Vietnam's Internet is in Trouble (wapo.st)

The World Post: Vietnamese authorities have harped of late on the urgency of fighting cybersecurity threats and "bad and dangerous content." Yet the fight against either "fake news" or misinformation in Vietnam must not be used as a smoke screen for stifling dissenting opinions and curtailing freedom of speech [The link may be paywalled]. Doing so would only further stoke domestic cynicism in a country where the sudden expansion of space for free and open discussion has created a kind of high-pressure catharsis online. Other countries, including democratic states, are also scrambling to rein in toxic information online. But while Germany, for example, specifically targets hate speech and other extremist messaging that directly affects the masses, Vietnamese leaders are more fixated on content deemed detrimental to their own reputation and the survival of the regime.

The ruling Communist Party of Vietnam has repeatedly urged Facebook and Google to block "toxic" information that it said slandered and defamed Vietnamese leaders. Google sort of conformed by removing more than such 5,000 clips; Facebook also flagged about 160 anti-government accounts at the behest of the government.

Comments

Nonsense!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, I am sure those being squashed are just radicals, who are on the wrong side of history, and it's good that they're being silenced, because they're wrong.

Ein shitpost, ein twat, ein Facebookgruppen!

Re: Nonsense!

[Anonymous Coward]

This what happen when Net Neutrality not implemented. First Vietnam then U.s.a.

-msmash

Re: Nonsense!

[Anonymous Coward]

Leftists are the same the world over. Itâ(TM)s easier to label people and opinions you donâ(TM)t like as evil so you donâ(TM)t have to answer them.

Re:Nonsense!

[Hal_Porter]

The Vietnamese Communist Party is completely ruthless

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

When the captured Hue the Commies sent death squads with a list of names of anyone who'd backed the South Vietnamese government. 2,800 and 6,000 people or 5-10% of the population of the town was murdered . Some of them were buried alive. The Communists never prosecuted anyone for this.

It happened around the same time as the My Lai massacre where US troops killed civilians. However some US troops tried to stop the massacre and the people who did it were eventually court martialled.

Of course the US media portrayed the My Lai massacre as something the US did deliberately and ignored the Hue massacre. The media claimed the US was 'losing the war' even though it actually won the Tet Offensive.

Eventually the US pulled out and the Communists overrun South Vietnam. Congress halved military aid to the South when it was being overrun to hasten its collapse. Millions of South Vietnamese were killed or sent to concentrations camps and fearing Hue city massacres or camps million of others fled as boat people.

The media claimed that 'no one wanted to fight for South Vietnam' even though the ARVN soldiers here are fighting pretty hard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

As well they would actually - they're buying time for their families to get on a boat to the US rather than ending up in a camp or a mass grave. And if the anti war movement had managed to get Congress to cut off military aid to the UK in WWII, the UK would have gone under too. The fact that an allied government collapses when you cut off support to it doesn't mean it was illegitimate.

In Cambodia the Khmer Rouge took over and killed spectacular numbers of people even by Communist standards. The media downplayed it. Chomsky claimed it was propaganda and blamed the deaths on US bombing. Here he is on Vietnam - bear in mind he's talking about a country where millions fled, were killed or ended up in camp

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia...

"The drab view of contemporary Vietnam provided by Butterfield and the establishment press helps to sustain the desired rewriting of history, asserting as it does the sad results of Communist success and American failure. Well suited for these aims are tales of Communist atrocities, which not only prove the evils of communism but undermine the credibility of those who opposed the war and might interfere with future crusades for freedom."

and on Khmer Rouge run Cambodia, the country of the Killing Fields where government policies resulted in the death of up to 25% of he population - probably the worse democide the world has ever seen

"The response to the three books under review nicely illustrates this selection process. Hildebrand and Porter present a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources. Published last year, and well received by the journal of the Asia Society (Asia, March-April 1977), it has not been reviewed in the Times, New York Review or any mass-media publication, nor used as the basis for editorial comment, with one exception. The Wall Street Journal acknowledged its existence in an editorial entitled 'Cambodia Good Guys' (November 22, 1976), which dismissed contemptuously the very idea that the Khmer Rouge could play a constructive role, as well as the notion that the United States had a major hand in the destruction, death and turmoil of wartime and postwar Cambodia."

Hildebrand and Porter's book deserves examination. One simple fact provides a clue to the authors' sympathies: The book does not contain

Re: Nonsense!

[Reverend Green]

Nice wallotext!

Re: Nonsense!

[Hal_Porter]

Who is Reverend Green? He's a character I created to explore some experimental political viewpoints. He's religious, unambiguously communist, socially conservative, and perhaps outspoken. Yet I hope his words are sometimes not far from the truth. Brothers and sisters - look around you, open your eyes, write your own narrative. || FWIW, I have a low-UID /. account in my real name. I used to post regularly. Yet the chilling effect of the current social climate in America is such that I am no longer feel comfortable posting political thoughts under my own name.

I'm not sure why you're criticising me for going off on a tangent from the Vietnamese Communist Party to their enablers in the West given that Hal_Porter is also a character I created to explore 'experimental political views' without getting the real me blacklisted for criticising the left and explaining their opponents when I feel they're being unfairly criticised.

Re: Nonsense!

[Reverend Green]

Actually I'm just (lightly!) criticizing the *length* of your post. A wallotext is kinda unpleasant to read on mobile.

Re: Nonsense!

[Hal_Porter]

It's bold in terms of jerking people around but, uh, I may have gone too far in places

Re: Nonsense!

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst, they argue that it is not limiting freedom of speech when they don't like the ideas. The fake neo-liberals are the most self righteous peoples on this little planet. They are always right, and they always have the best reason in the entire Earth history (possibly even future proof).

Re: Nonsense!

[slashdotwannabe]

Lol an AC that shitposts and then answers themselves. Don't you have a post to write on Vietnamese Facebook, Vladimir?

The trouble with "hate speech"

[Obfuscant]

Is that the government gets to define it. Like Germany where they prohibit speech that they define as hate speech, Vietnam also prohibits speech they define as hate speech.

The best solution is to not allow the government to prohibit speech, so then there is never an issue with who defines what how.

I'm not sure how someone having a blog that mentions Hitler and Nazis "directly affects the masses", but I'm sure German officials could answer that.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

Shitlibs freak out over hate speech here, and get corporations to enforce speech codes and blacklists.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The best solution is to not allow the government to prohibit speech, so then there is never an issue with who defines what how.

"Ring . . . ring"

"Hello, Vietnam . . . ? This is Slashdot calling. We just wanted to let you know that we decided that y'all are not allowed to prohibit speech anymore."

"*click*"

"Hello . . . ? Hello . . . ?"

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep crying faggot nazis.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read Twitter at all, you'll find that faggot SJW nazis do nothing BUT cry. Continuously.

Which is why they lose so many elections, no-one likes a petty whiner, much less a bigoted one who can't tolerate diverse viewpoints.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ArmoredDragon]

The problem is that communism is incompatible with free speech and democracy. If they had free speech, they'd talk about how much they'd prefer democracy, and if they had democracy, they'd vote out the communists. Naturally, the communists will have none of that, so instead they simply control speech and then set up a system where the communist party decides what candidates may be voted for, even if they're all the same, and then they call that democracy.

Fidel Castro was pretty open about this.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[angel'o'sphere]

You can have a blog that mentions Hitler and Nazis as much as you want.
What has that to do with hate speech?

