Slashdot Mirror
Are Governments Denying Internet Access To Their Political Opponents? (technologyreview.com)
"Keeping your enemies offline can cripple their chances of overthrowing you," reports the MIT Technology Review. Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes their article:
Whether or not your ethnic group has political power is a crucial factor determining your access to the Internet, according to a new analysis. The effect varies from country to country, and is much less pronounced in democratic nations. But the study, published today in Science, suggests that besides censorship, another way national governments prevent opposing groups from organizing online is by denying them Internet access in the first place, says Nils Weidmann, a professor of political science at the University of Konstanz in Germany.
Researchers used a geolocation database to create a map showing subnetwork activity for a large volume of internet traffic, then compared it with geographic data for the world's ethnic groups. "They concluded that excluded groups had significantly lower access compared to the groups in power, and that this can't be explained by other economic or geographic factors (like living in rural vs. urban areas)... 'You don't have to censor if the opposition doesn't get access at all.' "
Researchers used a geolocation database to create a map showing subnetwork activity for a large volume of internet traffic, then compared it with geographic data for the world's ethnic groups. "They concluded that excluded groups had significantly lower access compared to the groups in power, and that this can't be explained by other economic or geographic factors (like living in rural vs. urban areas)... 'You don't have to censor if the opposition doesn't get access at all.' "
Not to mention Hilary's campaign, who threatened a reporter with losing their job for noting that she looked "low energy" at an event.
I always appreciate when a good study establishes something that you assumed is the case. This also means that people who disagree with the idea of disenfranchisement now have evidence that it is a very real force in the world.
Here in America, the superior country, we would NEVER have the government censor the internet of opinions we don't like. Instead, we simply have our good buddies/donors Facebook and Twitter do it for us.
Shocked that someone felt the need to ask that question. Censorship and propaganda are as old as politics.
bullshit. some of the poorest people work their asses off and have nothing to show for it. look at mexican immigrant workers, they work harder than anyone in the fields and make very little money compared to the high paying cushy jobs where people sit on their asses and tell others what to do.
In other news...some of those same people don't have indoor plumbing or electricity...because racism and totally not because they're living in an underdeveloped country-only-on-paper where tribe and clan are the only institutions there are.
Can we turn this against SJWs? Having people like Anita Sarkeesian blocked from accessing the Internet would amazing?
OK, citizens! Stand in a circle, join hands, and repeat after me:
Trump is wonderful, Kumbaya.
Trump is glorious, Kumbaya.
Trump is wonderful, Kumbaya.
Oh, Lord, Kumbaya!
Trump tells truth, Lord, Kumbaya.
Hill'ry always lies, Kumbaya.
Trump tells truth, Lord, Kumbaya.
Oh, Lord, Kumbaya!
Trump is healthy, Lord, Kumbaya.
Hill'ry's health is bad, Kumbaya.
Trump is healthy, Lord, Kumbaya.
Oh, Lord, Kumbaya!
Trump's not robbing me, Kumbaya.
Trump doesn't pump charitable and political donations to his own businesses, Kumbaya.
Trump's not a con man, Kumbaya.
Oh, Lord, Kumbaya!
Trump didn't brag about his building becoming the tallest around on 9/11/2001, Kumbaya.
Trump doesn't prefer foreign employees over Americans, Kumbaya.
Trump cares about people like me, Kumbaya.
Oh, Lord, Kumbaya!
But did you even read the summary?
"They concluded that excluded groups had significantly lower access compared to the groups in power, and that this can't be explained by other economic or geographic factors (like living in rural vs. urban areas)..."
Institutionalized racism is used by _all_ of humanity to segment the population so that the ruling class can maintain control. How the hell else is 1% of the population going to grab 60-90% of the wealth and get away with it?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The IRS scandal with the IRS chief doing everything she could to audit and shut down political opponents was a case in point.
Also of interest is Google shutting down sites they do not agree with by denying all advertising to them. They are related to government in that they give all information directly to the NSA. Therefore, since they have a hand-in-hand relationship with the government's spying branch, anything they do is political, and shutting down opponents through denial of advertising is doing government's work for them.
Further, if you go to work for the NSA, you have to go through a standard polygraph. If you do not do well on the polygraph, they start asking what sites and forums you visit (if you've expressed an opinion that doesn't agree with them). It's not that hard to extrapolate from there...
Hopefully they are blocking Trump, because no one likes a troll.
Which must be why the people of Turkmenistan don't enjoy satellite services. They could just buy them and install them if they had the money...oh, wait, they had, and they did! And then the government banned it!
