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      But the trends online are all moving in the opposite direction, to making people attach their real names to comments - the sole purpose for which is to make retribution possible.

      No, that's not the sole purpose. It's true that one reason may be to have the ability to ban users who display aggressive or inappropriate behavior. From my perspective, that's an internet site's right -- just as I have the right to tell you to leave my home if you are a rude jerk to everyone else at a party.

      But another -- more nefarious -- reason is that attaching real names to you wherever you participate on the internet allows companies to profile you better. It's all about ads and selling your personal data, etc. Knowing what you comment on, the terms you use when commenting, where you hit a "like" button or whatever -- those are all "data points" that collectively say more and more about you.

      That's why Zuckerberg, for example, has claimed that having multiple online identities is fundamentally "dishonest." I sincerely doubt that it has anything to do with morality for him -- it's the fact that having multiple identities makes it harder for Facebook to track you. And every click or "like" or comment that can be attached with a real name is potentially more revenue.

    26. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and certainly as cowards"

      Sometimes I'm not sure when people are taking themselves seriously on this site.

    27. Re:Not on Slashdot... by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But what is implicit in your statement that it makes people "think twice" before having an opinion? It is that they should be compelled by the threat of retaliation in the real world for what their opinion is. There is no purpose to requiring someone share their real name except to hang the threat over them that if they post something another human finds distasteful, they might be found in the real world and made to pay for it. And as we all know, it doesn't take much for someone in the internet to become unhinged. Something more or less innocuous could cause some whackjob to show up at your house.

      It stifles the free exchange of ideas, and it's only intended to stifle the free exchange of ideas. There's no other purpose.

      This is why I will never post in the comment section of anything that requires your name. You don't even need to be doing anything wrong for someone to become unhinged and start doxxing you or something.

    28. Re:Not on Slashdot... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      Nevermind the NSA, I think slashdot's moderation system probably does a better job at suppressing minority opinions.

      Only if you care about /. karma. I don't. I get down-modded quite a bit because I don't beat the leftist drum either. Any time you say something criticizing any idea of a socialist or naturalist position, you'll get down-modded as a troll or flame bait. It's the nature of socialist "justice" whiners to try & suppress anything that challenges their worldview.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    29. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Troll

      But what is implicit in your statement that it makes people "think twice" before having an opinion?

      Your mother never told you, "If you have something bad to say, don't say it!"

      [...] if they post something another human finds distasteful, they might be found in the real world and made to pay for it.

      It's called free speech. Yes, you do have to pay the price for that freedom.

    30. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't had any jobs in the last 15 years that made an issue out of my lack of presence on the Internet.

      Neither have I. Maybe because I am the company owner, just sayin'...

    31. Re:Not on Slashdot... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Hell, it isn't just the TLA (Three Letter Agency) fears that squelch minority or even relatively NON-PC speech....you have it in many levels of society today, look at todays college campuses.

      You can't say anything there remotely non-PC, or have a dissenting voice on your beliefs if they go against the more politically correct liberal hive mind.

      I saw on the news the other day, that students were saying they had been traumatized by someone writing in chalk "Trump 2016". I mean, I'm no Trump supporter, but seriously, traumatized?

      If you aren't for the latest gay agenda, or if you raise the concern that a certain group does seem to have most of the terrorist problem coming from their ranks....well, you just cannot speak about that without repercussions. It isn't even just being shunned, but you are actively suppressed these days.

      Look at how many comedians these days, won't do shows on college campuses anymore....

      Theres major concern that any dissenting speech is being supressed, if it goes even remotely against the new social agenda.

      Even what used to be common sense has no place in the public square these days. Sure some things change, and some things need to change.....but ALL speech needs to be protected, especially the uncomfortable speech, the fringe element speech....the minority speech.

      But in addition to the privacy issues of the govt....other institutions are putting the clamp on speech that isn't pleasant.

      At the very least...Freedom of Speech, preempts freedom from being offended, and no one should be censored by any means....govt or societal.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    32. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mother never told you, "If you have something bad to say, don't say it!"

      Actually, no. Because that logic amounts to not calling out evil person doing evil things. I mean, why should we decry the acts of Hitler? We should praise how he dealt with the redistribution of wealth of which surely not 100% was rightly earned; and the population/rationing issues during WW2. Oh, and let's not forget the creative usage of humans skin/fat! Positive things all around.

      It's called free speech. Yes, you do have to pay the price for that freedom.

      So, you're okay if the government decides to execute you for your speech. Or a lynch mob. Nice to know.

    33. Re:Not on Slashdot... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It's a combination of the two, actually - to make people think twice about their comments by exposing them to the possibility of retribution (in the form of social shunning). However some people really want to call the President a [church bells] but don't want to face any potential consequences, and one of the methods of shielding themselves from these consequences is anonymity, so they feel that their free speech is being undermined when private companies no longer give them a platform for anonymous commentary.

      Some of these same people want to take it a step further and want special protection from these consequences when speech can be attributed to them, which ironically enough would require significant restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly, and association, among others.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    34. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your mother never told you, "If you have something bad to say, don't say it!"

      No, because my mother wasn't deluded into believing that the world was all peachy.

      It's called free speech. Yes, you do have to pay the price for that freedom.

      If you have to pay a price, then it's not free. You really didn't think much before making that contradictory statement, did you?

    35. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Notorious+G · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In a recent job interview my employer conducted, the lack of online activity was considered a red flag for the interviewee. We did not hire him for a few reasons and that was, in fact, one of the reasons. Of course, we did not tell him that nor even imply it.

    36. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's why Zuckerberg, for example, has claimed that having multiple online identities is fundamentally "dishonest."

      Never mind that Zuckerberg uses Limited Liability Companies (LLC) to conceal his real estate purchases and keep his name off the public records.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganbrennan/2013/10/11/facebook-billionaire-mark-zuckerbergs-quietly-expanding-real-estate-portfolio/

    37. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowing what you comment on, the terms you use when commenting, where you hit a "like" button or whatever -- those are all "data points" that collectively say more and more about you

      Has anyone stopped for a moment to contemplate the fact that data is *transient*? That two years down the road you are a different person? Maybe with other political opinions, tastes, interests and even a new gender. Dragnet surveillance is a waste of time and resources if you want accurate info [regardless of your purpose - marketing, social control, etc...].

    38. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On further reflection, I have decided that I am 100% correct and that a handle isn't a true and legal name and is therefore just as anonymous as posting AC.

    39. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forgot py password and am too lazy to reset it.

    40. Re:Not on Slashdot... by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. The sole purpose of attaching your real name is to more easily sell your data. Nefarious, yes, but in a different way. This isn't about opinion, it's about value to businesses.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    41. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ACs will be typically classified as trolls with some personality disorder, and certainly as cowards, but not as a threat. So they should be pretty safe.

      So courageous of you to use your real name in this post, mr...gweihir.

    42. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you back up your opinions with evidence? Or did you just expect that the Slashdot mods would agree with you and mod you up?

      I've expressed many opinions here over the years that were against what was clearly the "Slashdot consensus." When I do so, I make a reasoned argument and back it up with facts and often links to reputable sources so those facts can be verified. That's the way you break into a discussion and overturn a flawed consensus.

      Yes, sometimes my posts have been modded up and down in what seems to be a moderation war, but if I've provided an actual insightful and informative post with evidence, it rarely ends up modded down permanently. Maybe I've been downmodded less than 5% of the time that I've posted unpopular opinions -- and I'm willing to accept that all moderation systems are imperfect enough to have some failure rate like that.

      There may be ways to improve Slashdot's moderation system, but it seems to work a LOT better than most places on the internet in supporting minority voices, as long as they back up their ideas with rational arguments and verifiable facts.

      Funny that you neither backed up any of that statement with facts nor with links to reputable sources. Good job, hypocrite.

    43. Re:Not on Slashdot... by bkr1_2k · · Score: 2

      It's quite easy to recognize trends in people's behavior, especially if you have data over long periods of time. It's irrelevant if you or your opinions change on a particular topic over a period of time. What matters is that they can see that change, track it, and sell it.

      What I find more laughable is that the advertisers seem to send me ads based upon what my friends like. Things I've never once "liked" or anything similar. I guess the advertisers assume we're all just lemmings.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    44. Re:Not on Slashdot... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is that they should be compelled by the threat of retaliation in the real world for what their opinion is. There is no purpose to requiring someone share their real name except to hang the threat over them that if they post something another human finds distasteful, they might be found in the real world and made to pay for it.

      Yes, it's simply impossible that any internet site might actually want to promote more civil behavior by causing people to tone down their comments. Instead, the ONLY reason must be that such sites would like people to go around attacking other people in real life for their views. [/sarcasm]

      It stifles the free exchange of ideas, and it's only intended to stifle the free exchange of ideas. There's no other purpose.

      Even if it were true that internet sites love encouraging people to go around attacking each other in real life, it's simply bizarre to assert that there could not possibly be another purpose.

      For example, as I've already noted in another post, tracking your real name and attaching it to your comments, likes, and other online behavior is essential for businesses to build up a profile of you, which they can then use to sell to other businesses (e.g., for advertising etc.). If you post under various names, it's harder for them to track your identity and accumulate data across multiple sites.

      This is why I will never post in the comment section of anything that requires your name. You don't even need to be doing anything wrong for someone to become unhinged and start doxxing you or something.

      This may be a legitimate fear. But it's really NOT the reason why internet sites might propose a policy against anonymous comments. There are all sorts of other reasons for it too, like, say, spam filtering. Even the best comment filters for spam will require a lot of intervention with anonymous comments -- requiring a login and a real name can help a lot.

      (By the way, I'm a strong proponent for allowing pseudonyms in most places online, and limited anonymous commenting where possible. But your repeated assertion that there's no other possible reason for requiring trackable names other than to encourage doxxing is utterly preposterous.)

    45. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw on the news the other day, that students were saying they had been traumatized by someone writing in chalk "Trump 2016". I mean, I'm no Trump supporter, but seriously, traumatized?

      If you aren't for the latest gay agenda, or if you raise the concern that a certain group does seem to have most of the terrorist problem coming from their ranks....well, you just cannot speak about that without repercussions. It isn't even just being shunned, but you are actively suppressed these days.

      just wow. this idiocy is why the usa is going down the tubes. it never would have occurred to me that black student activists were part of the gay agenda! is this some GNAA troll i'm wooshing on?

    46. Re:Not on Slashdot... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Funny that you neither backed up any of that statement with facts nor with links to reputable sources. Good job, hypocrite.

      There is a link to a source -- click on my username. It will take you to my profile. You can go back and see the various comments I've made here over the years and how they've been moderated.

      Most of my comment was only about my own experience, which is anecdotal, but which also contradicts the parent's anecdotal experience. That much is verifiable fact, which you could easily find.

      Yes, my last statement was more of an opinion, but it's based on my experience here. If you disagree, please provide your own reputable sources, rather than just vacuous ad hominem attacks.

      Have a nice day! Don't ya love that reasoned discourse promoted by AC status!!

    47. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, because my mother wasn't deluded into believing that the world was all peachy.

      My mother was the same way. But she taught me to be polite and respectful regardless of how bad life treats you. Politeness and respect are in short supply these days.

      If you have to pay a price, then it's not free.

      People are more likely respect something if they paid the price for it. Something given away for free can easily be toss away.

      You really didn't think much before making that contradictory statement, did you?

      You obviously haven't thought hard enough about yours.

      ,

    48. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to wear a tinfoil hat but now that I know that they put miniature mind-reading chips in tinfoil, I have to censor even my thoughts.

    49. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's simply impossible that any internet site might actually want to promote more civil behavior by causing people to tone down their comments. Instead, the ONLY reason must be that such sites would like people to go around attacking other people in real life for their views. [/sarcasm]

      Because censorship is civil behavior...

    50. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " When I do so, I make a reasoned argument and back it up with facts and often links to reputable sources so those facts can be verified."