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[angel'o'sphere]

You are mixing up communism with totaliarism.
China is communist/totaliarian with a capitalistic economy.
And I doubt their free speech laws are worth than other countries.

There are plenty of levels of democracy, actually China considers itself a democracy, go figure.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Obfuscant]

You can have a blog that mentions Hitler and Nazis as much as you want.

Of course I can. I don't live in Germany.

Also of course, I should have referred to the use of the swastika and not just a mention of the names. Please continue in that context. (Note that the swastika is a perfect example of "hate speech" being defined by the government. Germany says "it is", Korea says "it isn't".)

As for those who seem intent on pointing out that Slashdot cannot keep Vietnam from prohibiting speech, yet another "of course". I wrote of the best solution, which isn't necessarily possible, and which isn't necessarily available to those who are outside the system. "The system" also means "in the power structure" for those countries where the people are not the power structure. Neither Slashdot nor Vietnam has any input into the US Constitution, which is where the US founders tried solving the problem, so it should have been obvious what was being said.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep crying faggot nazi on slashdot.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[gtall]

Given the Chinese government companies and intervention in companies, China government+economy is better described as being Fascist.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because when you have 10,000 racist assholes running around posting shit like "non-white people and jews are not really human beings, are inferior, do not deserve the same rights and privileges as actual human beings, and really should be killed for the good of all actual human beings", then post so-called 'scientific evidence' to back up their racist claims, and they keep posting racist shit every damn day, people start listening to it, believing it's real, especially kids and teenagers who are too unwise to know any better than to believe everything they read. This is just an example. There are any number of other examples you could find that fit this same model. Cyberbullying is one. How would you feel if your kid committed suicide because cyberbullying drove them to it? You know it's happened. How about slander? Defamation of character? People get their lives ruined by assholes on the internet all the time. Then there's other countries interfering in your country's electoral process; you really want Russia, China, and whoever else fucking with our elections again? When it comes right down to it many people (you, perhaps) don't seem to think too much about things like this until it comes down to YOU being the one affected. Someone has to look out for everyone in their country, and that's the proper role of government. Or would you rather that some decides they don't like you, would like to see you dead, so they start spreading false information about you, convince a bunch of crazies on the internet you're a horrible person and should be killed? Don't sit there and claim that doesn't happen either, or if you do, you're a fool.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[epyT-R]

You are mixing up communism with totaliarism.

No he's not. They're one and the same. You can't even approach it without big brother.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[epyT-R]

A culture that must be shielded from such inanities (including screeds like yours) in order to survive is not fit for survival. Instead of teaching children to be adult snowflakes like the left does now, we should return to teaching them how to handle adversity.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always been of the view of hands off when it comes to regulation surrounding companies such as Facebook, for precisely the reasons you state, but I had a recent encounter on Facebook that if nothing else has left me feeling little sympathy for Facebook.

Despite having never shown any interest in discussing politics on Facebook, much less shown any interest in the idea or politics of the far right ever, Facebook decided to try and push a couple of far right groups at me at the top of the list of it's recommended groups, and by far right I don't just mean they were a little bit harsh we're talking full on Swastika bearing, heil Hitler imagery praising, calling for persecution of Jews level of real actual neo-Nazism. I ignored it at first, but Facebook persisted for a number of weeks, showing these same groups day in day out as the first two groups it felt I would be interested in.

Curiosity got the better of me, and I decided to see what Facebook's actual policies were on this sort of thing, having seen various bits of news about how Facebook said it was tackling this kind of thing on sites such as this. Interestingly Facebook's own policies were more restrictive than I actually realised - they do outright claim they'll remove any content that is clearly hate speech calling for violence against and persecution of a specific group of people based on criteria such as religion, race, sexuality and so on and so forth. I decided to see how the process worked and so reported a couple of posts from the group that clearly and indisputably fell into the categories Facebook clearly states it will not tolerate on it's network.

I wasn't sure at first whether to be relieved or dismayed to see that Facebook doesn't enforce it's own policies when the reports I put in were all universally rejected despite clearly being against Facebook's own terms, relieved in that they weren't cowing to those who would enforce censorship at least, but concerned that they're just asking for a legislative slap down by trying to defy politicians in only the most half-assed of ways. In fact in one of the posts the groups owner also stated he was going to make another account after he'd been banned 3 times, so even outside of content alone, this in itself is a clear violation of Facebook's own ToS, but his account is still active and he is still actively posting, this kind of story is like treasure for the nanny state media like The Daily Mail that desperately want to crush tech companies, and I didn't even have to go looking for it - Facebook brought it right to my desktop, so god only knows what examples journalists digging deeper might find.

But regardless of the discussion as to whether it's good or bad that Facebook does not moderate, or enforce it's own policies - I realise people have varied and strong opinions on that, so it's really not the point of my post. The broader point I want to make here is that regardless of what side of the debate you sit on, I think it's hard to have sympathy for Facebook. If they're going to repeatedly push extremist propaganda at people like me, then how can we have any confidence they're not pushing ISIS propaganda at impressionable young muslims who are vulnerable through disengagement from society due to things like high youth unemployment in Western nations who may be easily radicalised for example? We can't stop these people looking for this stuff, but we should be able to stop it being actively waved in front of their faces.

Allowing such controversial content to exist is one thing, allowing people to find it if they search is another, but actively pushing it on people I personally believe does actually cross a line as Facebook is actively acting in concert with extremists to push propaganda when they do this.

So I hope if nothing else this experience gives you some insight into what many people might view as directly affecting the masses, and similarly why Facebook isn't doing itself any favours in the battle against censorship and is perhaps it's own worst enemy. Only t

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Solandri]

I agree with you that the best solution is not to allow governments to prohibit speech. But it should be pointed out and Germany and Vietnam actions are not entirely indefensible. The problem is the same thing as with Wikipedia edits. You have a small group of hardcore people who sit on "their" articles, undoing helpful edits by other casual users, and making sure the article reflects what they want it to say rather than what the population at large wants it to say.

Likewise, the people behind these "hate speech" sites have a vested interest in publicizing and spreading what they're saying. Moreso than those who oppose them have an interest in refuting or publicizing opposing viewpoints. The net result is that the online presence of the message from these hate speech sites on the web is disproportionately larger than their actual presence in terms of population.

I'm not sure what the solution is. If it were easy, Wikipedia would've already implemented it. But like Wikipedia, Germany and Vietnam have decided their solution will be to appoint certain people to oversee everything and try to stop this when they see it occurring. The fly in the ointment being that those people are themselves vulnerable to bias and corruption. (Vietnam's (and China's) case is also a bit different in that the minority viewpoint exhibiting disproportionate control can be the government's. That's a problem faced by all governments not subject to popular election.)

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ArmoredDragon]

I certainly am not confusing them. It's one thing to talk about what somebody says communism is, versus what it actually is.

Karl Marx himself stated that communism must begin with the violent overthrow of democracy. And as it turns out, that is what communist revolutions always do (besides depriving you of your life savings and turning your home over to the state to do whatever they want with.)

The problem is, they never actually bring back democracy. They all create a pretend democracy, and even put words like people's, republic, and democratic in the official name of their state. Pretend democracy isn't democracy, it's either an oligarchy or a dictatorship.