Ezekiel 23:20
Who approves comments on Slashdot? I always come back and see my comments aren't there. Well, there you go.
Since most of the city isn't allowed to have faster then ISDN, we certainly aren't allowed a voice.
I haven't read the study yet as it's behind a paywall and I can't be assed to find a full-text (assuming it's freely available) online yet, but the summary makes it sound as though they controlled for such economic considerations. Basically, even if certain groups are less affluent, if they have markedly less access than members of the affluent group who have a similar income level, it's likely that there's some other factor at play. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's political oppression going on, but it it possible for that to be an explanation for the difference.
Also, not all other countries operate under free market economies, or at least to the extent that Western democracies do. If a country's government forbids building access to a certain area or people, no businesses can legally meet any actual demand regardless of how much or little profit there is to be had in doing so.
In "the good ole days before the internet", the MSM (Main Stream Media) controlled the news. The government needed a dozen people on their rolodex, and embarressing stories could be shut down. E.g. John F Kennedy was screwing women all over the place, and Bill Clinton would almost be a saint in comparison. But the MSM kept quiet, and it wasn't until much later that JFK's philandering became known.
Bill Clinton realized by 1995, that the internet had the potential to democratize the news and bypass the gatekeepers. "Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all," http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
In 1998, his worst fears came true. Clinton's MSM buddies at Newsweek spiked (i.e. killed) a bombshell of a story about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. But a lowly store clerk with a modem (i.e. Matt Drudge) published the story on his site. Hillary was whining about there not being any "gatekeepers" on the internet http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
Fast-forward to the current election campaign, and the Democrats are openly talking about shutting down the Breitbart website http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...
Do you really want Hillary in charge?
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
It's kind of funny that the free-market-worshiping libertarians here on Slashdot are all for corporate "freedoms," until some company happens to go against their pet political agendas.
I've noticed that Hillary has a pattern of using the "most minimal" excuse that will get her by.
She was in great health until she had a 4 minute 22 second coughing fit, then it's "I have been talking non-stop for weeks, but I'm OK now."
She was fine until she had to leave the 9/11 memorial, then it's "I was feeling a little overheated, but I'm all right now".
That worked until the video of her collapsing as she's put into a van, then it's "I have pneumonia, but it's all right".
This tracks with other investigation into her actions, including the E-mail scandal:
If the past is any prediction of the future, we'll have to wait a couple of months to find out if she was really sick or not.
As usual, the full text is available on LibGen.
Ezekiel 23:20
I do understand your frustration. I also seem to have max karma, but now I'm not only not appreciated with the ad blocking toggle being useles, but I have "promoted" articles.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Hijacked redirects aren't happening on my iPhone or my PC.
We are not hearing dozens/hundreds of complaints about this from our normally vocal Slashdot posters.
The logical conclusion is that the problem is something at your end.
Looking at the headlines over time of Hillary leaving the 9/11 event is pretty interesting.
A couple of hours ago, it was "Hillary has pneumonia".
Then it was "doctors diagnosed Hillary with pneumonia".
Then it was "doctors diagnosed Hillary with pneumonia well before the 9/11 ceremony". (On Friday, apparently).
Now it's Hillary Clinton's Doctor Says Pneumonia Led to Abrupt Exit From 9/11 Event.
(If you've ever studied creative writing, note the slow creep away from active voice and into the passive. That last one doesn't even connect Hillary with pneumonia directly - to read the headline, you might think that she left to comfort someone *else* who has pneumonia.)
As someone who's had pneumonia, I can well believe that she might faint after standing around for 90 minutes on a hot afternoon.
As someone who tries to look beyond the headlines, it would seem that IF she was diagnosed on Friday it would have been better to announce it at that time. All this back-filling and back-pedaling after the fact makes it look like she's hiding something more serious.
Here I was ready to denounce the Hillary health rumors as being unfounded, and this turns up.
She put the issue of her health into a catapult and fired it into public view, all on her ownsome.
Naturally Inspiring.
It always happens to everybody on mobile, you dummy. It's just that most slashtards are browsing from their computers at work and have ad blockers.
And what about this groups just simply thinks that not needed internet at all?
I browse Slashdot on mobile all the time, don't have an ad-blocker installed on either of my devices, and this has never happened to me.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Violence. People point out population growth and diminishing resources as the reason for increasing political instability in the future. Looks like we sow the seeds for even more violence and instability now, when there is still a chance of fixing things by "laying out the building block of stability" and "create the nation our children deserve." Fear leads to irrational decisions.