      Accept the science says that even when you give people the facts, they won't necessarily reason to the right conclusion:

      Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

    51. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On even further reflection I realize that this very conversation is proving my previous statement wrong since it shows that anyone can speak with my voice.

    52. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Because that logic amounts to not calling out evil person doing evil things.

      Only a stupid person would come to that logical conclusion. Many people did in World War II. Some still deny that Holocaust took place.

      So, you're okay if the government decides to execute you for your speech. Or a lynch mob. Nice to know.

      You must not have lived through the Civil Rights and/or Viet Nam War protests. Many people died. Some were killed by the government, others were killed by lynch mobs. Society eventually changed because of their sacrifices for freedom.

    53. Re:Not on Slashdot... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Did you back up your opinions with evidence?

      Typically, yes. Again, going back to Bernie, I compare his views on taxation as being remarkably similar to Hollande's, which was a disaster (and yes, links provided in those cases, but not going to do so here because I don't want to debate that here.)

    54. Re:Not on Slashdot... by larryjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But the trends online are all moving in the opposite direction, to making people attach their real names to comments - the sole purpose for which is to make retribution possible.

      Retribution, or at least the expectation of actual or potential retribution, is the important factor. I don't worry about government surveillance at all, not because the government isn't evil or capable of harm but because I have never (knock on wood!) personally experienced such retribution or personally known anyone who faced such retribution. And because of my past personal experience, I don't expect future retribution.

      In contrast, I expect potential retribution from friends and strangers on social media and from my employer for any non-conformist ideas. In those forums, I heavily censor what I say and write. But for government surveillance, I don't censor my expressions at all (at least not yet).

    55. Re:Not on Slashdot... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      I don't care about Karma. However if the comment is going to be quickly buried to the point that users with the default settings won't see it, then why bother?

    56. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, unfortunately it seems anonymity nearly forecloses the ability to have a meaningful discussion and ends up chasing people away. It is very sad. I actually want to and have in the past support anonymity - for all of the good reasons we all know. However, it turns out that the greater internet fuckwad theorem is correct and people are basically assholes. (See the voting in several states to reduce people's rights just because they are different and you'll see it). Couple anonymity with a-hole and you get such a hostile environment that many people leave and can no longer contribute. It sucks, but it is demonstrably true. So, you end up having to use real names most places so that a-holes act more correctly. It won't make them think correctly, but at least they aren't as openly douchebags.

    57. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Some of these same people want to take it a step further and want special protection from these consequences when speech can be attributed to them, which ironically enough would require significant restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly, and association, among others.

      Whenever someone screams the loudest about political correctness, it usually because they want to say inappropriate and not suffer the consequences.

    58. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mother was the same way. But she taught me to be polite and respectful regardless of how bad life treats you. Politeness and respect are in short supply these days.

      Politeness and respect are earned, not given. I also find it to be highly disrespectful to be shallow and dishonest to someone just because you want to appear polite or save someone's delicate feelings.

      I would also like to point out your hypocrisy by quoting another post of yours:

      Only a stupid person would come to that logical conclusion.

      That doesn't sound like a very nice thing to say for one who claims that you shouldn't say "bad" things.

      People are more likely respect something if they paid the price for it. Something given away for free can easily be toss away.

      Respect for freedom is not a prerequisite to having freedom in a free society and again, having to pay a price makes it not free. Nice try at moving goalposts though.

      You obviously haven't thought hard enough about yours.

      Except I'm not spouting illogical and contradictory statements like you are.

    59. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Has anyone stopped for a moment to contemplate the fact that data is *transient*? That two years down the road you are a different person?

      If you're politician, no. Everything is fixed in stone. If you change your position because the facts have changed, then you're a hypocrite and a liar. Time to break out the recall petitions and get someone more "purer" into office. And the cycle continues.

    60. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      Nevermind the NSA, I think slashdot's moderation system probably does a better job at suppressing minority opinions.

      Only if you care about /. karma. I don't. I get down-modded quite a bit because I don't beat the leftist drum either.

      I see your leftist Slashdot conspiracy and raise the fact that the same often happens when you don't beat the rightwing drums: exhibit 1, exhibit 2, exhibit 3 (click on the comment score when logged in to see the fight between the flamebait and interesting/insightful mods).

      Stupid moderators downmod stuff they don't like as flamebait/troll. There's nothing particularly leftwing or rightwing about it.

      --
      Donate free food here
    61. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On further reflection I realise that this very conversation is proving my original statement 100% correct because nobody is going to believe that my statement would change so drastically, so often nor would my writing style, spelling and grammar.

    62. Re:Not on Slashdot... by axewolf · · Score: 1

      shut up, your comment is not clever and is detrimental to the community here

    63. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That doesn't sound like a very nice thing to say for one who claims that you shouldn't say "bad" things.

      "The person who loves correction loves knowledge, but anyone who hates a rebuke is stupid." - Proverbs 12:1 (NIV)

      Nice try at moving goalposts though.

      I'm not the one is moving the goalposts.

      Except I'm not spouting illogical and contradictory statements like you are.

      Think harder. I'm sure it will come to you in time.

    64. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take that back, that was a really desperate argument. I'm sorry for wasting your time.

    65. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your opinion is not wrong, then you have nothing to hide.

    66. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      shut up, your comment is not clever and is detrimental to the community here

      This is Slashdot. You must be new here.

    67. Re:Not on Slashdot... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it's simply impossible that any internet site might actually want to promote more civil behavior by causing people to tone down their comments. Instead, the ONLY reason must be that such sites would like people to go around attacking other people in real life for their views. [/sarcasm]

      Because censorship is civil behavior...

      Yes, it is. It's pretty much the definition of "civil" behavior. Look at any traditional rules of "etiquette." It's all about requirements to act in certain ways in certain circumstances. You don't show up to a typical wedding or a funeral dressed in ripped jeans and a tee-shirt with profanity on it. That's not explicit "censorship," but it is self-censorship. You have other times and places to express yourself as you'd like, but the social norms may limit your behavior in certain contexts.

      Now, you may choose to say, "I don't subscribe to that etiquette nonsense! I want to walk around swearing at everyone all the time!" That's your choice. In a public place, you can't really be censored for doing so. But that behavior most certainly would be considered "uncivil" by most. It's your choice to accept that judgment for your freedom to behave in such a way.

      But to get back to websites -- they also are generally hosted by private individuals or corporations. And just like a private individual can say "leave my house" if they don't like your behavior, and a private corporation can say "leave the building" to get you off of their private property, so a site owner has the right to "censor" comments on their own site.

      Now, you may object to such censorship -- in which case, you can choose to go to another site which has more lenient policies. That's your choice. Private people and companies censor stuff all the time when it comes to their private property: that's their choice.

      And yes, frequently the times they censor people is to maintain the traditional definition of "civil" behavior. If a guy walks in off the street and starts urinating on the reception desk at a company, I fully expect him to be asked to leave to promote "civil behavior." Regardless of how mad he might be at the company, his behavior is "uncivil" by definition and subject to censorship on private property.

    68. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The person who loves correction loves knowledge, but anyone who hates a rebuke is stupid." - Proverbs 12:1 (NIV)

      So you find refuge behind a random quote to excuse the behavior that you claim your mother instilled with you. More goalpost moving.

      I'm not the one is moving the goalposts.

      That is all you have done. When confronted with the idiocy of your statements, you twist words and erect strawmen.

      Think harder. I'm sure it will come to you in time.

      Your statements are hardly thought provoking or insightful. They are disingenuous, inarticulate, inconsistent and childish.

    69. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whenever someone screams the loudest about political correctness, it usually because they want to say inappropriate and not suffer the consequences.

      That's because the very concept of political correctness is about designating certain speech as correct or incorrect. Correct speech is protected from consequences, incorrect speech is not, with the implication that you could say/do horrible things to the speaker of incorrect speech without consequence.

      To paraphrase Bill Maher...

      "Women are smarter than men" *thunderous applause*
      "Men are smarter than women" *Sexist chauvinist pig!*

    70. Re:Not on Slashdot... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      "Some still deny that Holocaust took place."

      AND? Do you intend to shove it down everyone's throat until they accept your truth? So let them have their belief, how does it harm you? You would use the sacrifice of the dead to harm the living.......strange philosophy.

      --
      Good-bye
    71. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      They are disingenuous, inarticulate, inconsistent and childish.

      I'm also an asshole. Don't forget that one. :P

    72. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is. It's pretty much the definition of "civil" behavior.

      Then go live in Syria or North Korea or China. You must think they live in the height of civility.

      Censorship is disgusting and the recourse of those who fear dissent. It is the antithesis of civil.

      Now, you may choose to say, "I don't subscribe to that etiquette nonsense! I want to walk around swearing at everyone all the time!" That's your choice. In a public place, you can't really be censored for doing so. But that behavior most certainly would be considered "uncivil" by most. It's your choice to accept that judgment for your freedom to behave in such a way.

      But to get back to websites -- they also are generally hosted by private individuals or corporations. And just like a private individual can say "leave my house" if they don't like your behavior, and a private corporation can say "leave the building" to get you off of their private property, so a site owner has the right to "censor" comments on their own site.

      They have a right to throw someone out who has a different opinion, but that doesn't make it ethical, mature or civil to do so. I can tell you that if a friend were to tell me to leave their house because I disagreed with them, they wouldn't be a friend any longer. If it's a business, then they lose a customer. If it's a web site, then they lose a user. Keep it up and eventually you'll not have any friends/customers/users at all.

    73. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Do you intend to shove it down everyone's throat until they accept your truth?

      I'm not shoving a historical fact down your throat. My father visited Auschwitz concentration camp when the Army stationed him in West Germany in the early 1950's. It was a nasty place even with all the bodies removed.

      So let them have their belief, how does it harm you?

      People denied holocaust are the same people who spray paint swastikas on synagogues, inspire other people to hate minorities and vote for Trump.

      You would use the sacrifice of the dead to harm the living.......strange philosophy.

      Your philosophy, not mine.

    74. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also an asshole. Don't forget that one. :P

      What happened to:

      Your mother never told you, "If you have something bad to say, don't say it!"

      Practice what you preach.

    75. Re:Not on Slashdot... by mrbester · · Score: 2

      This is something that meta-moderation was supposed to counteract, precisely because dumbasses suddenly granted power decide to treat things they don't agree with as a scourge that must be removed from existence.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    76. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apology accepted. I'm glad to see that you finally acknowledge that a handle is no less anonymous than posting as AC.

    77. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Practice what you preach.

      Did I call you an asshole? No, I did not. Did I call myself an asshole? Yes, I did. There's a difference. The former is being polite, the latter is a realistic assessment about myself.

      Also, Eli the Computer Guy makes a great argument that IT professionals should be assholes anyway. ;)

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_YaNGzplbE

    78. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha, silly me, I accepted my own apology! I envy the people who never have to face this problem!

    79. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to do those things but now I just draw pictures of myself in compromising positions with various spouses and mothers of CIA, FBI, and NSA employees, and fax them all directly to the Pentagon along with a plaster mold of my genitals engraved with the saying, "creatio ex nihilo"

    80. Re:Not on Slashdot... by strstr · · Score: 1

      you are misinformed twit. anonymous cowards are not anonymous. when they use the internet to post anonymously on Slashdot, NSA and federal/state agencies duplicate the packets as the user uploads them to the host server BEFORE Slashdot receives them, processes them, and posts them on their website in the form of a 'anonymous coward' post.

      therefore the government knows who you are and receives your post despite Slashdot attempting to hide identifying user details behind a username.

      this is known as upstream fiber tapping. every major ISP at the peering point willingly participates in upstream fiber tapping, so upwards of 80% of the worlds fiber optic communications, content, not just metadata is saved and monitored in real-time. FBI, DEA, or other agency only needs to be monitoring you specifically, the system hones into your Internet and telephone connections, allowing packets to be observed in real time. auto-analysis for identity is done with specific pattern tracking and even ID markers such as cookies, IP, user names, passwords, email address, writing style and the like. phone calls run through voice analyzers that identify speech, transcribe, and know who is speaking specifically. for example, FBI can watch you type your message assuming the website uses AJAX to send the message to be saved server side as you type - they see you physically editing your message, backspacing this and that, adding this and that word, punctuation, etc. this is also done for Google searches and other items. everything is saved: the full HTTP header packet along with the data stream itself, and their software decodes and interprets it and puts it into a nice interface for agents to parse the data as they please. even if you encrypt you're not safe: encryption is bypassed mostly, there's not much data they can't get into a variety of methods.

      this isn't their only method of spying. they have building penetrating tomography; a full array of satellites and radar deployed in every city and state, and nation, to watch us, listen in, and even do brain scans which results in them having access to your thoughts, memories, and all that.