Disagree? Then prove it: How many communist revolutions were democratically elected? And how many communist revolutions ever allowed free speech? There have been many communist revolutions around the world, so if what you say is true, then at least one should meet both criteria.

Bonus points if you can name one communist revolution that hasn't either economically switched to capitalism, or closed their borders so nobody can leave.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

While you're at it, could you name one capitalist country that hasn't either economically switched to fascism or quasi-socialism? Or do you think all those factories are spewing out not-as-toxic air because capitalism? Or the ones that do aren't being supported by a fascist regime?

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[skam240]

Well off the top of my head the Spanish election of 1936 saw a communist party along with similarly aligned party's come to power in a coalition. They didn't get very far at governing though as Franco decided that he should start the Spanish Civil War.

You're spot on with your Marx and your generalities are generally true so I'm not really saying your point is incorrect though.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[guestapoo]

Karl Marx himself stated that communism must begin with the violent overthrow of democracy

Citation is needed!
In fact, Marx has never discussed anything about how to archive communism.
One of the form of communism in idea of Marx is that the government must be exterminated, how does that mean "overthrow of democracy" when there would be not rulers at all?
Don't mixed the **interpretations** of Marx's ideas of Lenin, Mao, Stalin... in as Marx's ideas!

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ShanghaiBill]

Disagree? Then prove it: How many communist revolutions were democratically elected?

In 1946, the communist party won a plurality in Czechoslovakia, in an election that was generally considered fair.

The Czechs lived to regret it, but they did vote for communism. At the time, they feared a resurgent Germany far more than they feared the Russians, and they had clear memories of how Britain and France had betrayed them in 1938. Many saw a communist government as the best way to ensure their future protection by the Red Army.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[guestapoo]

Disagree? Then prove it: How many communist revolutions were democratically elected? And how many communist revolutions ever allowed free speech? There have been many communist revolutions around the world, so if what you say is true, then at least one should meet both criteria.

Communist revolution? Actually, one must ask there really actual communist revolutions out there!
It's not that "because Soviet was failed so they - communists try to lie that Soviet was not communism". It's ironical that who predict the fall of Soviet and was vocally against Stalinism or Leninism or Trotskyism, etc are Marxists themselves:

This is from 1931 article of Socialist party of Great Britain: http://www.worldsocialism.org/...

The wage-labour system in Russian State industries, like the system here and elsewhere, is a system of Slavery. The spread of piece-work will intensify the slavery ; it will enable the "Communist" rulers to squeeze more surplus-produce out of Russian workers, just as it has helped the Conservative and Liberal capitalists of this country. Alleged "quotations" in support of it from Marx merely brand Stalin & Co. as hypocrites and their followers as ignorant dupes. The Russian Government must make a profit in order to pay interest upon its loans if for no other reason, and this fact alone is sufficient to explode the myth that Russian State industry is run on Socialist lines.

The Russian Government has to borrow money to run its industries, like any other capitalist concern, because it has to pay for machinery and raw material, because its employees have to pay for the food, clothes and houses they need; because, in a phrase, all the means by which these requirements are produced are private property. It has not established an oasis of Socialism in a capitalist desert. Had it tried to do so it would have been speedily annihilated.

Re: The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you can, but if your opinion doesn't fall in line, you'll be delisted from search engines, have your domain cancelled, get kicked off your hosting provider, shut off by your ISP, and stalked and physically beaten by fascists.

But yes, you're "free" to say what you want.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[phantomfive]

I'm not sure what the solution is

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." --Justice Sanford.

Oppressing speech with censorship, even if the speech is made of lies, will never be effective, and can easily make the problem worse. If good people are not willing to speak up, then there is no hope for the country.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me about it. Look at what FreeBSD has just done; they re-wrote their "behavioural guidelines" to protect transgendered people and will drive anyone out who has a differing opinion. The left are not tolerant at all. They claim they are tolerant, but if your opinion disagrees with theirs, their intolerance rears its ugly head very quickly. I'm not a Republican by any stretch, but I am tired of having homosexuality and transgenderism slammed down on top of all policies--do or die. My how quickly the deviants have taken over, and they expect everyone to embrace their worldview. I will NEVER accept homosexuality as normal, because it isn't. How long before the census asks about one's view on this? Or even employers asking if you support homosexuals and their cause? What happens if employees that work for any government or in the public sector are asked to march in a homosexual parade or attend the wedding of a high-ranking person and you refuse?

The right may indeed show intolerance to deviancy, but the right just writes people off be not being inclusive in attitude. The left will outright ruin your life via blackballing you from jobs like bakers, florists, even the government now. I forget the agency, but a federal agency had several high-ranking employees that are homosexual walk around and drop off the homosexual rainbow flag as well as literature "asking" (really demanding) that fellow employees accept and "affirm" the homosexual lifestyle. The literature actually said that remaining silent would be taken as disapproval.

Re: The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this.

The answer to propaganda is education, and teaching people to think critically. A system of thought which cannot withstand criticisms, deserved or not, is not deserving of protection.

Re: The trouble with "hate speech"

[Reverend Green]

In Vietnam people are encouraged to vote in elections. I've seen the propaganda posters myself. In most elections there will be 2 to 4 candidates to choose from.

Of course, those candidates are all Communists. Just like candidates in American elections are all capitalists.

Re: The trouble with "hate speech"

[Reverend Green]

Brownshirt thugs FTW!

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ArmoredDragon]

"the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."

https://www.marxists.org/archi...

Make no mistake about it: This IS the language of a would be dictator. He even talks about having a concentrated power structure to boot.

Communist revolutions work by terrorizing and then enslaving (putting into forced labor and forced indoctrination) the local population until it bends to the will of the communist party.
Democratic revolutions are the total opposite: They focus on liberating the local population without forcing them to favor any particular political leader or party.

Sure, Marx will talk about having elections (as most dictators do) but even if this does happen, the moment anybody speaks against his principled ideals and gains any kind of traction among the general public, Marx will label them as counter-revolutionary and have them killed and/or decide that the population isn't "educated" enough in a concept that Marx literally invented himself using a very flimsy basis for an argument that it will work. So the election process, if there is one at all, will be severely restricted.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ArmoredDragon]

While you're at it, could you name one capitalist country that hasn't either economically switched to fascism or quasi-socialism? Or do you think all those factories are spewing out not-as-toxic air because capitalism? Or the ones that do aren't being supported by a fascist regime?

Fascism has a limited element relating to economics, which basically forbids somebody from running a business if the government determines that the business model is bad for society for purely social reasons. In Germany, this manifested in banning pornography businesses, among other things. Many people today, most often democrats, are not philosophically different from this. If you've ever read somebody on slashdot who says "such a business shouldn't be allowed to exist" because it goes against their ideology of what society "ought to be like", (usually their target is corporations in the financial sector) then at least economically, the only difference between them and a fascist is that they hate different things.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ArmoredDragon]

Communist revolution? Actually, one must ask there really actual communist revolutions out there!

You're creating an argument based on the "no true Scottsman" concept, which is a logical fallacy. How many times do communist revolutions need to result in failed states before you finally say "gee...I think this whole thing may not work after all."? Capitalist economies prosper all the time, so why has a communist economy never prospered if it is really so much better? There never was a true Scottsman, nor will there ever be.

