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.
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/
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
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
Honest question for you, have you read the actual study? I tried the link and in order to get the full text I a membership or to belong to an organization that has access. A quick Google search on the title didn't turn up full-text access, but I haven't done any looking beyond that. Maybe it's out there, but it might require some digging.
So if you haven't read it either, how do you know it's a "good" study? It seems like you've decided to label it a "good" study because it agrees with your pre-established beliefs. That's not proper reasoning any more than the people who decided that Wakefield's research on autism was a "good" study because it happened to align with their existing beliefs.
I don't know that this isn't a "good" study, but I can't actually read it (a serious problem with scientific research these days) so I can't even begin to answer that question.
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.
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.
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