      William Binney NSA whistleblower along with Russell Tice explained this long ago. So did Edward Snowden. williambinney.com russelltice.com drrobertduncan.com

      obamasweapon.com

    81. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But not the Japanese. They don't do anything like that.

    82. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      It might well do so, if we had actual meta-moderation again instead of the useless abortion that supplanted it.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    83. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Racist nut job? Just for saying the president is near?

    84. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Just waiting for the day some database from NSA is hacked and released, tying all histories and whatnot together.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    85. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      you are misinformed twit.

      Re-read my comment. Look in the mirror and find the twit.

    86. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      [...] the sole purpose for which is to make retribution possible.

      Uh, no. The sole purpose is to make people think twice about their comments. Nothing stops you from posting, "The president is a [church bells]!" (to paraphrase Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles). Do you really want the whole world to know that you — under your real name — are just another racist nut job? Probably not.

      Hopefully such schemes will get tossed by the Supreme Court, as they have long ruled that anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment precisely for the reason you list -- so people cannot track you down for retibution.

      It is similar to the right to a secret ballot.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    87. Re:Not on Slashdot... by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Mainly, yes. While a forum id acts a bit like an alternative personality and people -mainly- don't want to do things that reflects badly on their forum id.
      But you still want that forum id.

    88. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All my AC comments go first through the Swedish military intelligence servers or the monitoring systems of BND, depending of the network state, and then get copied to the GCHQ systems, ending up to the caches of the NSA. Being an AC means I don't have to manage another password and give another email address for the marketers. I also feel free, even if it is an illusion.

    89. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      I saw on the news the other day, that students were saying they had been traumatized by someone writing in chalk "Trump 2016". I mean, I'm no Trump supporter, but seriously, traumatized?

      You don't get it, do you?
      They were not traumatized by the actual words but by the fact that a person who managed to get to college would vote for Trump.

    90. Re:Not on Slashdot... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      I see your leftist Slashdot conspiracy and raise the fact that the same often happens when you don't beat the rightwing drums: exhibit 1, exhibit 2, exhibit 3

      Not sure if down-modding pro-homeopathy is really a right-wing type thing to do, probably more of a secular-humanist type thing. In Exhibit 3, it looked like you might have misunderstood the parent poster but they thought you were being coy. Communicating tone isn't easy on the internet. Yet another reason I don't care about karma.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    91. Re:Not on Slashdot... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      That student thing has been debunked: http://www.snopes.com/emory-st...

      PROTIP: Most stories about over sensitive special snowflakes are lies.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    92. Re:Not on Slashdot... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      They have a right to throw someone out who has a different opinion, but that doesn't make it ethical, mature or civil to do so.

      Who is talking about "opinions"? Civil behavior is mostly about politeness. You can still express dissenting opinions, but you can choose to do it in a polite and rational manner. Or, in your terms, act "ethical, mature, and civil" and most sites won't censor you.

      I can tell you that if a friend were to tell me to leave their house because I disagreed with them, they wouldn't be a friend any longer.

      And that might be a reasonable choice. On the other hand, if friends told me to leave their house because I was drunk, shouting obscenities, and urinating and vomiting all over the place, I think they'd be perfectly reasonable for "censoring" those activities and throwing me out.

      My post had nothing to do with censoring anyone for the content of their ideas -- it had to do with the fact that anonymous speech on the internet often devolves into impolite shouting of obscenities, whereas people are often a bit more reticent to do that if their comments are attached to their name (or even a durable pseudonym that they don't want to sully with a bad reputation).

      Just to be clear -- I'm not saying anonymous speech should be prevented. But I am saying that it has the potential to cause a lot of problems, which may require some form of censorship to clean up. (Anyone who has ever hosted comments on a website understands the vast majority of anonymous comments tend to be problematic -- mostly spam, followed by various inappropriate or uncivil remarks, etc. Heck, look around at the ACs on Slashdot when browsing at -1. Compare the number of angry, shouting, uncivil comments from ACs to those of registered users with a record of participation.)

      If it's a business, then they lose a customer. If it's a web site, then they lose a user. Keep it up and eventually you'll not have any friends/customers/users at all.

      I said that explicitly -- that's your choice. You don't agree with a site's policies? Don't participate. There are a number of internet forums where I no longer participate for this exact reason -- comments were deleted not because they are uncivil or whatever, but simply because I disagreed. I don't stand for such nonsense, and neither should you.

      BUT -- that has nothing to do with the fact that many people take advantage of anonymity to act like jerks. And they rightfully should be censored from "civil" discourse.

    93. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? What line of business are you in? Marketing? Advertising? Spam? Scam?
      If your business doesn't rely on employees trolling the net why should the lack of online activity raise a red flag?
      Just curious.

    94. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      Yes, it's simply impossible that any internet site might actually want to promote more civil behavior by causing people to tone down their comments. Instead, the ONLY reason must be that such sites would like people to go around attacking other people in real life for their views.

      You're missing the point.

      Why would requiring you attach your name to your comments motivate you to ensure your comments are civil?

      Conversely and equivalently, why does anonymity bring the asshole out in people?

      Let's answer the second question first. Anonymity brings out the asshole in people because nobody knows who it is that's being an asshole, so there's no possibility of consequences; which is to say, it doesn't matter if your asshole comments piss someone off, because that someone has no idea who you are and can't do jack shit to you in retaliation no matter how much you piss them off.

      Conversely and equivalently, the reason why having to attach your names to comments tends to motivate you to keep those comments civil is that when people know who you are, if you pissed them off enough they could do something in retaliation, so you'd better make sure not to piss people off, or else.

      The problem is that that "or else" can also be used by people who are unreasonably pissed off to motivate people not to say things they really should (or at least have every right to) say.

      And since actions are far more harmful than words, given the choice between the freedom of anonymity at the risk of incivility or the accountability of real names at the risk of real-world retaliation, I would choose freedom and incivility over accountability and retaliation.

      And I say this as someone who attaches his real name to everything, both because I'm not an asshole and because I'm not afraid of people who are.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    95. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      APK has nothing to hide.

    96. Re:Not on Slashdot... by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

      But try going against the "group think" on Reddit and see what happens to you.

    97. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      I see your leftist Slashdot conspiracy and raise the fact that the same often happens when you don't beat the rightwing drums: exhibit 1, exhibit 2, exhibit 3

      Not sure if down-modding pro-homeopathy is really a right-wing type thing to do, probably more of a secular-humanist type thing.

      If you click the links I posted in my comments (to other Slashdot stories, e.g. about the use of VR to dull phantom limb pain), you can see it's just about the fact that triggering a placebo effect can be a valid course of therapy in some cases. Homeopathy is, as far as I am concerned, a obvious example of triggering a placebo effect.

      I'm pretty sure the downmodding was more because I was countering the attack on Jeremy Corbyn (which that whole story was about), who is the devil incarnate as far as the right wing UK is concerned.

      In Exhibit 3, it looked like you might have misunderstood the parent poster but they thought you were being coy. Communicating tone isn't easy on the internet. Yet another reason I don't care about karma.

      I'm not sure how I misunderstood him. He claimed, as far as I can see, that only Muslims massacre people for clearly idiotic/nonsense reasons, under a title of "keep saying there's no Islamic terrorist problem". I tried to counter that with an example of how we, the enlightened Westerners with our democracy, just as well use nonsense reasons ("spreading democracy", "destroying WMDs") for justifying massacring people. The arguments used are different but in the end it's just a matter of finetuning the justification to better resonate with the intended target public.

      Maybe I should have been more explicit: you can just as easily title a comment as "keep saying there's no Western democracy problem", with as content "I'll believe it when Russia, China, Iran and North Korea start repeated drone bombing of as many other countries as the US, while also triggering the rise of a scourge similar to IS as cherry on the cake.". And such a claim would be equally nonsensical, as far as I'm concerned. Correlation & causation...

      --
      Donate free food here
    98. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see this "real name" thing over and over again and I can't, for the life of me, figure out what makes a name real or not.

      And I think it stems from this notion that biometrics = name = identity = only one per person and only one person to each of these.

      It's fundamentally wrong in the correctness sense and it's self-evident why. I would prefer that people used the phrase "legal name" or "birth name" if that's what they actually mean.

    99. Re:Not on Slashdot... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      It's the nature of socialist "justice" whiners to try & suppress anything that challenges their worldview.

      As can be verified by my posting history, I'm both a socialist and strongly opposed to the "social justice warrior" phenomenon. Please do not conflate two entirely unrelated issues.

      If you're indeed referring to socialists who you feel are whiners, and not social justice warriors, including the word "justice" only confuses the subject.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    100. Re:Not on Slashdot... by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      And what kind of idiot believes that thinking this (or any other) president is a dumbass or motherfucker or whatever makes somebody a racist?

    101. Re:Not on Slashdot... by kwbauer · · Score: 2

      Try the other definition of free. Maybe the definition that mentions restrictions instead of price.

    102. Re:Not on Slashdot... by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      AthanasiusKircher, you should have used self-censorship. Self-censorship is civil behavior and etiquette and such.

      Government censorship is a true evil. The other kind is not worth talking about because it is ultimately a form of self-censorship. That is, an organization that runs a web-site that allows user comments is practicing self-censorship when it removes or alters posts because of language or topic or other such criteria.

    103. Re:Not on Slashdot... by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      PROTIP: Mizzou, et al are not all lies. They actually happened and we have video evidence. Ignoring it and relying on other liberals to deny that it happens does not change the reality of it happening.

    104. Re:Not on Slashdot... by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      And notice how the Bill Maher example of correct vs incorrect uses definitions of correct and incorrect that have nothing to do with matches facts and does not match facts? That is why political correctness is so wrong and should not even be considered a thing in a free society. Correctness should be defined by "fact matching" and not by a groups comfort level.

    105. Re:Not on Slashdot... by shawn2772 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's why Zuckerberg, for example, has claimed that having multiple online identities is fundamentally "dishonest."

      Never mind that Zuckerberg uses Limited Liability Companies (LLC) to conceal his real estate purchases and keep his name off the public records.

      Well, to be fair, he never said it was dishonest to have multiple real-world identities.

    106. Re:Not on Slashdot... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I am, fortunately, able to say this... I don't give a shit what they think and if they dislike something I said five years ago and want to penalize me for it then I really don't want to work for them.

      Of course, that's easy for me to say. I'm retired. However, I'd like to think I've never let anyone influence what I had to say.

      Compound that with the fact that I really do stand behind the vast majority of what I say (sometimes I'm just telling bad jokes) and it makes me care even less. I don't really say anything that would bother anyone I'd be willing to work for. Oh, I say some pretty rough stuff but I'm still positive that I'd not want to work with a boss that can't hand open, honest, and reasoned debate.

      If a boss can't handle that I'm going to politely say the things I feel need saying, without malice, without anger, without threats, and based on well reasoned conclusions then I really don't want to work for them. Not at all.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    107. Re:Not on Slashdot... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      There have always been repercussions for expressing distasteful ideas. Your mother tried to teach this to you when she said, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all." Saying disrespectful, distasteful, and socially unacceptable things has consequences. The freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It never did.