This is from 1931 article of Socialist party of Great Britain: http://www.worldsocialism.org/... [worldsocialism.org]

This didn't just happen in the USSR, it happened in every so-called communist revolution that lasted any meaningful amount of time. Everywhere it didn't happen, the GDP fell on its ass and people literally starved until a capitalist model was adopted. This is EXACTLY what happened in China and several others.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

Besides, have you ever heard of the Icarians in Navoo, Illinois? Look up how they started, how they operated, how the work rules changed over time by sheer necessity to bring up productivity, and then how they failed. And no, it wasn't because of a fire. Their GDP had already fallen to the point of no return before this happened. If they actually had a strong economy, they simply could have rebuilt, just like Chicago did from a major fire around that same time that was far more devastating and required much more effort to rebuild. The Icarians truly had no capitalism, they truly had a communist economy that was as stateless as you could get, and they had democracy. Then consider how they could have lasted longer if there was no democracy, and if they could prevent people from leaving.

It's a perfect case study, and it fits very well with what most people intuitively think will happen in communism without even having heard of the Icarians.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

We've heard it before. Find something else to do.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ArmoredDragon]

In 1946, the communist party won a plurality in Czechoslovakia [wikipedia.org], in an election that was generally considered fair.

The communist party won 38% of the vote, which was achieved by deceiving the public. What they got was the largest number of seats in parliament, what they didn't get was a revolution, and they were expected to lose the next election pretty badly. Of course, being communists, they would have none of that. The revolution happened after the communist party staged a coup and overthrew the democratic government, forcibly removing all of the other elected parties and installing a single-party concentrated rule, as Karl Marx himself proscribed in the past.

So no, that really doesn't count. At all. If the democratic government had been allowed to work as it was intended, the communist party would have been voted out, never to return.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Democracy just says whomever they don't like is terrorist and deny them ability to run in election. Or deny them right to rule in case they manage to run and win. See what is going on in Spain / Catalonia. Democracy at its best.

And whenever the wrong party wins, they are labeled communists/terrorists and you break all ties with them. You even terrorize them, sabotage them,... Go read history central and south america, how your cia was spreading democracy in nicaragua for example, where people kept voting "undemocratic" option and you kept fighting them for it (burning schools, killing farmers, ...)

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's my point. At least some (many?) Republicans want to ban porn, condoms, marijuana, etc. To same it's "most often Democrats" is absurd. Democrats want something more closer to socialism--ie, regulation with restrictions on who can own. Some definitely go as far as then banning entirely some things. The only major difference between the two parties is often Democrats frame it as corporate greed and abuse while Republicans frame it as family values. The net result is the same.

Of course there's also a host of things both parties don't want the common person to own (weaponized military gear like tanks or war planes which would be an actual treat to their power (and democracy)), recreational drugs (with rare exception because of the fear it'll interfere with having a productive workforce, and generally obscenity (because "the children" and few people really tolerate stuff that makes the heavily squick, especially if it's naked people in public (or TV)). No matter how you look at it, companies will be there to provide these things if they're not banned so a ban on anything is inherently a sort of fascism.

Admittedly, though, one tends to think of fascism as being less that companies are banned from existing for wanting to make things the government doesn't want and more for failing to do what the government wants of them. Ie, they want companies as pawns to do their bidding where the production of illicit goods is but a subset of that. By the same token, they lavish favors on those who are the most favorable to their intentions. Well, that describes a lot of business when it comes to government contracts, even if it's done more by Congressional committee than by individual totalitarians. Look no further than the mess that is Kaspersky.

Regardless, the notion that there's such a thing as a pure system that stands the test of time is obviously wrong. Communism is definitely much worse at it for it strays so heavily away from the stated ideals, but the notion that capitalism is some beacon of freedom without government interference is absurd, not just in the general ban on contract killers and the like but the more encompassing manipulations of society based upon the social mores of the people or of a subset of the people.

Re: The trouble with "hate speech"

[lucasnate1]

In that case, according to your definition, no culture is fit for survival.

Re: The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, a culture should not being in denying of reality, and then it survives because it helps survival,of the species that carry the culture not harms it.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's 'right wing faggot SJW nazi'

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[angel'o'sphere]

Karl Marx himself stated that communism must begin with the violent overthrow of democracy.
No, he did not say that.
You are an idiot.
During Marx times, he btw. was German, most countries had no or no real democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Then prove it: How many communist revolutions were democratically elected?
AFAIK there were no communist revolutions on the planet so far ...

And as it turns out, that is what communist revolutions always do (besides depriving you of your life savings and turning your home over to the state to do whatever they want with.)
That is nonsense. Private house owners always existed in the DDR (German democratic republic), and BTW: they where not communist, they where socialist.

However: you get some bonus points however when you can explain how democracy actually works in a typical communist/one party system, the retarded US two party system and a democratic multi party system. And please take extra care to explain why a communist one party system is not or can not be democratic!!

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[angel'o'sphere]

Communist revolutions work by terrorizing and then enslaving (putting into forced labor and forced indoctrination) the local population until it bends to the will of the communist party.

You people should really start to read some books ...

The to big revolutions were in China and Russia.

What kind of government got overthrown? What living conditions did the masses have before that?

Hm? You funktards don't know that those revolutions overthrew totalitarian governments where 90% of the populations where bond slaves or "peons" or "peasants" hold like slaves on fields?

Are you really that dumb and ill educated?

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[angel'o'sphere]

So, NAZI Germany, Franco Spain, Mussolini Italy ... or lets go a bit back in time: Luis XIV, the Medici in Vienna, the Ottoman Empire, Djenghis Khan, Neros Rome, Leonidas' Sparta etc. p.p. were all communist?

I don't think so ...

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[angel'o'sphere]

Of course I can. I don't live in Germany.
Yeah, and what is the point? You also can have it in Germany, dumb ass. Oh sorry :D but that was a dumb ass comment.

(Note that the swastika is a perfect example of "hate speech" being defined by the government. Germany says "it is", Korea says "it isn't".)
I'm pretty sure you can use a swastika in a blog, why should you not?

Here is a blog, explaining why the Swastika is banned https://politische-bildung-bra...

Surprisingly it has a Swastika on the first page on the top ... (facepalm)

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol his is hilarious. I miss the old slashdot without he political trolls like you

Re: The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, those candidates are all Communists. Just like candidates in American elections are all capitalists.

A quick look at Communist Party USA's Wikipedia entry proves you are a propagandist. Here's their history of presidential candidates on the ballot.

1924 William Z. Foster
1928 William Z. Foster
1932 William Z. Foster
1936 Earl Browder
1940 Earl Browder
1968 Charlene Mitchell
1972 Gus Hall
1976 Gus Hall
1980 Gus Hall
1984 Gus Hall

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[yuriklastalov]

So the Chinese are the "Real Nazis(TM)"?

Explains their hardcore racism and apparent desire to create genetically modified Superhumans. If they hadn't already snapped up their Lebenstraum back in the 50s I'm sure we'd be seeing the Chinese goose stepping over their neighbors.

Why are we propping up the Chinese? Could it be that their political system is the envy of the Neoliberals? Libtards would love to be able to squelch "right wing Nazi bigots" the same way the god damn gooks can. If the neoliberals thought they could have gotten away with gunning the Alt-right down in the streets in Charlottesville they would have done it in a heartbeat.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[guestapoo]

I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.
Henry Kissinger

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[CODiNE]

I know a guy who believes the govt is run by lizard people... I can't change his mind so, well it's his right.

