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.
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/
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
Also of interest is Google shutting down sites they do not agree with by denying all advertising to them.
Just taking away advertising is not "shutting down sites they do not agree with". And as we saw with Arab Spring, it doesn't matter. They had internet access, they had an uprising for change that, thanks to the Internet, propagated to many countries, and now they're worse off if anything. Same thing with the protests against the 1% in New York. The internet might let you organize stuff, but the stuff you organize on the internet doesn't change squat. The 1% see it as a way to let the proles let off steam without doing any real damage, same as online petitions.
Just look at all the Arab Spring countries, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. What are they now? Any better? Nope.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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
Go back to sleep grandma, Trump isn't your boogieman.
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.
Your question makes it clear you've no idea at all how this site operates. (Or perhaps you're just trolling, but I've provided a link in any case.)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
I hope, with your extreme paranoia, that you experience a fatal accident in the coming minutes. Just for you, it can be a black helicopter crashing into your face.
It sounds silly when you put it like that, but there's actually a lot of sense to it. How about this: 'large concentrations of power bad, checks and balances good'. Wait, that actually sounds like something your founding fathers said, maybe there's something to it. When any entity - corporate, individual, or government - concentrates enough power, the possibilities for abuse become huge even without malicious intent.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Large concentrations of power to an entity that is fundamentally immortal, concerned only with quarterly profit, and has a "can we argue it's legal" attitude towards all it's actions will always be "bad". Modern corps are like the vampires in V:TM, with the employees being the ghouls who are "gifted" with just enough blood from their Master to enact the Master's policies and do it's bidding in the daylight...but the actual corporation itself is a non-physical entity that is almost impossible to kill. Even when you do kill it, the assets and management just flee to another Master and the cycle begins again. There are many companies over 1,000 years old.
You realize that free-market people are against corporatism (what used to be called mercantilism). If you have any doubts - read von Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman and, of course, Ayn Rand. Her greatest villains were corporatists.
So, no, stop believing what was spoon fed to you. And read them for yourselves. If I could read, Hegel, Marx, Lenin, and underdevelopment theorists you can read von Mises and listen to a few Milton Friedman youtube videos.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
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.
Can we turn this against SJWs? Having people like Anita Sarkeesian blocked from accessing the Internet would amazing?
Find a way to get them registered as a sex offender?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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
Of course it's unfair we can't watch Netflix or YouTube, but that isn't preventing us from participating in text discussions like this.
"I couldn't read the featured article because it was a video, and a request for a transcript went unanswered." That prevents people from participating.
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.
I don't usually see libertarians wanting to prevent these companies from going against their political agenda via force of law. They complain about it, but that's their right too. Twitter can suppress whatever speech it likes, and we can complain about it as much as we want, and go to a different network instead when it gets too bad. Those are the rules.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.