      It also matters, a great deal, how you say them. Saying distasteful things in a civil manner is a skill folks should really learn.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    108. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if that is true. Sure, corporations who want to mine your data want this to be true. But then there's 4chan and a huge number of niche anonymous image boards. And there are now so many trash mail services that blacklisting them has become impractical. It has become easier than ever to create a new fictional identity.
      When I was introduced to the internet, anonymity hardly existed and where it could have existed the internet norms of the time discouraged it. Now, almost all of my internet communication is anonymous to some degree. And usually with people whose identity I don't know. And that's fine, as far as I'm concerned.

    109. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're politician, no. Everything is fixed in stone. If you change your position because the facts have changed, then you're a hypocrite and a liar.

      Only fools don't change, my friend.

    110. Re:Not on Slashdot... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Not just employers, let's not forget religious fundamentalists, political fanatics or power tripping individuals within government authorities. Then you also have petty mysogionists and misandrists. Never forget psychopaths on the prowl wanting to find individuals to stalk individuals for any imagined slight.

      Mass surveillance does not just silence the minority it also isolates and silences the majority, turning them from a majority via that silencing into the tiniest of minorities, the seeding of the idea that you are the only one that thinks that way, the wrong way ie typical main stream media.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    111. Re:Not on Slashdot... by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Re "You must not have lived through the Civil Rights and/or Viet Nam War protests."
      That was really a good public look via the Church report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... at the US gov in action over the mass collection of data domestically and later direct domestic action to stop anti war protesters.
      The Mass surveillance in the United States page does have some of the methods used listed during that time for collection and later the results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Later efforts would be MAIN CORE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and then ICREACH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Wide area collection via stingrays, dirtboxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... just for been in a area of interest.
      With todays US/UK "collect it all" domestic access via help from telcos and computer brands, everyone has an East German style database entry to 'know everything about everyone" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Even just using this site and 5 eyes https://news.slashdot.org/stor... :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    112. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Its not even that. The sole purpose of which is to make it easier to associate your various accounts across databases when sharing your personal information for the marketing and tracking purposes.

      Google and Facebook and whoever don't give a shit if you get attacked for saying stupid shit unless they somehow wind up being liable for the incoming retributions in a court case which is pretty unlikely.

      They don't even care if the government wants your real name for whatever shady purpose.. they can make the damned connections between your various accounts themselves.

      No, its all about the Benjamins. As usual. They certainly do want that sweet sweet ad revenue.

    113. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      And what kind of idiot believes that thinking this (or any other) president is a dumbass or motherfucker or whatever makes somebody a racist?

      It's one thing to say that Obama is a dumb ass because he's a Democrat. It's another thing to say that Obama is a dumb ass because he was a born in Kenya, pro-Muslim, anti-colonial and anti-American socialist.

    114. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Did I call myself an asshole? Yes, I did.

      Funny how I get no follow up response to this particular point.

    115. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you by any chance work for a loss-making VC-based "startup" company in the Bay Area?

    116. Re:Not on Slashdot... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      So far mass surveillance had zero impact on silencing Anonymous Cowards.

      Has it? When did you last hear an AC say something money or power has any reason whatsoever to be afraid of?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    117. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likewise I've avoided painting what is IMO a realistic picture of what a Sanders administration would look like (the Francois Hollande government in France) because I know it will just get buried.

      And with good reason.

      Other than being both dubiously tagged 'socialists' they have not much in common.

      Hollande was an unremarkable and unpopular establishment hack that got to the presidency (after long years of rule by the opposing party) because of the unexpected implosion of a very popular candidate from his own party (Strauss-Kahn), not some underdog that gnawed itself into a much better opponent.

      America's Hollande is not Sanders, but Paul Ryan. There's a likely scenario where the Trump and Cruz campaigns both implode in disgraceful scandals, the Republican convention nominates Ryan, the Democratic superdelegates force Clinton agains popular support for the 'extremist' Sanders, and then Ryan wins the presidency against a tainted and bungling Clinton.

      A short time afterwars, everybody awakes to the horror of having a /really/ limited and untalented apparatchik as president. After 4 years of incompetent rule, single digit approval rates, degrading economy and terrorist attacks, Paul Ryan leaves the place to a /real/ demagogue from the extreme right or left.

    118. Re:Not on Slashdot... by grcumb · · Score: 2

      I saw on the news the other day, that students were saying they had been traumatized by someone writing in chalk "Trump 2016". I mean, I'm no Trump supporter, but seriously, traumatized?

      Others have pointed out that the report was utterly false.

      Still, look at how well the lie plays among self-righteous bigots with a persecution complex. And yet we still allow Trump and his ilk to spew this shit, because free speech. Astonishing, isn't it, how people will allow people such as yourself to fill yourself with ill-informed tripe, and yet you're the ones who are persecuted?

      If you aren't for the latest gay agenda...

      Respectfully: What The Fuck is a 'gay agenda'? Equal rights? Enjoying the same rights as everyone else everywhere?

      or if you raise the concern that a certain group does seem to have most of the terrorist problem coming from their ranks....

      Just say it, for fuck sake: MUSLIMS. You mean those dirty, rag-headed, gutteral, snarly, infidels who chop people's heads off and want to impose Shariah law on you and your loved ones? That's who you mean, right, when you spew mealy-mouthed phrases like 'certain groups'? How fucking precious.

      And how fucking wrong. In the United States, Muslims terrorists are not more numerous than others. Historically, levels of terrorism in the US and Europe are down, not up.

      well, you just cannot speak about that without repercussions. It isn't even just being shunned, but you are actively suppressed these days.

      Goddamn right, you're being suppressed. If by 'suppressed' you mean 'told to shut your fucking yap until you derive at least the slightest clue about the subject you keep ranting about'.

      Look at how many comedians these days, won't do shows on college campuses anymore....

      Okay, that one is a fair cop. People on both sides of the political spectrum are way touchier than they've a right to be.

      That said, I would treat them to the same derision I'm showing you if they failed to adhere to the facts and basic logic.

      Theres major concern that any dissenting speech is being supressed, if it goes even remotely against the new social agenda.

      For as long as the 'new social agenda' constitutes actually caring about the truth, and upholding basic human rights and equality under the law... then Fucking A Right, nothing deserves—even remotely—to go against the new social agenda.

      ... and for as long as the 'new social agenda' is a bunch of gluten-free, artisanal hipster snowflakes busy enabling and affirming themselves while old Brooklyn cries in shame, then they can go get fucked too.

      Even what used to be common sense has no place in the public square these days.

      Bigotry used to be common sense for far too long and for far too many people. It deserves to die a death, and those people who perpetuate it deserve to be told to shut their cake-holes.

      Look, I get how you feel, but dude, seriously, your views are not just wrong, they're hurtful and harmful. Not to people's precious feelings—to their lives. When you oppose the 'latest gay agenda', you're sentencing some very good friends of mine to not being able to hold a loved one's hand in the hospital. You're saying that someone who devoted their life to caring and tending for a home shoul

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    119. Re:Not on Slashdot... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      When you are unwilling to stand behind your words, your beliefs, and accept the full consequences of them then yes, yes you are cowardly. Those are not then beliefs, they are conveniences. My moniker is attached to me. I will answer to it in real life. I've met people, in person, from this site - and have recently done so again. I've met many.

      I am fully cognizant that my speech, which is an action, has consequences. I am grateful for that - it makes me express and hold the beliefs I have up to scrutiny and thus be willing to change them when new information comes to light. I pride myself on reason and I am beholden to nobody other than myself. I will say what I feel needs to be said and accept the consequences of those actions.

      If you can not stand behind what you say, then you don't really believe it. You don't believe it because you're unwilling to accept the consequences. You're free to do so. In fact, in my country, you have a right to do so. Just because I do not use that right, does not mean I don't appreciate that right. Rights are often there to protect cowards, inept, and those who can not do for themselves and need permission, protection, or assistance from the government. I'm glad that you have every right you have.

      Speaking of rights, I'll use my right to tell you that you're a coward. In fact, it says so right in your moniker. That's okay - you have a right to be. Not everyone can just accept the consequences of their beliefs. They don't really believe them, they're idealists of one type or another (usually) and quite frequently below-average intelligence. That's okay. Not everyone can have an intellect much higher than an ape. I support an AC's right to be vocal and unintelligent. I appreciate that you have that right.

      I just mostly choose to ignore you. I doubt anyone pays attention but I've been slowly reducing the number of ACs I respond to. I even go so far as to just never even open the replies. That goes back to holding yourself accountable for beliefs. See, I once believed that it was worth responding to ACs, as a general rule, because they sometimes had insightful, witty, amusing, or curious responses.

      Sadly, I appear to have been wrong. It's true that they do. They just do not do so often enough that it is worth my time and effort to read and respond. Why should I? I'm going to try to have a rational, civil, honest, discussion - with an exchange of knowledge, with someone who doesn't even have the courage to stand up for the things they think are right? It really has been a colossal effort, and a futile effort, to weed the gems from the garbage.

      Think about that. Really, think about it.

      I still read ACs as I go through. I just keep a few mental notes and I'll generally be able to remember the thread and title so that way I can check if that AC replied but I'm sure I miss some. That's unfortunate - some of them had interesting things to say. The SNR is too low to bother trying to pick out the signal. That and I've got that dumb post limit. I have all the karma in the world and there's still a limit to my posts. AC responses were the first to go and rightfully so.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    120. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      You should meta mod more often

    121. Re:Not on Slashdot... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      If you're politician, no. Everything is fixed in stone. If you change your position because the facts have changed, then you're a hypocrite and a liar.

      Only fools don't change, my friend.

      Well, of course. He said "politician".

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    122. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a recent job interview my employer conducted, the lack of online activity was considered a red flag for the interviewee.

      Has it occurred to you that maybe just maybe you're passing on really good people who would otherwise be excellent employees? Who would you rather have working for you, the skilled and polite person who shows up on time and works hard or the social butterfly who's always juggling Facebbok, Twitter, Snapchat and Instagram all day long and never seems to get anything done? Just because you know a lot about somebody, or think that you do based upon your analysis of their social media activity, doesn't mean that you really know them or that they will make a good employee. Sometimes lazy HR people use stupid proxies to filter applicants. Everyone has heard about X years in technology Y that has been around for only Z years less than X. Ranking potential hires by their social media activity or lack thereof, particularly when social media is irrelevant to the job at hand, is probably in the top 5 idiot HR filters. This is huge problem in tech where many excellent employees tend to be introverted or even mildly autistic. Your competitors may be able to see the value there where you cannot and good coders are in desperately short supply these days. How can you afford to be so shallow?

    123. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really want the whole world to know that you — under your real name — are just another racist nut job? Probably not.

      I don't care too much them knowing me for a socialist nutjob either.

      Of course, you bring up the other side of the coin: marginalization through propaganda (which targets emotions instead of reason) of a certain point of view, leading to self-censorship, up to the point that the only adherents of said viewpoint are in fact a nut job fringe (which brings the danger with it that rational adherents, after a sufficient amount of abuse and name-calling, might just embrace the craziness and radicalism).

    124. Re:Not on Slashdot... by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      In a recent job interview my employer conducted, the lack of online activity was considered a red flag for the interviewee. We did not hire him for a few reasons and that was, in fact, one of the reasons. Of course, we did not tell him that nor even imply it.

      I wonder what your employer's policy on internet usage, especially social media usage, during working hours would be. At a previous employer of mine it was "frowned upon" and I got myself weaned off the addiction. And evenings at home have much more productive and interesting ways to be spent than updating FB statuses...