I'd rather live in a world with guys like him than a world where nobody could say lizard people existed.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[guestapoo]

First of all, remind that, at this time there was no "communist party", and no "communist revolution".
In the article you cited, what I read is how Marx observed the events, and his conclusion is still true today, not just "communist revolution", how about "Arab Spring", recent clashes in Venezuela,... That is when the conflicts between the old and the new societies reach the unreconcilable level, there only one way happens, revolutionary terror.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

The boomer generation being the one before genX and after the greatest generation have almost no ability to handle adversity. You ask them about their tough lives and they'll thrill you with stories about the time they worked at a restaurant and their boss was mean or some other bullshit about how they had to work construction in college before taking their bullshit degree somewhere to get a good job. Truly brutal lives full of hard knocks let me tell you. The past 2 generations have been at nonstop war for the enrichment of the ruling classes who outsource and offshored their futures. I feel quite sorry for them and I'm a man who has been to war and has been deployed. Went on to get a mathematics degree while secretly living in my car and well I don't know a bunch of other snowflake shit and my whole fucking life I've had to hear how spoiled I was from fat fucking boomers. Why do I have a feeling you work at the Internet Research Agency?

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ArmoredDragon]

You can downmod me to your heart's content, I honestly couldn't care less about karma points. My comments are completely on topic and relevant. Because you have nothing better to do than follow my posts and mod-bomb, obviously you need to find something else to do far more than I do. So why don't you just go outside and play hide and go fuck yourself?

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ArmoredDragon]

Fascism doesn't necessarily have a racial component to it. After all, it was co-founded by a jew. Nazism does, however, and it is really a superset of fascism, thus you can have fascism without nazism. But yes, the Chinese government economically behaves similar to fascism.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ArmoredDragon]

Republicans want to ban porn, condoms, marijuana, etc.

I'm pretty sure that's just catholics on all counts, even many on the democratic side. I don't think I've met a non-cathoilic republican that wanted to ban porn or birth control. Marijuana...actually it seems more republicans are in favor of marijuana. In any of these cases though, I haven't seen any popular demand to close all pornography or condom companies, and strip clubs (which would be the most "risque") seem to be very popular in red states.

Democrats want something more closer to socialism--ie, regulation with restrictions on who can own.

That's not socialism. Socialism stipulates that the means of production is owned by the state. We have very limited occurrences of that here in the US. For example, it's common for water utilities to be effectively socialized because the employees work for and are paid by a governing entity. Many people think medicare is socialism, but it's not, it's actually a form of welfare similar to food stamps, because the government is paying private providers on your behalf so that you can get medical treatment (or food in the case of food stamps.) People often mistakenly label Scandinavian countries as socialism, but it's just not true, the correct term is a welfare state. There are no prosperous states that are primarily socialist.

But regulations on who can own (and I'm not sure what you're referring to by this,) that's more like fascism.

Communism is definitely much worse at it for it strays so heavily away from the stated ideals

This is by sheer necessity alone. Stalin himself favored a parliamentary system in the beginning, until he realized that it didn't work. Other than that, they actually quite well followed Marx, who said they must violently overthrow democracy, become socialist first, and then become communist. The problem is that move to communism was just too impractical; USSR moved towards the whole stateless thing early on, but they found out the hard way that without codified laws and a governing entity to enforce them, civilization just falls apart, and then people really suffer. A buddy of mine who was born in Poland before the fall of the iron curtain told me that schools would tell the kids that they weren't communism yet, but they are actively working towards that. That was a mere few years before the fall.

the notion that capitalism is some beacon of freedom without government interference

Few people actually believe this to be the case. There are varying opinions on what regulations help the economy and which ones harm it (and both kinds do exist.) It's well known that capitalism feeds on stability, and you can't have stability without the rule of law. Why would you risk your money to start a business if you have no guarantee that a bigger business won't firebomb you to eliminate you as a competitor? Why would you risk investing in another business if you have no safeguards to prevent fraud?

Relevant here: Socialist/communist governments feed on despair because it helps their propaganda machine work: They just blame all of their country's problems on capitalism.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ArmoredDragon]

Chapter 4 of the communist manifesto should help clarify:

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

https://www.marxists.org/archi...

More sources here if you want to read everything about how Karl Marx proposed creating a dictatorship of the proletariat:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Notable in there is Marx's rejection of the Gotha Program. Also pay attention to what Engels says about authoritarianism. Remember, he co-wrote the communist manifesto.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[guestapoo]

No, your previous comment is exactly what AC mentioned. The Soviet economy is actually state capitalism (mentioned above, deformed capitalism economy), which has the properties of capitalism system.
The case of China is to abandon the monopoly of the state with the economy and (it's important, it happened when China decided to against the Soviet) the Wests were lift off embargo against the country.
If not for the investment, it's impossible for an economy no matter Soviet-style or Western-style would survived.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[guestapoo]

Marx was notorious for using 'obfuscated' words for exact translation, if not known what he was really meant and the context.
As mentioned in my previous comment, Marx did not consider the "dictatorship" and "revolution" as the tool of "minority" to "take control" powers. The armed force revolution is the result of old "weaken" societies refuse to transform to new societies, despite the will of the mass (in this case, the proletarian class is a larger group).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

In 1875, Marx attacked the Gotha Program that became the program of Social Democratic Party of Germany (SDP) in the same year in his Critique of the Gotha Program. Marx was not optimistic that Germany at the time was not open to a peaceful means to achieve socialism, especially after German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck had enacted Anti-Socialist Laws in 1878.

"If in England, for instance, or the United States, the working class were to gain a majority in Parliament or Congress, they could, by lawful means, rid themselves of such laws and institutions as impeded their development, though they could only do insofar as society had reached a sufficiently mature development. However, the "peaceful" movement might be transformed into a "forcible" one by resistance on the part of those interested in restoring the former state of affairs; if (as in the American Civil War and French Revolution) they are put down by force, it is as rebels against "lawful" force."

for clearer, this what Marx thought about "dictatorship", not for gaining power, but for disproving the power of the minority (old societies):

While Marx viewed the state negatively as an instrument of class rule that should only exist temporarily upon the rise to power of the proletariat and then dismantled

In the manifesto (in your comment) above:

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

And this,
https://www.worldsocialism.org...

In 1848, in the Communist Manifesto they wrote:
"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."

But note the point, Marx does not refer or say that only a minority of the working class would or need take control of political power during the period of the "transformation of the one into the other.”
.....
We repeat that the dictatorship in Russia is not the “dictatorship of the Proletariat" in the Marxian sense of the term. On the contrary, it has been the dictatorship of a party, a party which in the earlier stages of their conquest of power actually deprived its own members of the power of voting.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ArmoredDragon]

I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.
Henry Kissinger

That's fine, but I don't care about Kissinger.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ArmoredDragon]

You people should really start to read some books ...

And you should read the communist manifesto itself. I've detailed this in another post.

https://slashdot.org/comments....

The to big revolutions were in China and Russia.

What kind of government got overthrown? What living conditions did the masses have before that?

Hm? You funktards don't know that those revolutions overthrew totalitarian governments where 90% of the populations where bond slaves or "peons" or "peasants" hold like slaves on fields?