We could benefit from some control here as well: silencing all opposition to the EU for instance would only be a good thing for everyone. People don't know how good they have it. Brexit would have never happened if tight control over communication had been implemented. We need to muzzle AfD now before it becomes the next threat to the European Union. Don't blabber about censorship: people simply have no clues whatsoever about State matters and should not concern themselves with them. Democracy is mob rule.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
What do you think. If you have a platform and you aren't dedicated to civil liberties and free speech, then you no-platform your opponents, no questions asked.
Ask any college conservative.
If you want free speech, then be prepared to seize it, because fascists of all stripes aren't going to give it to you.
Same here.
Try here. For the supplementary material go here.
Can't get the excerpt page but the main part is there, including their methodology. Which is flawed. /24 subnets and geolocation as a measurement of internet penetration in a country.
It's based on this study.
Which uses the number of unique
No problem in that. Referenced study shows that there are pretty high correlations on both national and subnational level.
The problem with the original study (one this slashdot story is about) is where it claims to "show that politically excluded groups suffer from significantly lower Internet penetration rates compared with those in power, an effect that cannot be explained by economic or geographic factors.
Except their study uses ONLY geographic factors (i.e. geolocation) to determine the "internet penetration" within the "excluded groups".
I.e. They are counting subnets in geographically remote places (away from the countries' main networks which tend to be in urban areas) and simply calling such groups of subnets "excluded".
Implying "ethnic favoritism" and political motivation for "exclusion" but never presenting any.
They never demonstrate the connection from subnets to actual people - "excluded" or not.
They never demonstrate "ethnic favoritism" or "political exclusion".
They never even demonstrate "exclusion".
For this study it is a presupposed "fact" that people (i.e. subnets) are somehow "excluded" by the mere fact that there are few of them in one place and a lot of them elsewhere.
It is borderline conspiracy theory nuttery, where being rural automagically means that "the man" is keeping you offline.
When they DO try to present SOME kind of evidence for "exclusion", they do so in the supplementary material (page 21), based on the Ethnic Power Relations Dataset.
Where "exclusion effect" is presented across the entire country.
And where USA is situated between Zimbabwe and Nigeria, right next to UK and Canada which are standing shoulder to shoulder between Gabon and India.
While their error bars are universally so wide that South Africa (one of the countries in their study) has an "exclusion effect" just over zero and error bars ranging from -2.5 to 2.5.
The entire graph shows values from -5 to 5.
While Saudi Arabia, Butan, Congo and Egypt are near the bottom of the "exclusion" scale - the lands of internet freedom and political inclusion.
Only thing they actually DO determine is that, when controlled for local GDP indicators, "excluded" groups DO have negative regression coefficient (-0.481, standard error of 0.094) - which are about twice lower than "distance to capital" (-0.942, s.e. 0.133).
I.e. Negative influence of being geographically distant from nation's capital is TWICE that from being "excluded".
Even when controlled for the influence of having no electricity (nighttime lights per capita) instead of for GDP, being away from the capital is still a greater negative factor (-0.703, s.e. 0.130) than "being excluded" (-0.539, s.e. 0.090).
Meanwhile, higher GDP per capita (0.749, s.e. 0.155), road density (4.068, s.e. 0.833) and urbanization (2.782, s.e. 0.748) all show positive regression coefficients for "internet penetration".
I.e. Closer you are to roads, cities and more money - the greater the number of subnets.
Whodathunkit!
In other words, their "conclusion" is not only cherry picking - it is pure confirmation bias in the face of their own results showing the exact opposite of their claims.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The more any conflict can be described as ethnicity related, the more the media profits from the click bait, however false it all is.
The more the DNC can say 'We will protect your civil rights based on your ethnicity' (some ethnicities excluded), the more the DNC profits.
Ethnic conflict was supposed to get better under Obama, but he has to dole out to the DNC and the media and so it is far worse with the BLC/police conflict on the verge of civil war.
Telling other people what to do can be extremely hard at times. It's hard in a different way than working in a field is, but it's still hard.
Even then, you aren't - and shouldn't be - paid for how hard you work. You're paid for the value of what your work does. Engineers (generally) don't lift things all day, but they create very useful things and spent years of their life learning how to do that. That's what they're paid for.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
You probably picked up malware somewhere. Clear your cookies and you should be fine.
As a max karma poster who's been here since 1999
Seventeen years reading the most knowledgeable people on the Internet and still you can't keep your device secure. The joke is on you.