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    125. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nevermind the NSA, I think slashdot's moderation system probably does a better job at suppressing minority opinions. Or at least, I've had a lot of posts of mine modded flamebait or trolling for i.e. being critical of Bernie Sanders, even though there was no trolling or flaming going on. Likewise I've avoided painting what is IMO a realistic picture of what a Sanders administration would look like (the Francois Hollande government in France) because I know it will just get buried.

      You might find that people who are prepared to "defend your right to say your say even to the death, even though they disagree with what you have to say" only are prepared to do that while they are in a position not to do anything about your free speech and in fact have their own exchange of opinions impeded. The moment they gain some sort of power over what others can freely say or not say, that preparedness goes out of the window and instead they start promoting those that agree with their own view and repress anything else.

      Just observe humanity and learn.

      Posting AC because of.

    126. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The snopes article links to the original Emory Wheel article which does include things like this:

      “I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe [here],” one student said. “But this man is being supported by students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school,” she added.

      And it does say students used the word "fear" when asked how they were feeling.

      The students want Emory to "disavow" Trump, which they refused to do - I assume they're not in the habit of endorsing or "disavowing" candidates for president and I don't really think it's a university's place to do so.

      Emory Students Express Discontent With Administrative Response to Trump Chalkings

      While the word "traumatized" does not appear in the article it seems a reasonable word to use.

      The snopes article debunks claims that Emory offered "emergency counseling" and claims the students weren't "afraid of or traumatized by the chalk markings" despite the students using the word "fear" and they sure sound as if they're acting "traumatized" to me.

      The Emory Wheel article also suggests that students felt "oppressed".

    127. Re:Not on Slashdot... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      You know...I'm not one to shy away from dropping the "F" bomb myself, but after the 47th time in two paragraphs, it loses a bit of its impact and just get monotonous.

      Respectfully: What The Fuck is a 'gay agenda'? Equal rights? Enjoying the same rights as everyone else everywhere?

      No, I'm talking about them getting special rights and laws passed. I don't see them getting particularly targeted for discriminatioin, they're not getting fired from jobs regularly because of who they sleep with....then don't need special protection.

      As for marriage, I don't believe the govt should be in the marriage business at all. I think marriage is a religious ceremony, and should be done by whatever church you want...the govt should only be there to provide for and enforce civil contracts as far as property and all goes.

      I do think, however, that a wedding caterer, or a photographer that has tightly held religious believes that homosexuality is against the word of God...they should not be forced to participate in a gay wedding or the sort. If they are just selling a product then I don't see much protection there, but having to to go and photograph and interact with the wedding, is forced participation and should not be forced upon a business owner with strict religious reasons.

      Just on the personal side...I'm not convinced on the gay by birth thing...I think it is a sexual behavior of choice like any other like or fetish, at least until they can show me the gay gene set that flips the switch on a person...but that's just my opinion

      I'm open to it being possible to being genetic, but I've not seen definitive proof yet...are you saying such an opinion should not be allowed and be suppressed?

      Just say it, for fuck sake: MUSLIMS. You mean those dirty, rag-headed, gutteral, snarly, infidels who chop people's heads off and want to impose Shariah law on you and your loved ones? That's who you mean, right, when you spew mealy-mouthed phrases like 'certain groups'? How fucking precious.

      Ok, when we're being overrun by terroristic actions by the Baptists or Suicide Presbyterian bombers, I'll relent that it is not just a problem out of one particular group with common belief in the world.

      Goddamn right, you're being suppressed. If by 'suppressed' you mean 'told to shut your fucking yap until you derive at least the slightest clue about the subject you keep ranting about'.

      Sounds like you want to suppress speech that does not agree with you or YOUR beliefs, goodness...sorry, I didn't realize YOU were the sage troll from which all correct thinking was to spew from...

      Look, I get how you feel, but dude, seriously, your views are not just wrong, they're hurtful and harmful. Not to people's precious feelingsâ"to their lives. When you oppose the 'latest gay agenda', you're sentencing some very good friends of mine to not being able to hold a loved one's hand in the hospital. You're saying that someone who devoted their life to caring and tending for a home should be ineligible for their life partner's pension. You make it harder for people just to... be... fucking... normal.

      Nothing I'm saying is affecting someones life...doesn't threaten them at all. And I guess it depends on your point of view of what is normal. What you take to assume is normal behavior is not necessarity that of the rest of the world...that is a relatively new thing...are you saying everyone that doesn't go with your terms of normal human behavior (which I'd generally term a something practiced by nearly the majority of humanity vs a small faction of it) are wrong and should be forced to adopt it and live with it...?

      Where is the freedom of choice how to live there? Where is the freedom of speech there if one isn't allowed to speak about their disagreement of it....it doesn't matter which side you think is right.....BOTH sides still deserver to make their voices heard without being suppressed. Hateful and hurtful speech to either side is and still should be, protected speech.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    128. Re:Not on Slashdot... by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Who says that? I've heard people say that he shouldn't be eligible to be President if he was born on foreign soil and his parents didn't treat him as a US citizen. The fact that he was on a university scholarship available only to non-US citizens might be evidence of this. I've never heard anybody say he is a dumbass for having been born there.

      Pro-Muslim... Why does anyone have to be pro-Muslim or pro-Christian or pro-Atheist? I'm not even sure what anti-colonial means. Are you saying that Obama somehow believes that the US didn't start out as colonies of Great Britain? Or that he is against colonizing the moon or Mars?

      Well, very many people in the US believe that being anti-American makes you a dumbass, just like many in Germany feel that being anti-German makes you a dumbass. Likewise, many believe that being a socialist makes you a dumbass just like socialist believe that not being a socialist makes you a dumbass. Do you really expect people to not feel that way?

    129. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Who says that?

      Republicans.

      I've heard people say that he shouldn't be eligible to be President if he was born on foreign soil and his parents didn't treat him as a US citizen.

      Citation please.

      The fact that he was on a university scholarship available only to non-US citizens might be evidence of this.

      Citation please.

      Why does anyone have to be pro-Muslim or pro-Christian or pro-Atheist?

      Pro-Muslim means anti-Christian and anti-American.

      I'm not even sure what anti-colonial means.

      Anti-colonial refers to the African people overthrowing their British, French and German colonial governments after World War II. It also means anti-white. Hence, not only is Obama was born a Muslim in Kenya, he also anti-white.

    130. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr

    131. Re:Not on Slashdot... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      PROTIP: You'll find idiots everywhere. If you go looking for examples of bizarre and bad and stupid behavior in any group, you'll find it. To draw good conclusions, you need some sort of statistics. Second PROTIP: News is stuff that isn't happening all the time. You see things on the news precisely because they're not typical. If you're exposed to all sorts of uncommon things happening, you'll get a distorted view of the world.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    132. Re:Not on Slashdot... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The most common use of "political correctness" I've seen recently is people doing offensive things and accusing anyone who complains of political correctness. Sort of like "SJW" being used primarily to vilify people with views the writer doesn't like.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    133. Re:Not on Slashdot... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've heard people say that he shouldn't be eligible to be President if he was born on foreign soil and his parents didn't treat him as a US citizen.

      I checked Snopes, though, and they say Cruz is eligible to be President. I understand there was a little doubt about McCain (not that there should be).

      Well, very many people in the US believe that being anti-American makes you a dumbass, j

      Really, I thought Palin was a dumbass before I found out about her ties to a secessionist movement. (Hint: wanting to secede from the USA does count as being anti-USA.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    134. Re:Not on Slashdot... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily.

      Those of you who follow my posts may have noticed that my politics are well to the left in most things. Being a leftist is not a protected class anywhere I know of, which means that any company could refuse to do business with me based on my politics. If a business decides not to hire me or sell me anything based on my politics, it hurts me more than it hurts them. There are places where my opinions are quite unpopular, and these places tend not to be noted for tolerance.

      It used to be that I could move to such a place and keep my mouth shut about politics and vote for my preferred candidates on the secret ballot. Now, someone could easily do some Google searching and find out that I've been a leftist for a LONG time (although my views on individual issues have changed over time), since that on-line record covers about the past twenty-five years.

      Personally, I've decided that I won't worry about possible retribution, but I'm not sure I can advise people forty years my junior to do the same.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    135. Re:Not on Slashdot... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      One thing I've learned is to pick my fights. This means that that there can be things I believe in but will not do because of possible consequences, both to me and my loved ones. Where I live (a generally liberal city in the US), I'm not particularly worried about such consequences. There are places in the world where saying what I think is true would have serious repercussions.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    136. Re:Not on Slashdot... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Some of us try to be rational and make rational arguments. That doesn't necessarily mean we're smart.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    137. Re:Not on Slashdot... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You've presented reasons to disagree with GP, not reasons to downmod GP.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    138. Re:Not on Slashdot... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I read this before anyone told me about the miniature chips. Tinfoil hats don't do what THEY want you to think anyway.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    139. Re:Not on Slashdot... by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      You want a citation to prove that their was a birther movement? How ignorant are you? Or you want a citation that says that you are not eligible to be President of the USA if you are not a natural born citizen of the USA? The US Constitution is pretty plain about that one. What makes you a natural born citizen? Apparently being born on US soil regardless of the status of your parents and being born on foreign soil to US citizens as long as they do the paperwork to have you treated as a citizen. Meaning that you are not considered a US citizen if you are born to US citizens who also have citizenship in another country and they want you to have that other citizenship. Therefore, the question about whether Obama got US citizenship from his US citizen mother (he was born on foreign soil and his father was never a US citizen) does come down to what his mother wanted at the time he was born and what paperwork she did about it.

      As for the rest of your answers... you've lost me

    140. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      As for the rest of your answers... you've lost me

      America was built on 400 years of slavery. If you understand the history of slavery, you can understand why a black man in the White House is driving parts of the country crazy.

    141. Re:Not on Slashdot... by strstr · · Score: 1

      your post was being modded down when I commented. it was modded up, then down to 2, stopped tracking it after that.

      somehow it got back up to 5.

    142. Re:Not on Slashdot... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      your post was being modded down when I commented. it was modded up, then down to 2, stopped tracking it after that.

      You like to dog pile on down modded comments? Whatever floats your boat.

      somehow it got back up to 5.

      Happens all the time. ;)

    143. Re:Not on Slashdot... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      But what is implicit in your statement that it makes people "think twice" before having an opinion?

      It's not about having an opinion. It's about expressing an opinion.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    144. Re:Not on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Therefore, the question about whether Obama got US citizenship from his US citizen mother (he was born on foreign soil and his father was never a US citizen) does come down to what his mother wanted at the time he was born and what paperwork she did about it.

      Hawaii was foreign soil? Do they even have an extant sovereignty movement, and is there any sign that it was recognized?

      There might be some possibility that in his youth, Barack Obama could have exercised a right to citizenship in Kenya through his father, maybe even the British Empire, but there is no evidence of it being exercised, rather he spent his years with his mother, some outside the US, but more than enough in the US to exercise that right, even if it were challenged at the time. But now, decades later? Oh my. Good luck joining the Orly Tait brigade.

    145. Re:Not on Slashdot... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm inclined to agree. There's the Law of Diminishing Returns and it's really so applicable to so many things.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    146. Re:Not on Slashdot... by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      He was not born in Hawaii. Hawaii supposedly issued the birth certificate. My understanding is that that is how it can work for children born of citizens but on foreign soil. It really depends on whether his mom really asked for that paperwork or if that paperwork was handled later on.

  2. Fear Mongering? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    No, I didn't read the article. But, One government's "surveillance" does not necessarily equate to another government's "surveillance". Additionally, what is the definition of "surveillance"? And what is the purpose , and what actions does it result in? These things vary throughout the world. It can be reasonably argued that governments need to be aware of what's going on with various groups within their societies.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Fear Mongering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that surveillance has a pretty standard definition that's well understood. Certainly when it comes to government surveillance.

      Just because the US government is really good at squelching discussion of how they have treated people with minority views doesn't mean it didn't happen. For example socialists, communists, homosexuals, native Americans, Japanese during WWII, Germans during WWI and WWII, and blacks during the civil rights movements.