Sure, there are many cases where bad governments were overthrown, just as there are many cases where democracy was overthrown. In either case, there are plenty of times when what they overthrew was better than what they had before. Take for example Cuba, under Batista the country was in the top 5 developed countries in latin america, had a GDP similar to most of Europe, and worker wages were increasing. Yes, Batista was an asshole, and yes, he himself overthrew democracy, and yes, he was killing many of his dissidents, and yes, he removed a lot of liberties. Communism did all of that too, AND made people poorer, AND made people starve. If you look at Cuba today, it's basically frozen in 1959. That is saying a lot for communism though, because most communist states at that time were frozen in time from revolutions much earlier. When the communist states fell apart and capitalism took its place (as it naturally does when there is nobody enforcing some other system,) they started growing in wealth almost immediately and became developing economies, with or without democracy, though democracies fared better.

Are you really that dumb and ill educated?

No, but you are dumb and ill educated about communism. All you have to do is read any of Marx's or Engel's writings on the subject of revolution and violence, and it's pretty obvious that while they stated that they wanted democracy, their direction was totalitarianism that was supposed to advance to highly concentrated powers. Mao more or less did this, but most totalitarians never want to give up power.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ArmoredDragon]

Karl Marx himself stated that communism must begin with the violent overthrow of democracy.
No, he did not say that.
You are an idiot.

It's in the communist manifesto, and he stated it in other publications as well.

https://slashdot.org/comments....

AFAIK there were no communist revolutions on the planet so far .

Just as there have been no true Scottsmen on the planet so far. (Don't combine the past and the present perfect progressive in the same sentence when.)

https://slashdot.org/comments....

That is nonsense. Private house owners always existed in the DDR (German democratic republic), and BTW: they where not communist, they where socialist.

No, they were neither, kind of like China and Vietnam now are. Sure, they officially had a socialist system, but in practice the private sector was still allowed to operate there, and over time it began to outproduce the public sector.

However: you get some bonus points however when you can explain how democracy actually works in a typical communist/one party system

Easy, they have one party, and within it they have a very concentrated power structure. Marx stated this as well.

the retarded US two party system and a democratic multi party system

By multi party, you are referring to a parliamentary system. But ironically, the two party system of the US provides for a more broad separation of powers with more checks and balances between them than the parliamentary system, which is by and large governed by the party that has the highest number of seats.

And please take extra care to explain why a communist one party system is not or can not be democratic!!

I already did explain it, and it ends up being highly concentrated power, just like Marx prescribed. But here's a nice case in point to add:

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Also you might want to go read up on the Icarians in Navoo, Illinois. They really were communist by all definitions of the word, but over time as productivity dropped, strict work rules had to be enforced. The democratic process eventually broke down and there was a major split.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ArmoredDragon]

No, your previous comment is exactly what AC mentioned. The Soviet economy is actually state capitalism (mentioned above, deformed capitalism economy), which has the properties of capitalism system.

I stated this very plainly in my first reply to you: What communism says it is, and then what it actually is, are two very different things. FFS the concept of being stateless is a required component of communism, and it's impossible to obtain. Really, they propose having no laws, no governing authority, and no borders. Many, many things are wrong with this. I've grilled communists on reddit about people who decide not to follow the communist model and go back to capitalism (they will inevitably exist) and how do they set norms on how much production is necessary to be fair, and all who saw my post eventually conceded that there will need to be people who set the standards and people who enforce them (laws and government, hence it can't be communist by definition.) Laws can't exist without jurisdiction either, otherwise you have no idea where those laws apply, hence you also need borders, which means you have a state. Civilization also can't exist without laws.

And the soviet government WAS socialist as Marx described it. There is still money in socialism, and there are still wages. Profit was only introduced in 1965 (almost half a century after the revolution) when it became obvious that they couldn't compete with the US by having only 40% of our GDP per capita. More importantly, socialism is a planned economy that Marx intended to transform into a very unplanned communism using very vague reasoning.

The case of China is to abandon the monopoly of the state with the economy and (it's important, it happened when China decided to against the Soviet) the Wests were lift off embargo against the country.

No, that's not how China became capitalist or even state capitalist (they never really were this as the state never was profit oriented.) Capitalism was inadvertently introduced when a black market farm was producing so much grain compared to the neighboring areas, that it caught the attention of the Chinese government, and once they realized what was happening, they officially sanctioned it and allowed it to spread in order to solve famine, which it did quite well. But it began to spread so damn fast that it quickly replaced the rest of the planned economy, and so the whole country became capitalist within a period of 4 years. Not only did that solve famine, but it began a period of huge growth and prosperity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (this Wikipedia is sourced well on all points, so I'm just using it directly.)

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[ArmoredDragon]

Marx was notorious for using 'obfuscated' words for exact translation, if not known what he was really meant and the context.

Engels and Marx both spoke English, and they personally gave their stamp of approval on all of the translations by native speakers.

As mentioned in my previous comment, Marx did not consider the "dictatorship" and "revolution" as the tool of "minority" to "take control" powers. The armed force revolution is the result of old "weaken" societies refuse to transform to new societies, despite the will of the mass (in this case, the proletarian class is a larger group).

And according to his writing, democracies who refused to transform were included in this. (Also of note: He also predicted that communist parties would eventually win in a democracy. Sure, they won some elections, but that never lasted.) First, Marx commented that once communists were elected, then they would gradually gain more power over time. However after that failed in France in 1848 when the communists didn't actually get anywhere, he took a different turn and commented that "bourgeoisie democracy" would overthrow elected communists as kind of a cop-out. He had little faith that democracy would yield his stated goals, and over time started speaking out more that he felt violent revolution is necessary.

In the manifesto (in your comment) above:

You're highlighting the final step of it, which he says democracy will take foot, but only after the overthrow of the "old societies"

And this,

Which is a commentary that modern communists are revising to advertise to the others to join their cause. The communist party elected in Croatia actually did work with everybody at first until it turned out that they were about to be voted out because the working class didn't want to follow their rules (i.e. mandated increased output without extra pay.) They already had an intent of taking over the whole thing and they assumed that they would gain more power over time, but once they saw that people weren't accepting their views and they were going to lose all of their seats, they opted for violent revolution.

Everybody who identifies as communist today is either a useful idiot who doesn't understand this, or they're in on it (most people have wisened up these days, so few communists remain.) Why is this commentary even necessary when worldsocialism.org can simply present the manifesto and Marx's writings and published articles?

In fact, when the USSR gained prominence after WWII and started forcing other states to move to communism, communists everywhere (even in western states that rejected communism) declared that this was "late stage capitalism" in 1945, and they wholly supported what the USSR was doing. (1945 actually began a long era of prosperity and growth that continues to this day in capitalist states. And, it turns out that, late stage capitalism was declared 57 years after capitalism actually had a name, meanwhile we're 73 years after "late stage capitalism" and all of the worlds communist states have either already failed, or are still failing.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[guestapoo]

Marx works are on German. English sometimes is painful to express. But it's a minor point.
You seems to refuse all the quotes I presents, which Marx's ideas when you refuse those are Marx's ideas.

You're highlighting the final step of it, which he says democracy will take foot, but only after the overthrow of the "old societies"

No, it's how societies work, as I mentioned, not just "communist", when the conflict reach the point of unreconcilable.

Which is a commentary that modern communists are revising to advertise to the others to join their cause

Modern?? this from 1930s article. Nah, all the articles I cited are from very beginning of communism establishment, which rejected USSR and co as communism. What's your point?