    2. Re:Fear Mongering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mass surveillance as in spying on everyone in the hopes of finding something. Unfortunately, the information gathered is likely incomplete and can get innocent people investigated or worse. Investigation is sometimes all that is needed to damage someone's life.

    3. Re:Fear Mongering? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      "Squelching discussion" and surveillance are two different things. Surveillance is not always used for squelching discussion.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Fear Mongering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The whole point is that you don't have to be under actual surveillance to make you STFU, its enough that you aren't sure that you are not. If you make people worry about what kind of repercussions their opinions will have on their lives they will usually not express those opinions. It a great system to keep people in line! :-)

    5. Re:Fear Mongering? by magarity · · Score: 2

      Just because the US government is really good at squelching discussion of how they have treated people with minority views doesn't mean it didn't happen. For example socialists, communists, homosexuals, native Americans, Japanese during WWII, Germans during WWI and WWII, and blacks during the civil rights movements.

      There are university courses devoted to bemoaning each of those categories in seperate classes. The exact opposite of "squelching".

    6. Re:Fear Mongering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume that the discussion that is being squelched is about who was surveilled and what the consequences of that surveillance were.

      Hint: That discussion is not flattering to the US or any of its three letter agencies. Citizens of Japanese decent robbed of all possessions and thrown in prison camps, others hounded from their homes and jobs, and a few who were actually murdered.

    7. Re:Fear Mongering? by axewolf · · Score: 1

      Uh, well, in case you didn't realize it, every country doesn't have a government like the US. The vast majority of "countries" only have this status to placate the population's need for nationalism. In reality they have the power of like a state or county government or a large business in the US. The powerful are all one government. All of their interests overlap borders every which way. There are not multiple "mass surveillances". There is one. There is one "government". There is one empire. The British Empire never failed. It only conquered. It is the entire west.

      BUT EVERYONE KNOWS THE EMPIRE WAS DISSOLVED PEACEFULLY BECAUSE AMERICA IS SO GREAT THE REVOLUTION CHANGED EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD HAHA
      Ok if you want to believe that then enjoy what's coming to you (doubt you will)

      And oh yeah your post is like the stupidest thing I have ever seen. What is the point of your repeated questioning? To deflect a notion you don't want to confront with infinitely suspended questions? Nice.

    8. Re:Fear Mongering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reads like classic Beijing propaganda. I like how this is one world surveillance, one world government, and "the entire west" which somehow leaves room for all the divine and subtle mysteries of the orient!

      Get f***ed.

    9. Re:Fear Mongering? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      , One government's "surveillance" does not necessarily equate to another government's "surveillance".

      Very true. And TFA doesn't find a link between surveillance and self-censorship. It finds a link between surveillance of certain types and self-censorship.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  3. In Trump's America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There will be no opinions. We will become Putin's Russia.

    1. Re:In Trump's America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russians are all weak-ass faggots.

  4. Well, I think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... err, nothing, never mind.

  5. Isn't this a dup? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    I thought we heard this "story" last month. The consensus seemed to be that it wasn't "government mass surveillance" that was causing people to self-censor, it was the prospect of being fired or failing to get a job because someone might be offended by something someone dropped on social media ten years ago.

    1. Re:Isn't this a dup? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      I thought we heard this "story" last month. The consensus seemed to be that it wasn't "government mass surveillance" that was causing people to self-censor, it was the prospect of being fired or failing to get a job because someone might be offended by something someone dropped on social media ten years ago.

      I have a Facebook account specifically for work and things like that where I post nothing but cat videos

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Isn't this a dup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a Facebook account specifically for work and things like that where I post nothing but cat videos

      Mister Piss, first off, I do appreciate your application to our research laboratory. That said, HR ran a standard social networking check because it's cheaper than a proper background check and the clerks laugh at us whenever we apply for a background check. Well, the point is that your Facebook profile shows a very disturbing trend in light of your application here. We experiment primarily with mice, and your videos show a blatant disrespect for out rodentine co-workers.

  6. Racist - Chilling Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the chilling effect is rebranded as racism?

    I'll allow it.

    1. Re:Racist - Chilling Effect by tsqr · · Score: 1

      So, the chilling effect is rebranded as racism?

      I'll allow it.

      Christ. Minority opinions != opinions of minorities.

  7. The Smartest Book About Our Digital Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The mass crushes beneath it everything that is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated...

    Published in 1929

    1. Re:The Smartest Book About Our Digital Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select.

      The problem is we only admire excellence, individuality, quality when it brings fame and fortune. We must no longer accept self-worth achieved by stable employment, marriage, immersive parenting (Hint: How many people have those?), we must demand excessive reward for our uniqueness and individuality. Anything else is ordinary, forgettable and therefore worthless.

      ... who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated.

      This is the price of democracy: Giving everyone a voice means there are more idiots talking than philosophers. Of course the dissenting voice, the educated voice will be lost in the babble. We see it best on the internet where some social sites are echo chambers holding no reasoned argument and no dissent.

      What 'Revolt of the masses' (J Ortega) realized 90 years ago, was the increasing power of the 'common man' to choose his own constructs: To prevent personal needs being chosen for him (eg. prostitution, casual sex, oral sex, pre-marital sex, masturbation is unhealthy) by social, moral and political leaders. The rising power of one means people no longer sacrifice themselves to benefit the moral majority, the church or the ruling elite. In many ways, that is a good thing but in their stead, the common man chooses a different leader; one who says exactly what he wants to hear. Thus, reasoned argument and dissent are ignored in favour of self-promotion. This gives him comfort that he is not alone, that he is right, and he can choose the personal needs of others.

      The greatest demonstration of these weaknesses is the Catholic church: As social infrastructure has crumbled, the church can no longer claim ordinary life is comforting. As the world changes to include pre-marital sex and contraception, homosexuality, climate change, the Pope refusing to involve, or powerless to involve, itself in these issues, means Christian worshipers avoid involving the Catholic church in their lives.

    2. Re:The Smartest Book About Our Digital Age by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      After clicking that Amazon book link:
      When did Amazon go all Facebook on comment moderation? It used to say "xx of yy found this helpful". Now it says "xx found this helpful". The first version conveyed information about how useful the comment might be. The second merely tells you how many people liked it, with any frame of reference removed.

      --
      I come here for the love
  8. DUH! That's the idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It has always been to silence political dissent. The idea of mass surveillance was never to "Catch the bad guys" unless by "bad guys" you mean people who disagree with you politically.

    1. Re:DUH! That's the idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is the thing. I don't mind when mass surveillance is used against red necks trying to overthrow the government or religious jihadists trying to acquire components to make bombs. The conservative trolls on-line in Forums and Facebook don't seem to mind and aren't being silenced anyways.

      It is more oppressive policing that broke up Occupy, BLM, and other left-wing groups, not really mass surveillance.

    2. Re:DUH! That's the idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As seen at Trump rallies, if you have an opinion different than his, you get arrested.

    3. Re:DUH! That's the idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Occupy was broken up from within. Teh cancer of identity politics killed that movement. As far as BLM or other left wing protest groups go, I've yet to see how they've been diminished.

  9. thx, neocons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Participants who claimed they don't break any laws and don't have anything to hide and tended to support mass surveillance as necessary for national security, were the most likely to silence their minority opinions.

    So homeland defense not only includes the erosion of my rights, but also means you guys are ceding the political debate to the homeland's commies? Fuckers.

  10. It's sad by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

    Most people don't want to end up on lists and hence avoid saying anything radical and contrary to mainstream beliefs. We already know that things as mundane as belonging to or associating oneself with a political group or movement get you interest from the FBI. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. What was done in the past to silence inconvenient voices is most likely being done today, too, and probably using even more sophisticated methods.

    --
    -SR
    1. Re:It's sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paranoid much? How much do you spend on tin foil every month?

    2. Re:It's sad by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 2

      If I was paranoid I probably wouldn't let everyone know my email address, for starters. Being paranoid also implies that what I said would be speculation, which it is not if you check out the links. People who are truly paranoid post as AC.

      --
      -SR
    3. Re:It's sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who are truly paranoid post as AC.

      Exactly!

  11. Nothing to hide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Then you are a boring person.

  12. IF you have nothing to hide by backslashdot · · Score: 2

    then it's cool for someone to videotape you naked and having sex? If you have nothing to hide why any concern about that?

    1. Re:IF you have nothing to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, if you're doing it in public.

    2. Re:IF you have nothing to hide by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

      then it's cool for someone to videotape you naked and having sex? If you have nothing to hide why any concern about that?

      Possibly. In your scenario, does money change hands?

    3. Re:IF you have nothing to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your the average /. reader all they'll see is you and 5 finger Mary sitting in your mom's basement watching Internet porn anyway.

    4. Re:IF you have nothing to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you aren't doing it in public then you do have something to hide. The same for anyone who closes the bathroom door when they shower, piss or shit.

      People who say they have nothing to hide are all liars.

    5. Re:IF you have nothing to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *you're *Rosie Palmer and her five friends *YOUR mom's basement

    6. Re:IF you have nothing to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you so interested in watching people shower, piss, and shit?

  13. Ironic... by Lendrick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The people who claim that they have nothing to hide apparently have more to hide.

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

      My pants have nothing to hide.

    2. Re:Ironic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the people who value anonymity the most are also the ones who generally feel the most uncomfortable about speaking out -- whether on an internet forum or at Christmas dinner.

  14. If you know that "private" isn't , it has effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you know that "private" is accessible to the government and will be accessed and recorded, then you will shut up in private too. Since the opinions you express to others shape your real opinions this will twist your thinking on many subjects.

  15. Re:Finally some good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really. MacOS fanbois are annoying. . . .

  16. Majority rules, minority rights must be protected by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson's first inaugural address.

  17. A positive benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's good that such dissent is quashed. We need to march goose step in the war against terror

  18. Chilling-effects are the intent of surveillance by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rather obviously, surveillance by the NSA, GCHQ and others does not serve to make anybody more secure, as it is now exceptionally obvious it does not help against terrorism or the other "Horsemen of the Infocalypse" at all. So why do it? Sure, one aspect will be the fundamental desire of any bureaucracy to increase its size and to absorb (i.e. waste) as many resources as possible. Look at the TSA for a text-book example of that happening. But that is not enough to explain what is going on.

    I have by now come to the conclusion that these people have either completely lost their minds (unlikely) or that they know exactly what they want (likely) and that is the chilling effects that general surveillance causes: They want "troublemakers" to keep silent and self-censor and to not rock the boat. They want to be sure they have some dirt on anybody that may ever come into political power so they can prevent that if they do not like the ideas of that person. Unlike the publicly stated motivations for universal surveillance, _these_ goals are rational (if utterly despicable and evil) and achievable.

    It used to be an all-seeing all knowing-god that served this function. People would "confess their sins" (i.e. do self-surveillance and report to their case-officer on themselves) and would be told what was acceptable to think and what was not. Now, even most religious people do not fall for that anymore and so a cabal of power-mongers has decided to implement a technical solution that replaces said god with technology. The mechanisms are a bit different, people now pay for being being spied and provide the hardware (e.g. cellphones) instead of doing it themselves manually. The direct feedback from the confessor has been replaced by general guidelines. The news are showing "bad people" being sent to prison and hint they are being tortured there, not so different from what the inquisition did, just adjusted to the information-age. And so on.

    Universal surveillance is a direct, targeted and determined attack on free society. There really is no different purpose it could serve. Sure, it is carried out and furthered by a lot of "useful idiots" that do not understand what the actual goals are and why it is being done (and I expect quite a few of those would still go along if they knew), but those in control will know. It will be how we, as a still mostly free society, deal with this challenge that will determine how history remembers us.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Chilling-effects are the intent of surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Universal surveillance is a direct, targeted and determined attack on free society. "

      It's because the elites fear the awakening of the masses globally.

      Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

      The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

      Brezinski at a press conference

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g

      Major powers, and imposing control over the awakened masses.

      https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397

      Important:

      http://williamblum.org/aer/read/137

    2. Re:Chilling-effects are the intent of surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Universal surveillance is a direct, targeted and determined attack on free society. "

      They are worried about the globe awakening politically.

      Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought.

      Science on reasoning:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

      The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

      Brezinski at a press conference

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g

      Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

      From war is a racket:

      "I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]

      "War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]

      "The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24]

      General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of tramautized soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home.

      http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/">War is a racket

      US distribution of wealth

      https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

      http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

      The Centre for Investigative Journalism

      http://www.tcij.org/

      Some history on US imperialism by us corporations.

      https://kurukshetra1.wordpress.com/2015/09/27/a-brief-history-of-imperialism-and-state-violence-in-colombia/

    3. Re:Chilling-effects are the intent of surveillance by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It's ironic this is in a context of business as prime evil, rather than government power as prime evil.

      When government has no power to grant economic favors to business, it can't be abused. Yet this is the primary reason politicians worldwide go into government -- so they can get in the way of enterprise, to get laid to get back out of the way.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:Chilling-effects are the intent of surveillance by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Get paid to get back out of the way, but often it is get laid, too.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:Chilling-effects are the intent of surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's funny is with or without your typo, you're still correct.

  19. A Perfect World by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a Perfect World, whenever anyone uttered the sickening phrase "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide", they would forcibly stripped of all their clothing and stuffed inside a glass cube on the public commons until they honestly realized the errors in their 'thinking'.

    A free society is impossible without true privacy.

    1. Re:A Perfect World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, I see it kind of like what my dad used to tell me... that if you never lie, you don't have to try to remember what you said. Good advice I think. Honest people really shouldn't have anything to hide. 99% of the time someone who is behaving erratically and trying to hide things is one or both of criminal or mentally unstable.

    2. Re:A Perfect World by tekrat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bzzzzt! Nice try but wrong.
      Good, honest people have plenty to hide:
      Their social security number
      Their credit card numbers
      The PIN to their bank account

      Just because you're honest, doesn't mean you should be OPEN, because giving away your personal information that *should* be hidden is what gives nefarious people access to good people's money.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    3. Re:A Perfect World by tekrat · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, from what little I know of her, this is what made Kim Kardasian famous in the first place.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    4. Re:A Perfect World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we define mentally unstable how? "People I think are trying to hide something from me?"

    5. Re:A Perfect World by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      I don't care if people see my naked body. If you want to see it, just go with me to a place where being naked is acceptable, like in public showers.
      The reason I don't normally show it off is because of social norms. Just because I don't care if a bunch of kids know how my dick looks like doesn't mean that I will stand naked beside schools.

      A more appropriate punishment would be to put their credit card number on a billboard.

    6. Re:A Perfect World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's always something you don't want another human being knowing. You don't want the person on the other side of the negotiating table to know what you'll settle for. You don't want your bosses to know about a chronic condition that may impact your work in the future or else they may fire you. You don't want the gross details of your anatomy or health writ large for all to see. You don't want the kinks and fetishes you have published in the paper. None of this stuff is necessarily lying or immoral, but they are things that most people would want to be kept private.

    7. Re:A Perfect World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzzzt! Nice try but wrong.
      Good, honest people have plenty to hide:
      Their social security number
      Their credit card numbers
      The PIN to their bank account

      Just because you're honest, doesn't mean you should be OPEN, because giving away your personal information that *should* be hidden is what gives nefarious people access to good people's money.

      Well those are all examples of crappy authentication schemes, where a more reliable authentication scheme (like face to face meetings with your bank manager, who knows you, for example). But here's some more meaningful examples:

      * Next quarter's business plans
      * Your vacation travel plans (want to get kidnapped, if you're an American travelling abroad?)
      * Your searches for other employment opportunities (really want your current boss seeing that?)
      * Intel's process parameters at their silicon fabs
      * The release date and specs for Nintendo/Sega/MS/Sony/whoever still makes consoles
      * Where you like to have lunch and dinner (if you're a celebrity)
      * How much you get paid in a non-union shop (I've been here, and the grief you get from coworkers who think you're paid unfairly is hard to bear)
      * Basically anything in any of the competitive hidden state markets we participate in a daily manner

      The whole business/crime model of insider trading is based on knowing things that aren't anything wrong but are something to hide.

    8. Re:A Perfect World by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Urgh. Can we at least have these glass cube in a specific location so we do not have to look at them? I meet enough fools as it is, seeing them naked in addition is just too much!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  20. Surveillance is only part of the problem by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The other part is corporate data retention and data mining.

    Years ago, when young Google was still seen as a genuinely benevolent company and "social media" didn't exist, I was interviewed by a newspaper regarding a hot and highly publicized issue involving hacking and the newly-voted DMCA that I got involved in. I wasn't careful about what I said to that newspaper, and it got republished on the internet.

    Soon after, I realized Google never forgot anything: for the following 10 years, each time I'd go to a job interview, that episode of my life - and the unfortunate statements I gave to the newspaper - would come up in the conversation. For a good 10 years, I had to explain myself, and explain that no, I wasn't a dangerous hacker, what really happened, and that, yes, I can be trusted with company secrets.

    I quickly realized I had to shut my trap and hide my identity as much as I could online, if didn't want whatever I did or said to bite my ass in the future ever again.

    Now, years later, Google has finally forgotten about me. If you know my name and you look it up, you can still find references to what happened 16 years ago. But thankfully, with the advent of social media and people who bear the same name as mine, it's buried in pages after pages of mindless drivel. So you have to know what you look for to find out what I said back then.

    The lesson here is: Google turned me into a very paranoid person online, not government surveillance. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the government isn't the real threat here: it's rogue corporations who operate in the data mining sphere. At least the government is openly nefarious, and somewhat accountable. Google & Co aren't: they pose as friendly innovators, when in fact they're just out to make a buck on your back, regardless of how much they can ruin your life.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Surveillance is only part of the problem by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      The other part is corporate data retention and data mining.

      Years ago, when young Google was still seen as a genuinely benevolent company and "social media" didn't exist, I was interviewed by a newspaper regarding a hot and highly publicized issue involving hacking and the newly-voted DMCA that I got involved in. I wasn't careful about what I said to that newspaper, and it got republished on the internet.

      Soon after, I realized Google never forgot anything: for the following 10 years, each time I'd go to a job interview, that episode of my life - and the unfortunate statements I gave to the newspaper - would come up in the conversation. For a good 10 years, I had to explain myself, and explain that no, I wasn't a dangerous hacker, what really happened, and that, yes, I can be trusted with company secrets.

      Umm, I do feel for you and your experience. But I'm not sure how any of this is Google's fault or really has much to do with "data mining." It's just basic search indexing.

      Instead, you gave information to a newspaper, who chose to publish it on a public website. Google's "intentions" here were neither benevolent nor malicious -- they were just indexing public information.

      As far as I can tell, if you want to blame anyone, I'd put the blame on the newspaper -- unless their general practice was to publish everyone online, which case it's really your own fault for not realizing the implications of that.

      I quickly realized I had to shut my trap and hide my identity as much as I could online, if didn't want whatever I did or said to bite my ass in the future ever again.

      I had a similar incident years before yours probably took place, where I had an email correspondence with someone who hosted a website, and I made some corrections about what he had said, though it was an "off-the-cuff" email which wasn't particularly well thought-out. He later posted that email on his website without asking permission -- his intent was clearly good, since he wanted to provide more detail and another perspective. But to me it was mildly embarrassing. And ever since I've been careful whenever I use my real name or email online.

      The fact that you can still find those emails from more than 20 years ago using Google (with enough work) doesn't make Google responsible for my embarrassment.

      Google & Co aren't: they pose as friendly innovators, when in fact they're just out to make a buck on your back, regardless of how much they can ruin your life.

      While I agree that Google is trying to make money (sometimes in questionable ways), and aggregating your data is useful toward that end, I don't follow how your particular anecdote demonstrates some nefarious purpose. You gave comments to a NEWSPAPER. Surely you realized that was already a public venue? And that newspaper decided to post that story on a public website.

      Without some sort of search, the internet would be impossible to navigate. I'm not sure I understand how Google's choice to simply index public pages demonstrates their intent to "ruin your life" just to make a buck.

    2. Re:Surveillance is only part of the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is just the idea that something you said 20 years ago can still have a very real effect on your life today. He admits that it was an lapse of judgement and after that point he decided to consider his words more carefully.

      50 years ago, that same newspaper report would still be obtainable, but it wouldn't take a simple google search to uncover. You'd likely have to go to the library and dig through old newspapers hoping to find something.

      It is just the reality we live in. Now what you say will literally follow you your entire life.

    3. Re:Surveillance is only part of the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50 years ago, that same newspaper report would still be obtainable, but it wouldn't take a simple google search to uncover. You'd likely have to go to the library and dig through old newspapers hoping to find something.

      This. Newspapers used to be ephemeral content.

      Just like USENET used to only last a week or so before it expired off your server. Apparently old USENET archives as obscure as alt.religion.kibology may have revealed the authors of TrueCrypt.

      As the old saying goes, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Everyone has something to hide. If not from someone in power today, then perhaps from someone in power 20 years from now.

    4. Re:Surveillance is only part of the problem by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It was long enough ago that he assumed it would be printed in the hardcopy newspaper and forgotten. The DMCA passed in 1998. (Actually, Google postdates the DMCA, so it may not have existed yet.)

      Yes, this is not Google's fault.

      But the point remains. Google is scarier than the NSA. They collect more data, they have less oversight on retention and exploitation, and if you're frightened of the NSA, Google has no pesky "privacy rights" that cover the data they have about you

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:Surveillance is only part of the problem by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The key thing about Google and earlier search engines is that it used to be possible to live things down. I was interviewed for the campus newspaper when I was an undergrad, and said some things that are way different from my current views, and would be potentially embarrassing if dug up today. I got a few reactions, and then the world forgot about it. It's no longer possible. You can easily find stuff I said twenty-five years ago.

      I don't have to prove malicious intent to show that there are some really bad effects of having archives and search engines.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  21. Sounds Like 'Enabling' Weakness by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    Maybe most peeps aren't as brave as they think they are. If you are afraid to say your mind because of your surroundings then you need to work on your own fear. I say whatever I feel like saying, and I do whatever I feel like doing, and I am not afraid to act and speak no matter where I am. Yea, I have been arrested for telling a cop to fuck off after he was harassing me because I don't look like a good ol boy. Went to court and judge threw it out. Even if he hadn't, I would have done my time , walked out and said the exact same thing if I was harassed again. Most peeps care if they get shot in the head, so they will act a certain way. I don't give a fuck. If I am doing what I want without hurting anyone and someone decides they don't like it and kills me, then I win. This country is full of wimps.

    1. Re:Sounds Like 'Enabling' Weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a shot in the dark here, but... are you a white and/or physically imposing male?

      PS don't even bother with the "look, the sjw pulled the race card" crap. I'm not going to read it.

    2. Re:Sounds Like 'Enabling' Weakness by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

      My aim is to do exactly how I please with no regard to 'who' is watching me. To change your persona based on surroundings aka surveillance then you are weak and part of the problem. No clue what Way of the Samurai has to do with anything and I don't really care. Maybe some reading comprehension would you serve you well.

  22. It's a unavoidable side effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to way up the real costs of a action against it's benefits to be able to make judgements about whether something is worth it. With "Squelching discussion" as an inevitable side-effect mass surveillance is not a good thing, at most you can argue for necessary evil (for suspect values of necessary).

  23. Founding Fathers Spinning In Their Graves by Jawnn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What part of
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
    ...does our current group of "leaders" not get? Once upon a time, we the people considered that right to be so important that we made it a foundation of our system of law and government. That it has now been eroded that certain groups are silenced by fear is cause for deep, deep shame for us as a society.

    1. Re:Founding Fathers Spinning In Their Graves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same founding fathers who declared "All men are created equal." while holding slaves?

      Yeah, I'm sure they're outraged.

    2. Re:Founding Fathers Spinning In Their Graves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it's admirable that they said "All men are created equal" because that paved the way for future generations to dismantle slavery. Plus, if you read some of the Founding Father's writings many of them did abhor slavery, and wanted it abolished. But then again, how do you align a loose coalition of states into a republic if you're going to have to address all of their shortfalls first? It'd never happen... and they knew it, so they picked their battles and history proves them to be wise in that decision.

    3. Re:Founding Fathers Spinning In Their Graves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "does our current group of "leaders" not get?"

      You're incredibly ignorant about what is going on in the world sadly.

      Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

      The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

      Brezinski at a press conference

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g

      Major powers, and imposing control over the awakened masses.

      https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397

      Important:

      http://williamblum.org/aer/read/137

    4. Re:Founding Fathers Spinning In Their Graves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...does our current group of "leaders" not get?"

      They get it, they worry about the globe awakening politically.

      Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought.

      Science on reasoning:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

      The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

      Brezinski at a press conference

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g

      Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

      From war is a racket:

      "I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]

      "War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]

      "The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24]

      General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of traumatized soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home.

      http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/">War is a racket

      US distribution of wealth

      https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

      http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

      The Centre for Investigative Journalism

      http://www.tcij.org/

      Some history on US imperialism by us corporations.

      https://kurukshetra1.wordpress.com/2015/09/27/a-brief-history-of-imperialism-and-state-violence-in-colombia/

    5. Re:Founding Fathers Spinning In Their Graves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, the American thing. It is always a pleasant surprise to see it crop ;up. I used to have a good lecture on that, umm, sorta like; When a thousand individuals feel free to do their own thing, one of them will come up with a better way to do things, and thus it was the old USA generated lots of progress. The late 19th ct was probably the most progressive, when a nerd with a steam engine app improving efficiency by a half percent could live on the profits from it.

      The WWII vets say the post war cultural change was substantial, and the cold war vets say the new right wing culture appears to be working for the Soviet Union, and the analysts of the Soviets say they were brought down by stifling progress, so here we are in the new Age of Stupid.

      Nils K. Hammer

    6. Re:Founding Fathers Spinning In Their Graves by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Simple: Fascism is the new "reasonable".

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  24. Don't You Dare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you dare try to walk back this hatred with your word play.

    Minority opinions matter.
    Opinions of minorities matter, more!

  25. internet surveys are useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    255 invitation only selected subjects (there's vagueness about how they were selected) with 31 disqualified for not having social media accounts which leaves 224 respondents. Subjects had to be reminded that the NSA could be monitoring their responses to the survey questions which naturally affected whether they felt the need to be guared in expressing their opinions online. Generally, you get the same result when you remind people that commercial companies like ISP's, Google, ad trackers, etc. are collecting data on them.

  26. Those Who Have Been Sileced Are Voting Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are no longer free to state their politically incorrect opinions in public, but they can make them known via anonymous ballot.

  27. And one more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even ACs are being logged, both by Slashdot (IP address) and by the NSA/GCHQ/Chinese etc.

    Don't forget the GNAA! Defiantly logging. Always logging.

  28. I feel affected by this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have certainly felt affected by this. I always think twice before posting something inflammatory because I fear it could be used against me at some point in the future if things took a wrong turn politically (an increasing possibility these days).

  29. The premise is plainly not true by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The thought that minority voices are being silenced by surveillance is absurd; witness all of the protests around Ferguson, or Black Lives Matter protests everywhere. Never has the minority voice been louder or more strident.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The premise is plainly not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Miniority opinions, not voices of minorities. Having an unpopular view point on something will put you into the minority.

      Example, do you believe in strong encryption and that the government should go pound dirt? If so, according to national polls, you are in the miniority with such a stance. Should you now be punished for having this view point?

      That's what this is all about.

      If you are punished for unpopular speech then it wasn't free. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Sadly that is not how it is anymore.

  30. What utter bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So NOW minorities are being self-censored too? Christ on a crutch, these SJWs just don't stop do they? I'm embarrassed for myself, my kids and my country when this shit continues to be vomited.

    If America is such a PoS, then LEAVE. Cretins.

    1. Re:What utter bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psychotic break much?

      Guy, I hate to tell you this, but "minorities" have been "self-censored" since the dawn of time. That doesn't make it a positive force for society. Nor does your bitching about their bitching contribute constructively to anything whatsoever. It does, however, sow national disunity, hatred, and self-hatred.

  31. Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Study show fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly. OFFICIAL!

  32. Re:Facts like these can't be disproved validly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought you left?

  33. Re:Facts like these can't be disproved validly by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Oh, for pity's sake, AlecStaar--can't you save your nonsense for a story where it's at least slightly relevant?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  34. Wrong: I'm far from "left" - what I am, is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Right (Totally right on any & all levels concerned... pure fact, & truth. Nothing stops it or me. Irrepressible, irresistable, immovable objects that are unstoppable).

    APK

    P.S.=> That's why "IROC FIGHTCLUB" boys & you? Don't... apk

  35. Re:Facts like these can't be disproved validly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facts aren't opinions. Maybe that's why opinions aren't as solid or unstoppable. They're not concrete enough. He's makes a point. No stopping verifiable fact. Or apk posting it. Some here tried to stop him from telling it from what I' read.

  36. Spiral of silence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like the thing to do in big brother state is to not stand out.
    So as the outliers stop talking, some folks closer to the median will become the new outliers.
    Then they will quit and some others will become the outliers and the process will repeat until everybody is towing the line.

    Hopefully, the problem with this theory is that some folks will just ignore the situation and continue to talk making it possible for other, more median folks to talk as well.

  37. This is good, correct? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    So mass surveillance is having a chilling effect on the climate?

    Doesn't that mean that mass surveillance is beneficial to the earth so we should be doing more of it?

    1. Re:This is good, correct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read the summary as "minority opinions about climate" and had no idea how the hell the study was conducted.

  38. E.G. Why fact isn't as repressable as opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Pure fact & unstoppable - APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...

    * Less power/cpu/ram+ IO use vs. local DNS servers + addons w/ less security issues vs. DNS + routers. Less complex vs firewalls (needing layered filtering drivers - hosts don't + firewalls block less used IP addresses, hosts block more used host-domain names) complimenting 'em. Antivirus = reactive. Hosts = proactive, blocking infection BEFORE you get it. Gets its data from 10 reputable security community sites.

    APK

    P.S. - Hosts get you more speed (hardcodes + adblocks) & faster vs. addons, security (vs. bad sites/dns security issues), reliability (vs. downed/poisoned dns), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) vs. other "so-called -solutions'" w/ what you natively have. Unlike Adblock/UBlock/Ghostery, hosts != blockable by ClarityRay/BlockIQ... apk

    1. Re:E.G. Why fact isn't as repressable as opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God damn I love you APK.
      Too bad nobody on this site is remotely smart enough to actually engage in a debate about how your file reflects nothing but a system of trust - neither "fact" nor "opinion" but a mere network of "known bad guys". Thus fact and opinion are at some level one and the same - the entire basis of democracy!

  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  41. More security, speed, reliability & anonymity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: It's fact hosts get users all that for less using what you already have natively vs. inferior more complex methods.

    APK

    P.S.=> Nothing but the truth & fact that works... apk

  42. My quote beats your quote, coming and going. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    "The person who loves correction loves knowledge, but anyone who hates a rebuke is stupid." - Proverbs 12:1 (NIV)

    ...

    "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." -- Ezekiel 23:20 (NIV)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  43. Mandatory real names. Extremely bad idea. by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    The thing is, it doesn't really matter who they are unless some form of direct, personal retaliation is your goal. If they're being an anonymous asshole, they're still being an asshole, and internet-rhetoric-wise, you should treat them as one either way.

    The down side of "real names" is multifold: People who are stalked. People who are refugees. People who have been unfairly placed in some category by a malfunctioning justice system. People who wish to stay clear of former lovers, spouses, parents, etc.

    When you say "you must use your real name", these are people you are straight-up muzzling or placing in danger. And the benefit you get? At best, a toning down of rhetoric. Which does more good? Seeing to it that vulnerable people are less subject to actual threat, or our precious sensibilities being (slightly, sometimes) free of some level of assholery?

    I know where I stand; and it isn't with the "real name" authoritarians.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Mandatory real names. Extremely bad idea. by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Not sure if you think you're arguing against me but I think we're on the same side of this. I was trying to show the person I was replying to that their supposedly-not-to-enable-retribution reason for requiring real names, in fact, still boils down to the threat of retribution; he just happens to like one of the small positives that come from that. But I, like you, don't think that small positive is worth the large negatives that come part and parcel with it.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  44. See For Yourself by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    There are numerous people on the forums who promote violence, sedition, treason and revolution as well as race hatred and all kinds of horrors including personal threats. Go waste some time on the forums and you will see it for yourself. Maybe we already have too much freedom on the net. I know if I ran a cop shop I would certainly be very interested in people who promote hatred and violence. I'm a bit glad that big brother snoops a bit.

  45. Re:Facts like these can't be disproved validly by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Alex, if you're going to pretend to be someone else, you really need to work on that "uses the same phrasing and even the same grammatical errors" thing.

    Still butthurt that you can't crapflood here any more? Good.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  46. Re:Facts like these can't be disproved validly by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    For those of you just joining us, I should probably mention that this is the same APK who tried to run me out of here a couple of years ago by posting 200+ responses to anything I posted.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  47. Re:Facts like these can't be disproved validly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zontar you were caught with admitting you make sockpuppet fake accounts on slashdot to troll, downmod apk and mod yourself up with https://slashdot.org/comments....

  48. I am Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are right but still a long time ago I used to use my account here but now only post as Anonymous Coward. At least I make them work a little to figure out who I am and sometimes posting from other places I am a bit hidden from the all seeing eyes.

    Land of the Free. Yea right.....

  49. I agree with you by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    No, not arguing with you. Continuing the consideration of the issue is all. Sorry I didn't make that clear, but the subject disturbs me and that narrowed my focus a bit too far; the whole "real name" trope appears to me to be based upon selfishness, a marked lack of compassion (but I repeat myself) and general social malaise.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  50. Re:Facts like these can't be disproved validly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're the one pretending to be others with your sockpuppets you admit to making Zontar https://slashdot.org/comments....

  51. Re:Facts like these can't be disproved validly by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Not getting drawn into your horseshit, AlexAndy. I'm not even going to follow that link, because it's guaranteed you're trying to use it to come perform some combination of omission, exaggeration, mischaracterisation, misrepresentation, and/or plain old lying.

    Just like you've been doing for the last 15 years.

    What a waste.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  52. Re:Facts like these can't be disproved validly by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    No. See above.

    Feel free to keep this thread alive all by your lonesome, but I won't be reading any further AC responses in it.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  53. Re:Facts like these can't be disproved validly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zontar you're caught in the link posted and yet you accuse others of what you do (doing fake sockpuppet accounts here on slashdot)? You're a hypocrite and a moron! I'm not alexandy either stupid.

  54. Trump Bumper Sticker by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    well, I am a Trump supporter, and I have a window clingy on my car rather than a Bumper Sticker because I want to be able to remove it when I go into work. IRL there are lots of ways you can be sanctioned.

    --
    ...
  55. Re:Facts like these can't be disproved validly by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

    Dude, you have some serious multiple personality disorder.

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  56. Re:Facts like these can't be disproved validly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apk made you eat your words on "nobody gives a shit what you had to say" from you http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and there certainly is proof of THAT in black and white there in that link where you are outnumbered 100's to 1 against you. Lastly you're no psych pro and trolling off topic with illogical ad hominem attacks.