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[guestapoo]

Oh, IF what is actually is different then it is NOT communism, period. How to achieve communism, and even more simple how to predict exactly a social conflict will happen is hard. And I repeat, there is no actual communism existed yet.
Also, all your post about communism base on the Soviet system, which you insisted that it was, despite all the Marxists have been against that, all the original of Marx works are against that.

No, that's not how China became capitalist or even state capitalist

You seems to not understand what I said, China before reformed is like Soviet, is state capitalism, with state monopoly of economy, then after reformed, they are allow private economy. State capitalism is that the state owns, capitalizes the surplus income of workers, the bosses here is the state.

Re:The trouble with "hate speech"

[angel'o'sphere]

Cuba is not frozen in 1959, how do you come to that idea?
The 'problems' Cuba has are because of the american embargos.

Which 'democratic' government was overthrown by a 'communist' revolution?

Could you quote some Marx or Engels that support your position, please?

Q: SNOWDEN is CIA plant in war with the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

http://qanonposts.com/

!UW.yye1fxoQ5997a0
180445
>>180316
HK allowed his passport to clear customs WITH THE CLOWNS IN AMERICA AND DEPT OF DEFENSE PUTTING A NAT SEC HOLD WW?
How does he clear customs?
How does he end up in Russia?
Coincidence?
Who was the 1st agency he worked for?
Who taught him the game?
Who assigned him w/ foreign ops?
Why is this relevant?
Future unlocks past.
Watch the news.
Spider web.
Stop taking the sleeping pill.
Q

Feb 18 2018 20:41:03
!UW.yye1fxoQ
104
@SNOWDEN
WHERE ARE YOU?
NOT RUSSIA.
[EYES ON]
YOU ARE NOW A LIABILITY.
HELPING @JACK?
PROJECT DEEPDREAMv2[A]].
WE WILL NEVER FORGET.
ES FAILED.
WHERE IS ES?
JOHN PERRY BARLOW.
DEFINE THE END?
THE DAY OF RECKONING IS UPON US.
JOHN 3:16
Q

Q: Total take down of the deep state in progress

https://twitter.com/hashtag/qa...

13,000 sealed indictments sent in 3 months (Prior Average 1k a year) Cells for 13,000 inmates being built in Guantanamo Don't believe? check current flight records to Gitmo Contractors flying #qanon #thegreatawakening

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DW...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DW...

BIG DROP: How did NK obtain Uranium? How did Iran obtain Uranium? Why did BO send billions (in cash and wire) to Iran? Why the cash component? Was the hostage component a cover? For what? Could any of the cash component be handed off to other people? How many planes carried the cash into Iran? Did all land in Iran? Did all land in the same location? Why is this relevant? Who controls NK? Who really controls NK? Don't think of a single person. Think of a powerful entity. Why is this important? Why are wars so important? Who benefits? What does hostage refer to? Who can be held hostage and controlled by NK having miniaturized nuclear weapons? Where is BO TODAY? Where is VJ? Alice & Wonderland.

Re:Q: SNOWDEN is CIA plant in war with the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

3rd world problem. can't care.

Re:Q: SNOWDEN is CIA plant in war with the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

this is some next level larping
so Q is like the ringleader or what
where is this countdown
though i will say thanks for the link, it helped me kill my last hour at work

Um

[cascadingstylesheet]

Vietnam is a communist dictatorship. I hope Internet censorship doesn't come as some sort of surprise ...

Re:Um

[Anonymous Coward]

Vietnam is communist

Why are Americans so fucking stupid?

Re:Um

[DaMattster]

Vietnam is a communist dictatorship. I hope Internet censorship doesn't come as some sort of surprise ...

It's actually a communist oligarchy with a general secretary and ruling party.

Re:Um

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet is surprisingly open in Vietnam. Not only that, but access is blazingly fast and cheap.

It was quite surprising to discover that after spending a week in China and being shocked at how locked-down the Internet there is. You have to scan your passport to get a unique WiFi password at the airport! In Vietnam you just give a lady behind a phone counter in the arrivals terminal some money and she gives you a SIM chip and off you go. Freely-accessible WiFi is everywhere.

Re:Um

[Anonymous Coward]

Without the USA to fight with the communist government collapsed a few years later. You never heard about it because it happened during a time of relative american peace and Reagan and his cronies were complaining that the whole ordeal turned us into a nation of whimps unlike closeted homosexual cowboy actors.

Re: Um

[Reverend Green]

Vietnam *is* big-C Communist. There are literally big red hammer and sickle banners hanging everywhere.

However Vietnam is not a dictatorship. There is no paramount leader, no dictator. Rather it's more of a bureaucratic gerontocracy. It's a single-party state, but factions within the Party are tolerated and openly discussed.

Vietnam is definitely weak on freedom of political speech. However it's also weak on surveillance and oppression. This is *not* a tyranny like Thailand. No one cares if you bad mouth the Party while talking with your friends. But if you actually tried to do political organizing, yes you'd probably get stomped.

But don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

It can't happen here.

No problem

[hackingbear]

Vietnam is now our puppet friend in the fight against our biggest rival China. The US will just need to cover up its ears like it does for Saudi Arabia

Re:No problem

[gtall]

Well, the current Administration doesn't need to cover its ears, it cannot hear totalitarian victims very well.

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

In Vietnam they refer to the South Vietnamese government as the American Puppet Regime and say that the South Vietnamese people were liberated. It was quite an eye opener to see the Communist take on the Vietnam War (The War of American Aggression) after growing up in the West.

What was also an eye opener is the history of Vietnam and how there is no love lost between Vietnam and China, as China occupied Vietnam for 1,000 years, during which the Vietnamese waged numerous wars against the Chinese to drive them out.

Knowing this, I now have a better grasp on why Vietnam suddenly turned toward the West a few years ago in the face of Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea, etc.

Japan is heavily investing in public infrastructure in Vietnam as well.

Vietnam is absolutely booming economically. Wonderful people as well. Pity about the Communists, but it seems the new generation have realised that it's a dead-end.

Re: No problem

[Reverend Green]

Yup, that long history with China is key. Half the major streets in Ho Chi Minh City are named after historical heroes who drove out Chinese invaders.

Despite the war and all that bad history, Americans have one really big advantage in dealing with Vietnam. We are most definitely not Chinese.

"toxic information"

[rogoshen1]

Jesus Christ. Having a well-educated, thoughtful, free, and open society is the remedy against "toxic information"

Anything else is censorship.

Re:"toxic information"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well just make sure not to vote Democrat or Republican and maybe we'll achieve that someday.

Re:"toxic information"

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's to prevent toxic bullshit like this from spreading through society and causing damage. This is Vietnam, remember. They have no tradition of the extreme version of free speech in the First Amendment. In fact, to most of the world it looks weird and wrong. Vietnam doesn't have a Nazi problem, for example.

Re:"toxic information"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes citizen. You repeat the words of your corporate overlords exactly. You get a gold star!
Now go watch Fox News and be quiet.

Re:"toxic information"

[autlycus]

The people who should be surprised are the ones living in so-called 'free' nations where we try to censor hate speech.

Not REAL communism...

[erapert]

Don't worry, guys, Vietnam isn't an example of REAL communism. It's some kind of other thing entirely unrelated.
No, the socialism that we want here in the West is REAL communism: only right wingers will be sent to the gulags, you see.

Re:Not REAL communism...

[Anonymous Coward]

By your logic North Korea is a fair and legitimate democratic republic and a shining example of meritocracy and free market capitalism. Kim Jong-un says it is!

Re:Not REAL communism...

[Order_66]

I've lived there, it is real communism, it's just not nearly as bad as some other countries.

Re:Not REAL communism...

[erapert]

Clearly I should have used a tag.

Q is absolutely legit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many times he posted special keywords hours before Trump used those keywords in his new tweets.

Q predicted Trump's tweeter account take down.

Q has also posted photos taken from air force 1.

Q predicted many things before they happen, even airport blackouts.

Q is someone from the military working alongside Trump.

Re:Q is absolutely legit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Q is also hilariously wrong on many MANY accounts. You have to cherry pick really hard to assign any legitimacy to it, and having posted Qanon posts myself and having idiots like yourself run crazy with them.... All I can do is laugh at how gullible the rightwingers in America are.

Re:Q is absolutely legit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Q is also hilariously wrong on many MANY accounts

Name one.

The problem with censorship is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with censorship is that everyone thinks they are an expert.
When a govt does it, it is even worse. They tend to use violence to get their way.

The price to be paid for freedom of speech is that from time to time, we have to hear things we all find offensive.

Then don't reply

[Anonymous Coward]

dipshit

Soros

[Tailhook]

The ruling class want FacebookGoogleTwitterEtc regulated to stop "populism." Here is Soros using fear to justify putting government minders in control, complete with scary images of eyeballs controlled by corporations and warnings of a Trump dictatorship.

Everywhere you look leftists and statists are using fear to put themselves in control of the Internet.

Re:Soros

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea- it's not just online. They've utilized it to curtail the right of the people to free movement. The vast majority of the world can't be traveled without the use of a motor vehicle and governments all over have mandated operators get permission slips. Safety might be the excuse used today for drivers licenses- but it was fear and propaganda of new fangled technology that we have drivers licenses. Until the late 1960s there were states in the US that had no road nor written tests. Since at least the 1990s governments have been utilizing drivers licenses to inflict damage on disliked groups. From deadbeat dads to underage graffiti artists. They'll suspend your license if you don't pay child support. If you are under the driving age and commit a graffiti offense they'll prevent you from getting a drivers license for a number of years. The law is discriminatory in that it only applies to young persons and older persons committing these offenses need not worry.

Interesting points against driver licensing and why vehicle "safety" is a poor excuse. In New Hampshire motor vehicle insurance is not mandatory. One would think this would be important to ensure the well being of all drivers and passengers on the road- or so the argument goes. The way New Hampshire does things is different in that you are only liable for injury and how you make the injured party whole is entirely up to you. If you are in an accident your drivers license is suspend only if you can't demonstrate an ability to cover the injured party. Now you might argue- but what about people who can't pay and aren't insured? Well, these people do exist. The problem is they also exist in states with mandatory insurance and statistically New Hampshire leads the way in the number of insured drivers because insurance companies have to compete with $0. If insurance companies raise rates too much people with the least of means simply stop paying for motor vehicle insurance. Thus it turns out there is an incentive to keep your insurance rates low for the sake of maximizing the number of customers. This leads to more people being able to afford car insurance and actually getting it than in other states with mandatory car insurance.

Because of the Free State Project and the Shire Society (migration movements to gather principled libertarians in one region for the purpose of reforming or otherwise ending the system to whatever degree feasible) principled libertarians in New Hampshire have been working to end non-commercial driver licensing in the state. While we haven't exactly been successful as of yet- there are numerous other success stories. From police accountability to enacting laws which undo draconian legislation and/or bad US Supreme Court rulings. For instance we entirely eliminated the authority of the banking department to regulate crypto currencies.

Re:Soros

[Anonymous Coward]

But we do need to do something about populism, because it does get narcissistic 5-year-olds like Trump elected, who then proceed to do untold amounts of damage to the country and it's people, undoing 50 years of progress, and dragging us back towards a new Dark Age of racism, sexism, and corruption.

Re:Soros

[phantomfive]

Note: "the Left" only wants to stop populism when it's against them. Just like "the Right"

Re: Soros

[Anonymous Coward]

The only damage Trump can do is what Congress allows, either by sending or refusing to send legislation, or by allowing him to keep using powers which should never have been given to that Office.

Take DACA for example. It wasn't a Law, it was Obama making an Executive Order. The Dems could have made it a law when THEY "controlled Congress" but they didn't. If it's unjust for Trump to cancel it, then it was unjust for Obama to make it.
For the record, I support DACA in principle, and I support Net Neutrality. But those need to be actual Laws, not some Proclomation which can be changed by the whim of a single person.

Re:Soros

[Anonymous Coward]

... images of eyeballs controlled by corporations ...

Soros is making the prescient point that Facebook/Google/Twitter are monopolies of information and users. In case you didn't know, monopolies are a problem and a worse problem because US law has few objections against monopolies.

... warnings of a Trump dictatorship.

He said the opposite, namely, "the constitution, other institutions, and a vibrant civil society won’t allow it". Trump is acting a lot like Bush junior, who received mush less lamentation and fear. Speaking of which, the one fear-mongering here, is you.

Fight for free speech except when I don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

We are not those ebil Russian gommies though. This time we're going to get it right! XD

FAKE NEWS WAS ALWAYS MEANT TO BE

[Anonymous Coward]

"used as a smoke screen for stifling dissenting opinions and curtailing freedom of speech ." NEXT

Twitch? Youtube? You hearing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both of them have taken steps last week alone toward this kind of suppression and no doubt STILL have no idea why they are asshats. Twitch is right fucked as a result (screw you Brian), Youtube .. I can only hope.

It's simple, stop supporting this. Stop trying to work around it and for god sake stop providing technologies that facilitate it.

Why not?

[Trailer Trash]

Yet the fight against either "fake news" or misinformation in Vietnam must not be used as a smoke screen for stifling dissenting opinions and curtailing freedom of speech.

That's what the fight against "fake news" and "misinformation" is used for everywhere else.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

THANK YOU.

This article (and the slashdot post) try to act as if this thing hasn't already been going on here in the states for a few years now.

haha

[Anonymous Coward]

agent orange, you have some work to do again lol...

Re: haha

[Reverend Green]

If you'd seen a few Agent Orange victims, you'd realize how very unfunny your joke was.

it should be illegal for US companies to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

fucking communist lackeys should be sent to gauntanamo

Hates communism but also loves Putin's dick.

[Anonymous Coward]

I literally just came into this thread to watch for russian trolls and commu-spastic right wingers who inexplicably also suck putin's dick.
I was not disappointed.

You're missing the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the point.

oh, thought they meant infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in Saigon for 3 months: $10/month SIM card. 20MB/s download. Unlimited data.

They are nailing it with LTE. $4/month in PnomPenh for same metrics.

LOL at "hate" speech

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing. It is a JEWISH invention, spread by the mass media, to mean "anything the JEW doesn't want you to hear", like how they run the banking system and create money out of thin air, and have therefore enslaved us all.

Normalizing Censorship?

[autlycus]

I find it amusing that the excerpt tries to normalize censorship in places like Germany, while condemning such acts in Vietnam. Censorship is the same, whether it's against hate speech or otherwise.

I call bs

[Anonymous Coward]

China purchased Vietnam to claim the south China sea.

What trouble? China will fix any problem Vietnam has. Any problem.